Maxwell Institute Announcement

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute announced today that Brian M. Hauglid has been appointed as the director of the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. You can learn about him here. For his contributions to Book of Mormon scholarship, see here, here, and here.

Brian has been a long-time collaborator. I wish him well.

Today's Maxwell Quote

Speaking about the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (which would later be renamed the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship) at the FARMS Annual Recognition Banquet, 27 September 1991:

I've never made any secret of my appreciation for FARMS. As I see you grow larger and become more significant, I'll never have any greater appreciation than I did a few years back when our enemies were lobbing all sorts of mortar shells into our Church encampment and among the few guns blazing away were the guns of FARMS. . . . As big and wonderful as you will become and I hope you do, my memories are always nurtured by those moments when so few stood up to respond and among those who did were scholars who have taken the lead in FARMS. . . . This organization, independent as it is, is nevertheless committed, as I see it, to protect and to build up the kingdom of God. . . . I hope you don't underestimate the significance of what you do as articulators of the faith. In praising C. S. Lewis Austin Farrar said the following (and when I think of this quote I think of FARMS), "Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." An excellent quote. . . . I mention also to you, in the spirit of appreciation, that I believe much of the vindication that will come to the Prophet and to this work of the Restoration, will come by scholars who are committed to the kingdom, who are unequivocally devoted to it. . . . I myself would be reluctant if you ever moved away from what had become your traditional role. Enterprises of scholarship may be like some businesses who fail at enlargement or lose the essence of what they have been successful at doing.

Mormon Media Studies Symposium Day 1

Today was the first day of the Mormon Media Studies Symposium. I presented at the one two years ago but have been ordered never to present again and any record of my having done so was deliberately expunged from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute which says something about the management of the Institute's actual attitude toward Mormon Studies.

I was only able to make a few of the papers. One of them was of particular interest. Rosemary Avance is not a Latter-day Saint but she is trying to follow the conversation between apologists and dissidents. As an example of apologists, she gave the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (www.fairlds.org) as an example of dissidents she gave John Dehlin. She clearly has not mastered the intricacies of the discussion (for example, she confuses certain of the players and does not seem to care about the intellectual content of the discussions), but she has been trying to figure out what is going on and has some interesting things to say.

Avance told the story of how a response to Dehlin was suppressed at the Maxwell Institute giving Dehlin's version of the story. She summarized the article that was suppressed but admitted that she had not read it or even seen it.

Avance also said in response to a question that she sees no indication that the Maxwell Institute will be continuing with apologetics after this past summer. To the contrary, she says that they got rid of their major apologetic publication and have abandoned apologetics for Mormon Studies. I am still under interdict of talking about what may or may not be going on at the Maxwell Institute, but I thought that her take as an observer who is trying to follow the discussion closely was telling.

Although I cannot say more, I will say that I think Dehlin's version of the story grossly distorts his own role as a convenient and incidental pretext to what happened. Avance in a casual aside in her presentation hit somewhat closer to the truth than the Dehlin myth. We will have to see if her observation makes it into any sort of published version of her remarks.