Peterson takes another bitter swipe at the Maxwell Institute

[_sock puppet]

Did it ever matter to the apologists that Nibley was a bit off? No, because it didn't matter if the members ever understood him, only that they knew he was smarter than they are and believed the church.

Nibley--the Patron Saint of Mormon Scholars Testify (the oxymoronic title that MST is)

[_sock puppet]

It seems pretty clear that he sees little value, if any, in the work done by the Maxwell Institute (a.k.a. the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS) prior to its sudden adoption of a dramatically different “new direction” in June 2012: “Holland’s and Shalev’s arguments,” he says, “provide context for new, novel, and noteworthy insights concerning the book that previous studies could hardly fathom” (174). “Now that the shackles of Mormon historiography’s exclusive nature have been shed, the real work of contextualization and interpretation can begin” (175).

What, exactly, does Dr. Park mean when he speaks so positively about “chop[ping] away at Mormonism’s distinctive message” and shedding the “shackles” of “Mormon historiography’s exclusive nature”? Is the Book of Mormon really “just another voice in a rancorous [nineteenth-century American] chorus”?

When a Maxwell Institute editor, writing in this BYU Maxwell Institute publication, laments the “the parochial and exceptionalist framework that has so plagued Mormon studies in the past” (174) and celebrates its apparent passing, is he referring, as he seems to be referring, to the kind of work on the Book of Mormon associated over the past six or seven decades with such figures as Sidney Sperry, Hugh Nibley, John Sorenson, Richard Lloyd Anderson, John W. Welch, John Tvedtnes, and Noel Reynolds, and, indeed, with FARMS itself?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... alism.html

Given the logical improbabilities, so high that they border on impossibilities, of the Book of Mormon's claimed historiography, it leaves LDS that address the question either self-deluded fools clinging to that 'truth claim' or detaching from it as NAMIRS has done or is in the process of doing. DCP, Hamblin, Midgley, etc. expended all--ALL--of their academic capital in defense of that historiography in the face of mounting scientific evidence that suffocated the life out of any such possibility.

I've always appreciated loyalty as a value, but loyalty to a completely discredited idea--such as the Book of Mormon's claimed historiography--is a sign of dementia, not virtuous loyalty.

[_moksha]

The Interpreter knows that the Maxwell Institute needs to go, in order for it to regain its lost powers. I suspect the Maxwell Institute is only aware of this on a visceral level, each time it touches the Z-shaped scar on its forehead and perhaps in vague and disjointed visions appearing at Sic et Non.

There can be only one for the other to fully live.

[_Dantana]

....... because it didn't matter if the members ever understood him, only that they knew he was smarter than they are and believed......

I am not unfamiliar with this phenomenon, and am not convinced that it is a bad thing.... trusting in the intellectuals.
Now, if only you, Tarski, E.A. et al. would switch teams.....to Idealism, I could be much happier.

[_Symmachus]

There is a lot of irony going in the comments over there (the bulk of it no doubt missed by most of the participants).

There is much being made about Benjamin Park's short book review and his interest in 19th century contexts of the Book of Mormons' reception, despite his denial of 19th century origins of the Book of Mormon. And yet, a glance of the other publications in the issue show that every other essay either assumes some ancient provenance of the book (e.g. those by Bokovoy, Hardy, Belnap, and Cranney) or simply does a non-historical and thus non-controversial theological reading (e.g. the essays of Owen and Berkey) or non-historical comparative religious reading of some passage or other (Spencer and Kramer essays). So, of 6 long essays, 2 short essays, and 2 book reviews, the FARMS scions hone in on the one book review by Ben Park and cull a few phrases to argue that the study of the Book of Mormon has been completely hijacked by extreme historicists who don't believe in the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, despite the fact that the Park has affirmed many times that he believes in the antiquity of the book but studies its 19th century context because--surprise--he is a 19th century historian, not an ancient historian specializing in the Near East.

The new issue as a whole belies their claims about the ideological makeup of the editorship, but if Bill Peterson and Dan Hamblin have an axe to grind, they have clearly singled out Ben Park as their whetstone.

On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that they have ignored the rest of the issue; they've always been obsessed with book reviews.

[_sock puppet]

but if Bill Peterson and Dan Hamblin have an axe to grind,

[_suniluni2]

I don't pay too much attention to what DCP writes about the Mi but i don't get the "he can leave the MI but can't leave it alone" thing. From what I understand he put a lot of time and effort into that thing so I think he's entitled to comment, just like a lot of us around here put a lot of time and effort into the church and may feel the need to comment on church stuff. Disagreeing with the substance of his comments is always fair game, but outright dismissal because of alleged bitterness or not being able to leave it alone seems a bit hypocritical.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't pay too much attention to what DCP writes about the Mi but i don't get the "he can leave the MI but can't leave it alone" thing. From what I understand he put a lot of time and effort into that thing so I think he's entitled to comment, just like a lot of us around here put a lot of time and effort into the church and may feel the need to comment on church stuff. Disagreeing with the substance of his comments is always fair game, but outright dismissal because of alleged bitterness or not being able to leave it alone seems a bit hypocritical.

I think that's a fair point. When someone invests a lot of time and energy into an endeavor it becomes a part of who they are, and will always show a level of interest in it even when they're no longer directly connected to it.

crap, I still have dreams about one of my assignments and I haven't been a part of their organization going on five years now. It's just the way the human brain works, I suppose.

V/R
Doc

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think it's cute that DCP posted a picture of the RLDS temple to prove his point that the MI is becoming watered down doctrinally when it comes to the Book of Mormon.

I've said it before, I wouldn't hire DCP to mow my lawn. I've never seen such pathetic behavior shown to one's former employer. He's acting like a spoiled brat with no manners.

I noticed the RLDS temple pic as well. That alone is an obvious slap at his CURRENT employer, BYU (to which MI is attached). To suggest (strongly, by his of the picture) that a BYU institution is going the way of the RLDS/CofC is a serious act of disloyalty by an employee, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see if Dan suffers any official backlash from this. I also note that, for the umpteenth time, he throws out the Neal Maxwell quote about the importance of classic-FARMS. He really needs to get over this -- Maxwell has been dead a long time and BYU has decided to go another way with the Institute, which it is free to do. The continued bitterness exhibited by DCP can't be healthy for him.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There seem to be two key take-aways in all of this. The first is that we can probably ignore a lot of the "noise" that the Mopologists are kicking up. Their behavior relates to the "letter-writing campaign" that they staged shortly after "classic-FARMS" was given the heave-ho from the MI. All along they've been trying to convince the Powers-that-Be that the "new MI" is staffed by a cadre of closeted apostates. That failed, but it hasn't stopped the apologists from trying to drum up evidence to support that particular claim.

The other point that needs to be made is that the apologists are essentially arguing for a censorious, crippled--or "shackled," if you like--form of scholarship. In other words, they're calling for the exact opposite of academic freedom. If you are a scholar, you *should* be able to examine the Book of Mormon as if it's a product of the 19th Century. Unless I'm mistaken, that's pretty much exactly what Dan Vogel has done, and is anyone--Mopologists included--willing to say that Vogel's work *isn't* significant? The question is: what kinds of scholarship might we get if scholars are allowed to assume that the Book of Mormon was a product of the 19th century? The apologists seem hell-bent on preventing those questions from even being asked.

So, basically, what we're seeing is a smear-campaign/power-play coupled with an attempt to stymie free academic inquiry.

Excellent analysis, as usual.