Possible purge of the Maxwell Instutute?

[_Lemmie]

Quite right. And who was one of the first, if not the first, to employ Holland's "wonderful message" to take shots at "some Other"? Professor Midgley: "For me and for many others, Elder Holland’s remarks were a deep delight. Why? Elder Holland delivered a carefully wording fully illustrated public scolding of the current state of the Institute that carries Elder Maxwell’s name. It was exactly what I expected him to say." LOL.

Good point Tom, Midgley heard what he wanted to hear. Another big point from his comments on the Interpreter essay is simply not supported, even by Peterson's truncated reporting.

When Elder Holland indicated that the Apostles say awake at night, tossing and turning as the worry about the Maxwell Institute, when they would much prefer have a nice sound sleep, this would indicate the concern they share about the purge and subsequent so-called “new direction” that was taken six years ago.

But, from Peterson's essay, the context for the tossing and turning seems quite different:

Within the first few minutes of his speech, Elder Holland referred to Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the reality of continuing revelation, the advent of the true King, and the significance of the “end times,” observing that at least some in his audience “must be thinking this opening a bit melodramatic for the purposes of this particular gathering.” However, he continued, “I prefer to see it as apostolic. These are the topics that absorb 15 of us who toss and turn when we would like to sleep and slumber” (3).

Sounds like the big topics make them toss and turn, not a six year old change of editorial hands at the Maxwell Institute.

[_Lemmie]

Peterson has responded to the questions from commentor Jon about midgley's post (for some reason, it shows up in the discussion as a response to Greg Smith, even though he addresses Jon by name):

3 hours ago

Jon:

My apologies for not getting to your questions as soon as I would have liked to do so. I'm leading a tour group in Egypt, and, for the past few days I was on a boat on the Nile between Luxor and Aswan with only very sporadic (but always terrible and frustrating) internet access. But I'll answer your questions now, in the few minutes that I have while waiting for our group to gather. (It's early morning here in Cairo.)

1. No, Elder Cook didn't ask for a proposal on how to replace the Maxwell Institute. There was an invited presentation to the area committee on responding to criticisms, but there was no proposal, neither compiled nor ever asked for. We reported on what we saw as the most significant challenges and on what we were doing. It was an informational meeting, not a decision-making one. And Elder Cook didn't tell us not to mention the Maxwell Institute, though the Institute was scarcely mentioned and though one of the Brethren involved in preparations for the presentation (a member of the Seventy) strongly and quite rightly suggested that we not dwell on that subject. The Institute was not our focus. It wasn't even an object of tertiary attention.

2. The Brethren encouraged us to create an overarching unified "confederation" (my word), to get past our organizational fragmentation, as a means of occasinally coordinating between us, particularly in fundraising. In response to that, we -- not they -- established "Mormon Voices" (which will soon be renamed!). Mormon Voices has no employees as such nor even any specific volunteer staff, let alone employees of the Church, and is not funded by the Church. Mormon Voices does not supervise Interpreter -- or FairMormon or Book of Mormon Central; we hope to use it for occasional collaboration or "joint ventures." The Church exercises no editorial control over any of us, and never has. We are not funded by the Church. We have never sought a check from the Church.

3. No, neither Elder Packer nor any other General Authority asked us to commission or to run Dr. Smith's essay on the public work of John Dehlin. No Church leaders vetted it or commented on it. As I recall, we did not ask Dr. Smith to write the essay. I could be mistaken on that -- it's been about seven years -- but I believe that he wrote it on his own initiative (as happened with many if not most Review articles and as happens with the overwhelming majority of Interpreter articles).

I have very consciously and deliberately kept mum about this meeting. I did not and do not feel that it was meant for public announcement, and I feel uncomfortable discussing it in this venue. I haven't trumpeted it about, and certainly haven't employed it as a means of enhancing Interpreter's (or my) status. Although there was nothing untoward about the meeting, I regard it as analogous to a private conversation. So I'll respond to fairly general questions, but I'm going to be reserved about it.

