The Direction of the Maxwell Institute

The Direction of the Maxwell Institute

My posts are generally intended to be somewhat formal, so this post will be a bit of a departure for me. I suppose my commentary on this subject is a bit late, but I wanted to comment on the direction that the Maxwell Institute seems to be heading in with the benefit of hindsight. It has now been just over a year since Dan Peterson and others were unprofessionally dismissed. Numerous online blogs and other venues have commented on this drama. I, like many others, was disappointed in the decision made by Bradford; however, I was also gratified to see Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture formed and the prolificacy that has resulted in connection with that formation.

So, what is the direction that the Maxwell Institute is heading in? According to Blair Hodges, who currently seems to be the only active voice at MI,1 the organization's mission statement declares that their objective is to "deepen understanding and nurture discipleship among Latter-day Saints and to promote mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths through the scholarly study of religious texts." The organization is further identified as an academic unit at Brigham Young University. I'm not sure how mutual respect and goodwill among people of other faiths will be achieved through academic publications, nevertheless, I'm not opposed to a good cause such as this.

I am in agreement with Dan Peterson, however, that the Mormon Studies Review, as previously edited, was not incompatible with the terms of the current mission statement.2 I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive; those leading the MI apparently feel otherwise. This points the MI in a different direction than they were facing over a year ago, despite arguments to the contrary. The organization's move implicitly discounts apologetics in terms of scholasticism and interfaith-relationship building. To me, this shift calls into question the compatibility of Bradford and the current administration's motives in juxtaposition with the organization's namesake. After all, Elder Maxwell is reported to have openly expressed his appreciation for FARMS and specifically their scholarly approach in apologetics. He stated that he would be "reluctant if [FARMS] ever moved away from what had become [their] traditional role."3

If the current direction is strictly aimed at speaking to academic circles, and apologetics has no real future role for the Maxwell Institute, then I wonder how the current administration reconciles their direction with Elder Maxwell's sentiments. It would seem that the late Apostle's appreciation and desires have been disregarded. Of course this isn't news; Dan Peterson has already tactfully discussed this issue almost a year ago.4 Those of us who regret the dismissal of the former editorship of the Mormon Studies Review, also see the dismissal of a much needed scholarly tradition with apostolic approbation. Of course, this is my generalization and I do not speak for all who regret the administration's change in atmosphere, but my communications with numerous others leads me to believe this barometric reading to be generally representative.

What I find to be somewhat ironic, is the MI Facebook page prominently displaying the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. Within this corpus, of course, is Nibley's Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, a strictly apologetic work, with other books such as An Approach to the Book of Abraham, and Abraham in Egypt, as well as others in the collection, that include a substantial amount of apologetic literature. The question arises as to why Nibley's apologetic publications are advertised while the Institute is leaning away from this type of literature. Is Nibley's approach to apologetics acceptable while Dan Peterson's approach is not? Does MI believe that there is a significant difference between the Mormon Studies Review (formerly, the FARMS Review) and Nibley's writings?

Since FARMS/Maxwell Institute has built a reputation around scholarship on the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day Saint scripture and apologetics, I am curious as to why this particular organization was the instrument for reformation under the 'academic only' approach to religious scholarship. Why not BYU's Religious Studies Center? Or, the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History? Or, BYU Studies? Of course, the intellectual capacity of Elder Maxwell and his namesake associated with the Institute seems fitting for the course that MI is heading in, however, the other organizations seem just as relevant and appropriate. One of the primary differences between these organizations, however, was FARMS/MI's reputation in apologetics. Does Bradford disapprove of apologetics altogether? Or, was he simply in a position with the proper infrastructure to implement his personal objectives? I don't have an answer to why this particular organization was reformed vs. the others, but it is regretful to me and to many others that the only church-sponsored organization that attempted to fulfill the principles outlined in Doctrine & Covenants 123 has disbanded its traditional approach.

