Morgan Davis and the "Plot" to Destroy FARMS

[_WMLdeWette]

I did have a few follow-up questions for you. You write:

The people in positions of power over the Maxwell Institute were not enemies of Peterson. They were actually friends. They believed that after the failures of attack-style apologetics in the 1990s and 2000s that Peterson would see the error of his ways, that he would take counsel appropriately and maturely, and that he would make the correct decision. He made it clear that he was incapable of doing so, so some of his longtime friends and admires stepped in to stop him from self-destructing and, more importantly, doing further damage to the Institute and the University.

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically, what were the "failures of attack-style apologetics in the 1990s and 2000s" that people like Holland, Bradford, Samuelson, Jensen, et al. would have had in mind? "Metcalfe is Butthead"? SHIELDS? Something else? As I'm sure you know, DCP and the Mopologists have always insisted that no one amongst the "Powers that Be" had any problem whatsoever with their smear tactics and whatnot; they insist, instead, that this sort of behavior was practically a commandment from Elder Maxwell.

Just as in the past some Mormon apostles support one thing while others support their seeming opposite. I am sure that there are some, like Oaks, in the quorum that have supported Peterson's work up to today. At the same time, Mormon apologetics has not helped itself over the years for many of the reasons that have been explained by your and your fellow commentators here when it has decided to attack personalities rather than expound ideas. FARMS, and some related friends in Rel Ed at BYU, were successful in the 1990s with getting better scholars removed from Mormonism that could have provided a more adequate apologetic that relied on the norms and standards of scholarship while not engaging in attacking specific people.

Their research on the historical background of Mormonism's texts likewise has not helped in the end. Mormon apologetics is currently in a position where 20+ year old scholarship is getting rehashed and regurgitated by a young group of up-and-comers who will not have the degrees or training (or required lines on CVs) to get jobs at BYU. Instead of focusing on new and interesting scholarship, individuals at Book of Mormon Central and FAIRMormon simply retell the earlier "findings," uncritically examining them to make sure the previous studies are actually sound. This doesn't lead anywhere, and it certainly doesn't help in the discussion about whether or not the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, etc. are historical, how they should be read and understood today, or where future scholarship on these books is headed.

[_WMLdeWette]

WMLdeWette:

This happened in 2012 right around the time of Romney's nomination. Is there a connection between the two? The church at the time was obviously trying to put on its best face and having loose cannons in a public role could have harmed the P.R. goals?

That's a fascinating angle I myself have not considered. It is possible that the general angst of the period could have contributed, but the leadership at the time was responding to an ongoing problem. It would be interesting to tease out possible influence of the election season, though.

[_WMLdeWette]

You also write that:

he started Interpreter because he wanted to be able to control the narrative, funding, and what kind of scholarship was published. He went against the counsel he received from his leaders and, instead, has allowed his closest circle of friends (especially Midgley) to claim that there was a coup and that the leaders were the ones at fault.

Wow, so "Interpreter" is basically one big, extended act of insubordination? Do you have any sense of what Church leaders think of "Interpreter"? Back during their reign at the Maxwell Institute, I had heard multiple rumors about leaders warning them to "tone it down." Has this pattern continued now that they've shifted over to "Interpreter"?

I think that the late Dr. Hamblin's case with Interpreter is illustrative here. He was told by the History department at BYU that his work at Interpreter was not considered serious scholarship; he later added a section attempting to explain that further but his argument that books arguing the historicity of the Book of Mormon, prophetic authenticity of Smith, Mormon apologetics, etc. cannot be published in academic or non-LDS venues is inaccurate; look at Terryl Givens's books through Oxford. The administration at BYU also instructed him to stop publicly criticizing the Maxwell Institute (he regularly referred to it as the "junta" at the time).