[_Gadianton]

If the Brethren aren't involved, they aren't favored.
If the Brethren are involved, they have no credibility.

It's hard to figure out what the facts need to be to best fit the story when you're running in circles trying to figure out what kind of story you want to tell in the first place.

[_Tator]

If the Brethren aren't involved, they aren't favored.
If the Brethren are involved, they have no credibility.

It's hard to figure out what the facts need to be to best fit the story when you're running in circles trying to figure out what kind of story you want to tell in the first place.

That pretty much sums it up.

I am sure one of those paid hacks is floating the Nile while ponderizing where to plagiarize his next lie. That is quite a tight circle to maintain just about like having one foot nailed to the floor. They deserve themselves.

[_I have a question]

2. The Brethren encouraged us to create an overarching unified "confederation" (my word), to get past our organizational fragmentation, as a means of occasinally coordinating between us, particularly in fundraising. In response to that, we -- not they -- established "Mormon Voices" (which will soon be renamed!). Mormon Voices has no employees as such nor even any specific volunteer staff, let alone employees of the Church, and is not funded by the Church. Mormon Voices does not supervise Interpreter -- or FairMormon or Book of Mormon Central; we hope to use it for occasional collaboration or "joint ventures." The Church exercises no editorial control over any of us, and never has. We are not funded by the Church. We have never sought a check from the Church.

Why are The Brethren acting like the CIA?
They are "encouraging" (for Church members, and I'm quoting an Apostle... "When The Brethren make a suggestion, it's not a suggestion.") actions and co-operations of entities they are not willing to officially endorse, who they want to remain to be perceived to have nothing to do with. Including giving directions as to how to raise funds. I think a proper scrutiny of where these "non-officially-endorsed" entities are ultimately getting donations from...Tom?

[_Lemmie]

Another of Midgley's strange flip flopping responses, but the interesting part is after that, how the commentor Billy Shears responds, "imagining" how the actual 2012 events occurred.

13 hours ago

BYU does not demand anything. It is people who do things. This means that one has to know who the people involved are and how they go about what they are appointed to do. And everyone is a moral agent free to make choices, both noble and base. And no university can be run like we imagine an army might function, with a chain of command, and everyone marking in lock step. Instead, there is an complex of efforts to influence running from individual faculty to Department Chairs, Deans and the growing number of Vice Presidents. And all this works in a very complex way, and with a host of rules and traditions that are constantly being negotiated.

What was unusual and something I have never seen before is how Elder Holland set out how the Board of Trustees, and all of the fifteen Apostles, including especially the President of the Church, had both authorized and then also approved what he was about to say in his role as an Apostle. And Elder Holland did not demand anything. Instead he tried to persuade and in order to do so he invoked his own Apostolic authority. Then he also indicated how all of colleagues toss and turn at night worrying about the Maxwell Institute because it carries the name of an Apostle who had set the agenda that the Institute should have, with which all of the current Apostles are in full agreement.

2 hours ago

In general, Boards of Directors hold the president accountable to achieve the goals the Board sets within the parameters it provides. And of course BYU demands things--as one example, if you don't follow a strict honor code you are expelled from the University. Surely the apostles demand loyalty and obedience from the top administers of its flagship University.

It's easy for me to imagine 10 minutes of a meeting with the Board where the Maxwell Institute was brought up and the way a certain style of apologetics could affect the reputation of the MI and by extension BYU and the Church itself. I can imagine the Board handing down a broad goal to increase the academic respectability of the MI (it bears Elder Maxwell's name, after all!). I can imagine President Samuelson asking if he could make personnel changes to further that aim. I can imagine the board approving that.

