More on the Financing of Mopologetics

[_Bond...James Bond]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/authors.php

Just in case anyone wants to be disabused of the notion that the MI authors aren't conducting apologetics en masse.

Well at least it's an academic institution. Juliann hasn't written one article.

[_antishock8]

Wow. If it were left up to Mr. Peterson, I suppose one could come away thinking the Maxwell Institute purpose is to do the Department of Middle Eastern Studies job. Why in the world would there be an institute dedicated to "Defending the Restoration" AND "Providing Superior Editions of Primary Islamic Texts"? That seems... Well, it seems awfully cobbled together. What strange little synergy we have. It's almost, dare I say it, as if the apologists want the veneer of academia for their institution so they take one of their main contributor's field of expertise and make it part of its Mission Statement. Work that should be done anyway for a Department of Middle Eastern studies is now listed under an apologist institute in order to distance it from its own purpose for existing in the first place.

Oh, what a tangled little web we weave when we attempt to deceive.

antishock8,

Although I agree that Dr. Peterson seems to be exaggerating in the other direction, you are reaching here. I know some little thing about these other projects that the Maxwell Institute is engaging in. They are serious scholarly projects that have little or no apparent apologetic intent behind them. I have shown a video connected to the Herculanaeum project to my Roman history class every year. It is about the imaging of burn papyri to recover lost text--not the defense of Mormonism. METI is likewise a serious project.

The problem here, it seems to me, is that FARMS's reputation was built primarily on apologetics. It was always, however, more broadly conceived as a scholarly project. The Neal Maxwell Institute is strangely cobbled together, but that is not because it is designed to be misleading. It's because it simply is a strange cobbling designed, as my quotes were intended to show, BYU's administration and Board of Trustees. Apologetics is a part of the Institutes business, but it is far from its only business, or even the most important aspect of it.

I agree. The other projects are serious in their endeavors, and should be applauded as such. The fact they're linked with apologetics rather than with their perspective departments is weird. I think there is intent behind that decision rather than an odd coicidence.

[_beastie]

This reminds me of an astute observation Shades once made regarding MAD - it really isn't devoted as much to defense of Mormonism, per se, but rather the defense of Mormon internet apologia. Likewise, it appears DCP is more interested in responding to attacks on the general practice of apologia than he is interested in responding to attacks on the basic truth claims of the LDS church.

Yes, yes, I know he will rush to respond he saves his serious commentary for his articles, not for internet boards, but he could still produce serious commentary and respond to attacks on truth claims on internet boards with the same amount of time he currently spends on defending apologetics.

We "tell" what we care the most about by our actions.

[_Trevor]

I agree. The other projects are serious in their endeavors, and should be applauded as such. The fact they're linked with apologetics rather than with their perspective departments is weird. I think there is intent behind that decision rather than an odd coicidence.

I had edited my earlier post to include this, which I think is relevant here:

My suspicion in this case is that a storefront of religion (albeit substantive and active) was tacked on these other scholarly projects to increase their likelihood of survival under the gaze of some administrators and church leaders who understand and value "describe and defend the Restored Gospel" much more than METI.

In my BYU experience, I noticed that professors and administrators often battled for academics, when others (parents, church leaders) sometimes did not understand or appreciate the importance of what they were doing. One way of dealing with this issue is to package things creatively. So, you put the thing that is easy to understand ("describe and defend the Restored Gospel") front and center, and then add the stuff the bulk of the people will not "get" (METI, Herculanaeum: the "Oh, that's nice too" stuff) in there also. It is a common organizational strategy.

[_antishock8]

I agree. The other projects are serious in their endeavors, and should be applauded as such. The fact they're linked with apologetics rather than with their perspective departments is weird. I think there is intent behind that decision rather than an odd coicidence.

I had edited my earlier post to include this, which I think is relevant here:

My suspicion in this case is that a storefront of religion (albeit substantive and active) was tacked on these other scholarly projects to increase their likelihood of survival under the gaze of some administrators and church leaders who understand and value "describe and defend the Restored Gospel" much more than METI.

In my BYU experience, I noticed that professors and administrators often battled for academics, when others (parents, church leaders) sometimes did not understand or appreciate the importance of what they were doing. One way of dealing with this issue is to package things creatively. So, you put the thing that is easy to understand ("describe and defend the Restored Gospel") front and center, and then add the stuff the bulk of the people will not "get" (METI, Herculanaeum: the "Oh, that's nice too" stuff) in there also. It is a common organizational strategy.

That makes more sense than what I was suggesting. Good insight..

[_Mister Scratch]

by the way: I'm still waiting for you to address the reasons why the FP revised their statement on the Hill Cumorah. Since, you know, this demonstrates a pretty significant tie between apologetics and the Brethren.....