While I don't think that the LDS Church's leadership views Interpreter negatively I do think that for Peterson it was a pure power grab. He has stated in the past, as has been noted in this thread, that even though he wasn't the boss on paper (MI director or BYU president) if you were someone in the know at the MI at the time everyone knew who was really in charge. So he felt that he was in control. Since the organizing of Interpreter Peterson has been obsessed with only a few things besides his travel and his blog: making sure that something is published every Friday (that somehow equates to quality or a positive for him). He has also recently been told to "tone things down" in relation to the way that Interpreter has gone after not a volume published in the Joseph Smith Papers but the validity of the credentials and testimony of individual scholars who edited those volumes. At some point you would really hope that Peterson would take the suggestions that Davis gave to him back in 2012 and Midgley gave to Skousen decades ago. I'm not confident that Peterson will ever change, though.

[_Gadianton]

Hi WMLdeWette and welcome to the forum. Your posts have been quite informative.

So he felt that he was in control. Since the organizing of Interpreter Peterson has been obsessed with only a few things besides his travel and his blog: making sure that something is published every Friday (that somehow equates to quality or a positive for him)

We have Doctor Scratch to thank for this, by the way.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hello again, Bro. de Wette.

I’ve been very graciously supplied with a copy of what I believe is the “apology letter.” Since you’ve read it, can you confirm that it begins with a reference to a “salutary” Easter feast?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Hello again, Bro. de Wette.

I’ve been very graciously supplied with a copy of what I believe is the “apology letter.” Since you’ve read it, can you confirm that it begins with a reference to a “salutary” Easter feast?

Dr. Scratch,

WOW!!! I’m hoping you once you’ve verified the authenticity of this letter you’ll start a new thread about it.

[_WMLdeWette]

Hello again, Bro. de Wette.

I’ve been very graciously supplied with a copy of what I believe is the “apology letter.” Since you’ve read it, can you confirm that it begins with a reference to a “salutary” Easter feast?

That is the way the letter starts, correct.

[_moksha]

This happened in 2012 right around the time of Romney's nomination. Is there a connection between the two? The church at the time was obviously trying to put on its best face and having loose cannons in a public role could have harmed the P.R. goals?

That would be akin to the MAD board scuttling most of Dr. Peterson's posts, when he was about to appear as an expert witness in the Elizabeth Smart case, for fear that the defense would use some of Dr. Peterson's posts to impeach his testimony. What a shame, because MAD lost some great threads like Missionaries in Space and FAIR: The Musical.

[_Doctor Scratch]

While I don't think that the LDS Church's leadership views Interpreter negatively I do think that for Peterson it was a pure power grab. He has stated in the past, as has been noted in this thread, that even though he wasn't the boss on paper (MI director or BYU president) if you were someone in the know at the MI at the time everyone knew who was really in charge. So he felt that he was in control. Since the organizing of Interpreter Peterson has been obsessed with only a few things besides his travel and his blog: making sure that something is published every Friday (that somehow equates to quality or a positive for him). He has also recently been told to "tone things down" in relation to the way that Interpreter has gone after not a volume published in the Joseph Smith Papers but the validity of the credentials and testimony of individual scholars who edited those volumes. At some point you would really hope that Peterson would take the suggestions that Davis gave to him back in 2012 and Midgley gave to Skousen decades ago. I'm not confident that Peterson will ever change, though.

Whoa...hold the phones, Bro. deWette! Peterson was ordered to "tone things down" in the wake of the shake-up with the JSP?? Very interesting! Can you supple us with any additional details?

[_Philo Sofee]

I can tell because of the vast difference of Peterson's entire subject matter and the complete lack of enthusiasm for anything dealing with authenticity, which used to be his favorite way to work with LDS scripture, that Peterson has definitely been "reigned in." He is a mere shell of an apologist that he used to be, and I can also tell that its absolutely killing him inside. Once he retires and secures his pension for life, we shall see a resurgence of his apologetic fervor in the same mode he used to be in. The Brethren "own" him at this point, it is why he so lamely posts almost close to stupidity in defending the church these days. Everyone can see right through his charade as recently as Kish's decimation of Peterson's truly lame tithing defense which is standard church mode thinking of scripture, which Peterson absolutely KNOWS better. But he won't mar his retirement, and who can blame him?