I can imagine subsequent long conversations between Samuelson and Bradford about the alleged prospectus and the new direction, and then deciding to feel out Professor Peterson to see if he would be enthusiastic about editing the Review in the new direction. It's easy to imagine them deciding that Peterson wouldn't be enthusiastic about editing the Review given its new direction. I can imagine Samuelson giving Bradford the green light to make the change, fully believing that he was carrying out the wishes of the Board.

I can imagine some of the apostles being surprised by how the events unfolded and realizing the full implications of what it means to make the MI more academically respectful. But I can't imagine that Samuelson and Bradford thought they were going rogue when they did what they did. My imagination is creative, but not that creative.

Pretty vivid imagination, huh?

[_Lemmie]

More documentation. This post is definitely all Midgley's style, apparently the attempt to rein him in didn't stick:

an hour ago

Did Hadfield mention Bradford? Is he the one who provides the official interpretation of Elder Holland's remarks, a copy of which have not yet been made public? No one has ever even hinted that the BYU Administration was "rogue." Uninformed, yes. Incompetent, likely. BS may not be aware that there once was a BYU President who organized a spy ring to try to gather or manufacture evidence that the BYU faculty members who placed and ad a newspaper supporting the Republican Sherm Lloyd for the United States Senate, that would justify his firing them. I was one of several who he wanted to fire. All of those he wanted to fire were very conservative Republicans. One of us, was the brother of an Apostle, and also mainly responsible for President Reagan's election as President of the United States. BS has no grasp on reality. He seems desperate to imagine a way to explain away Jerry Bradford's mischief. I was Bradford's close friend for sixty years. I was shocked and deeply disappointed in what he and three employees at the Maxwell Institute did when the hatched a silly plot to get Dan Peterson, who had actually hired three of then and recommended, with me, that Noel Reynolds hire him to be an office manager. The BYU President eventually installed Bradford, who was his neighbor, as the Director of the Institute. And for decided to find a way of tricking him into resigning, then just fired him by email when he was in Jerusalem. Then we got the so-called "new direction" that involved doing "Mormon Studies" and so forth.

I have known Bradford longer than anyone else, except his wife, in Utah County. I have always known that he was studied with and was fond of Niniam Smart who, with Eric Sharpe, who were both from England, launched secular religious studies as an academic discipline. Elder Holland, on 10 November 2018, described how every Mormon Studies program is founded on the secular religious studies model, and he also made it clear that this cannot be what is done at the Maxwell Institute.

[Bolding added to emphasize Midgley's hyperbole.]

This was in response to:

2 hours ago

When asked about the change for a news article at the Salt Lake Tribune, BYU's spokesman Joe Hadfield said, "We want to ensure that the journal is clearly aligned with the established scholarly goals of the Maxwell Institute. We want to contribute in the area of textual studies, focusing both on LDS scriptures and on texts important to other traditions." When the official spokesman refers to Bradford's actions as being consistent with the University's goals, there is little reason to doubt that the Board is on board with the change.

It's odd that people would argue with me about this and think the apostles would passively allow a rogue BYU administration to go against their wishes on such a high-profile issue.

[_Kishkumen]

Peterson’s recollection is truthful as far as it goes. We are still left with a picture of apologetics in which the GAs get involved, provide direction, etc. The issue of actual tithing funds going to apologetics is a non-starter, in my opinion. But it may be the case that fundraisers tied to the church will solicit funds for apologetic organizations. I think Stem and Tom have figured out the timing of Elder Packer’s concern. I think it is fair to say that GAs take interest in apologetics and intervene enough that it is not a big surprise when they do. I doubt that this amounts to tithing money committed directly to apologetics or regular oversight of apologetic efforts by specific GA committees.

In any case, this has been very illuminating. We have received good intel and know more than we did. I have enjoyed this thoroughly.

[_Maksutov]

Outsourcing prophetic functions. Cool.

[_Doctor Steuss]

When can we anticipate one of the FARMS witnesses to write an essay on harmonizing these different versions of The First Vision the MI Direction Epic?

In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we seem or see
Is but an apology within apology.