There was no First Presidency statement on the Hill Cumorah. There was no First Presidency statement on the Hill Cumorah for the First Presidency to revise. Hence, the First Presidency did not revise a First Presidency statement on the Hill Cumorah. Thus, no reasons exist or are to be sought for the First Presidency's revision of a First Presidency statement on the Hill Cumorah. Thus, too, no revision by the First Presidency of a First Presidency statement on the Hill Cumorah occurred to demonstrate a link between apologetics and the Brethren. This being so, no significant link has been shown by the revision of a First Presidency statement by the First Presidency to exist between apologetics and the Brethren.

Michael Watson, a secretary at Church headquarters until recently, wrote a private letter responding to a private question about the location of the final Nephite battle. That letter was ill-advised, staking out a position that is, in fact, not clearly the Church's official position (though it reflects common opinion). It was made public. The fact that it was ill-advised was pointed out to Brother Watson. He wrote a letter effectively backtracking from the ill-advised original letter.

Who informed Bro. Watson that the original letter was "ill-advised"?

This is a silly issue, largely of Scratch's manufacture. There is nothing to it. I won't discuss it forever and ever and ever and ever and ever while being treated as a liar and a sneak, no matter how much Scratch tries to bait me.

No one is treating you like a "liar" or a "sneak." Further, I don't think this is a "silly" issue at all. Rather, it strikes me as having a great deal of import, since it pertains to apologists' ability to determine and re-write doctrine.

[_Mister Scratch]

This reminds me of an astute observation Shades once made regarding MAD - it really isn't devoted as much to defense of Mormonism, per se, but rather the defense of Mormon internet apologia. Likewise, it appears DCP is more interested in responding to attacks on the general practice of apologia than he is interested in responding to attacks on the basic truth claims of the LDS church.

Yes, yes, I know he will rush to respond he saves his serious commentary for his articles, not for internet boards, but he could still produce serious commentary and respond to attacks on truth claims on internet boards with the same amount of time he currently spends on defending apologetics.

It is pretty easy to understand why he doesn't ever produce "serious" online commentary that has to do with fundamental LDS truth claims. He does not want to ever get pinned on some matter of controversial doctrine. I recall him saying at one point that there are some issues that he will never, ever address in public, such as the Adam-God doctrine. He said that he'd only be willing to talk about such things in private, with people he totally and completely trusts.

[_antishock8]

Michael Watson, a secretary at Church headquarters until recently, wrote a private letter responding to a private question about the location of the final Nephite battle. That letter was ill-advised, staking out a position that is, in fact, not clearly the Church's official position (though it reflects common opinion). It was made public. The fact that it was ill-advised was pointed out to Brother Watson. He wrote a letter effectively backtracking from the ill-advised original letter.

Who informed Bro. Watson that the original letter was "ill-advised"?

Dear Bishop Brooks:

I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.

Sincerely yours, (signed) F. Michael Watson Secretary to the First Presidency

---------------- THREE YEARS LATER -----------------

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

---------------- WHO GOT THE FIRST PRESIDENCY VIA ITS SECRETARY TO ISSUE A RETRACTION? ----------------------

[_Mister Scratch]

---------------- THREE YEARS LATER -----------------

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

---------------- WHO GOT THE FIRST PRESIDENCY VIA ITS SECRETARY TO ISSUE A RETRACTION? ----------------------

The only people to ever be in possession of this 2nd Letter, as far as I know, are the apologists, in particular, Professor William Hamblin. I hasten to add, by the way, that Hamblin has since lost this letter. No one save the apologists has ever seen it, so we have to accept on trust that they ever possessed it in the first place. Further, I guess we have to assume that Hamblin and/or DCP "ordered" Watson to issue this retraction. If true, this would mean that the apologists wield a rather staggering amount of power.

[_Chap]

---------------- THREE YEARS LATER -----------------

The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.

---------------- WHO GOT THE FIRST PRESIDENCY VIA ITS SECRETARY TO ISSUE A RETRACTION? ----------------------

The only people to ever be in possession of this 2nd Letter, as far as I know, are the apologists, in particular, Professor William Hamblin. I hasten to add, by the way, that Hamblin has since lost this letter. No one save the apologists has ever seen it, so we have to accept on trust that they ever possessed it in the first place. Further, I guess we have to assume that Hamblin and/or DCP "ordered" Watson to issue this retraction. If true, this would mean that the apologists wield a rather staggering amount of power.

The first letter seems to be acknowledged as genuine by all parties.

But it seems reasonable to postpone belief in the second letter until someone actually produces it. In fact, till that is done, I tend to disbelieve it. Retractions in such a short time interval do not sound like typical First Presidency style, do they?