It seems that it is becoming popular to look down on apologetics, and many superficially dismiss this endeavor as bigotry. I tend to believe that those who do so have no real experience in engaging this approach to religious studies. Its importance to me can be partially illustrated with an experience I had a few years back. A co-worker friend invited me to attend Mariners Church in Irvine, California, where Robert (Bob) Millet and Greg Johnson held a "Mormon/Evangelical Dialogue." Subsequently, three more sessions were held with different speakers focusing on the Godhead/Trinity, Biblical accuracy/inerrancy, and faith and works. Following these sessions, my wife and I invited this co-worker friend over for dinner and she brought her cousin with her, who was a recruiter at a Calvinist college in SoCal. We had an amicable night and learned much from each other. At one point I asked my friend's cousin why he thought that we believed certain things that were not only incorrect, but gross misrepresentations. He answered that his church's specialists research Mormonism and then teach them about our church. My impression was that these specialists primarily relied on Walter Martin, Ed Decker, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and other avid anti-Mormons for their 'specialist' research. I asked him if he had ever read the Book of Mormon and he informed me that he did not need to since these specialists provided him with sufficient reason to avoid what he thought was a waste of time.

This further confirmed to me that there are numerous individuals who know little of the church's  teachings except through blatant misrepresentations from those who willfully distort the truth. Now, having a book review on the Tanners' Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon could prove far more effectual in addressing concerns of potential converts than a book discussing how Joseph Smith or the Mormons fit into America's sociological context. Both have a place in Mormon Studies, but the need for apologetics is every bit as important as publishing academically engaged scholarship. Elder Ballard wrote a few years back that there are "conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot sit on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches."5  Since the Maxwell Institute was the only Church-related arm to directly engage issues raised by critics and it has severed that tie, again I'm left to speculate as to how the current administration reconciles their current direction with the organization's past. At any rate, my implication that the MI's new direction is towards a sociological approach may be an oversimplification, but will be revisited momentarily.

So, the other irony in highlighting Nibley's collected works, is what I perceive to be MI's movement away from Nibley's legacy. Almost seventy years ago Hugh Nibley began publishing articles in the Improvement Era regarding Lehi in the Desert. His contextualization of the Book of Mormon in terms of Hebraic/Arabic/Egyptian origins was groundbreaking. A few years later, under President David O. McKay's appointment, Nibley wrote An Approach to the Book of Mormon, which took into consideration apocrypha/pseudopigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient texts that had relevance to the marks of antiquity within the Book of Mormon. Hugh Nibley was a pioneer in this field. His approach revolutionized the way that future scholars would approach the Book of Mormon. Of course the underlying premise in all of this was that the Book of Mormon was actually translated from ancient plates, did contain an actual history of migrant Israelites, and the Savior actually ministered among these 'other sheep' after His resurrection.

Over the years, many more scholars emerged that would publish pieces on the Book of Mormon's antiquity, including John Sorenson, John Welch, Noel Reynolds, Stephen Ricks, and many, many others. Dan Peterson is among these high-caliber scholars. His specialty in Islamic and Arabic studies adds unique perspective in understanding the origins of the Book of Mormon, but further his ability to articulate so clearly the importance in taking the Book of Mormon seriously as an ancient religious text further adds to the significance of this corpus. So why is the MI's display of Nibley's Collected Works ironic? It is because those scholars who have emerged with backgrounds like Dan Peterson are a natural extension from Nibley's pioneering research, but are now completely absent from the Mormon Studies Review editorial advisory board.

Spencer Fluhman has been appointed as the first editor of the Review. He is an Assistant Professor of History at BYU and obtained a Ph.D. in History from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The editorial board will allegedly consist of an "interdisciplinary focus." Accordingly, the new board consists of the following (as published on MI's blog):

• Philip L. Barlow, Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture, Utah State University
• Richard L. Bushman, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, emeritus, Columbia University
• Douglas J. Davies, Professor of Theology and Religion, Durham University
• Eric A. Eliason, Professor of English, Brigham Young University
• James E. Faulconer, Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding, Professor of Philosophy, Brigham Young University
• Kathleen Flake, Associate Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbilt University
• Terryl L. Givens, James A. Bostwick Chair of English and Professor of Literature and Religion, University of Richmond
• Sarah Barringer Gordon, Arlin M. Adams Professor of Constitutional Law and Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania
• Matthew J. Grow, Director of Publications, Church History Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Grant Hardy, Professor of History and Religious Studies, University of North Carolina—Asheville
• David F. Holland, Associate Professor of History, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Laurie F. Maffly-Kipp, Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Patrick Q. Mason, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate University
• Quincy D. Newell, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Wyoming
• Grant Underwood, Professor of History, Brigham Young University

Please note that virtually the entire board consists of historians. There is nobody with an anthropological background, Arabic and Islamic studies background, Meso-American studies background, Egyptological background, etc. If I am going to attempt to interpret the direction in which the Maxwell Institute is heading, I am left to conclude that the origins and antiquity of the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture are of very little concern to the Maxwell Institute. Please do not misunderstand my criticism. I appreciate the slate of professionals included in the editorial advisory board. In fact, Terryl Givens' By The Hand of Mormon, Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, and Philip Barlow's Mormons and the Bible, are three books that I highly cherish and willingly recommend to others. I look forward to and welcome all of the forthcoming literature from each of the above scholars. My criticism isn't meant to demean anybody on the board, it is meant to point out that the scope of MI's 'Mormon Studies' is far too narrow.

Is the direction that the Maxwell Institute intends to proceed with entirely geared towards interpreting Mormonism and Mormon scriptures within a 19th and 20th century context? If 'Mormon Studies' is meant to understand Mormonism solely in a latter-day context, than it is missing the point of the basis of the religion. Since it is believed by members of the church that the restoration constitutes fulfillment of Paul's prophecy of the restitution of all things and the dispensation of the fullness of times, and that the Latter-day Saint scriptures are primarily of ancient origin, and the fact that the scriptures themselves claim antiquity, then the Institute is ignoring all scholarly activity outside of trending popular culture studies (i.e., a focus on the sociological considerations as referenced above).6

I don't want to oversimplify the matter. The organization still has its other publications. One year after the reformation, however, the Maxwell Institute has hardly warmed up its press. As far as I'm aware, there has been no revamping or enlargement of those periodicals that do address Mormon scripture (including the Bible) as ancient and/or religious texts. The focus, so far, is towards moving full-steam ahead with historians on the newly minted 'Mormon Studies,' a term defined in various ways online (see comments in the referenced link as well). I hope for better days ahead for MI, and I cannot adequately articulate my appreciation for the Interpreter for the void that it has filled, but with a year of hindsight, it seems to me that all of the concerns expressed by those disappointed in the Maxwell Institute's shift, appears to be fully justified.

_____________________________

1 Blair Hodges has a BA in Mass Communications and a Minor in Religious Studies from UoU. He recently obtained a graduate degree from Georgetown in Religious Studies. He was appointed the public communications specialist with MI earlier this year. I say that he seems to be the only voice of the Maxwell Institute because he runs the Facebook page and the organization's blog, and as will be illustrated in this post, very few publications have been actually printed by the MI as of yet. Accordingly, all of our news from MI and the various projects they intend to pursue, are publicly known through Brother Hodges.

2 Dan Peterson, "Of 'Mormon Studies' and Apologetics," FAIR Conference, 2012, online here

3 Neal A. Maxwell, FARMS Annual Recognition Banquet, 27 September 1991, as cited by John Gee at Forn Spǫll Fira

4 "Of 'Mormon Studies' and Apologetics"

5 Elder M. Russell Ballard, "Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet," Ensign, July 2008 
6 I say 'trending popular culture studies' because there seems to be an increase in publications geared towards interpreting Mormon culture, rather than its religion. Focus has shifted from doctrine and restorational themes to the sociological context of Mormonism. Examples that seem to corroborate this assertion most recently include Matt Bowman's The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith, Samuel Morris Brown's In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death, Joanna Brooks' The Book of Mormon Girl: A Memoir of An American Faith, and many others. This generalization may be far reaching, but I see a slate of individuals on this board interested in interpreting Mormonism and how it has developed based on Mormon scriptures, rather than a direct study of the scriptures as primarily ancient religious texts from those with credibility in analyzing the ancient historical context.