Maxwell Institute/FARMS

[vaquero]

There are a couple of postings on the "What has BYU become?" thread on the controversy at BYU's Maxwell Institute which became such when FARMS became associated with BYU. I thought it merited a separate thread.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported the story last week: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54358 ... s.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FAIR's take is here: http://www.fairblog.org/2012/06/23/chan ... #more-2976" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The most comprehensive, running discussion is on William Hamblin's blog: http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The controversy revolves around the termination by Gerald Bradford, the director of the Maxwell Institute, of Dan Peterson as editor of "Mormon Studies Review". The termination came while Peterson and other contributors to the "Review" were out of the country.

Bradford announced a new direction for the "Review" which focuses on the promotion of "mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths," a rather euphemistic manner of stating that the traditional role of FARMS as an apologist center will be ending.

This raises an important question as to the role of apologetics. Bradford seems of the view that apologetics is all about dueling with antagonists/critics of the Church in an acrimonious fashion; and that the better position is to make nice with all peoples by publishing neutral works primarily designed to appeal to other academics.

My experience is that there is a definite role for apologetics. As missionaries, my wife and I operated the largest Center for Young Adults in Europe. One of the investigators at the Center was a very bright young man from Finland, now working on a doctorate at Cambridge.

Church critics steered him to a host of web sites raising the tired issues of the facsimiles and the Book of Abraham, DNA in the Book of Mormon, etc., all of which have been very adequately addressed by FARMS. I steered him to their answers which he found intellectually satisfying.

Shortly after our return home, my brother-in-law was called as a Bishop over a YSA ward in Mesa, AZ, where the Church is in the process of creating some 5 YSA stakes. Soon after he was called, a young man came to see him with a litany of questions--almost identical to the ones given my by the Finnish investigator we had met in England.

In conversing with my brother-in-law, I had confirmed what I well knew: young people in the Church today are too often confronted by anti-Church literature and websites, all with the same tired questions; however, our young have not been provided with answers to those questions.

Unfortunately, CES, Sunday School, Young Mens and Young Womens have not done an adequate job of inoculating the young against such questions; indeed, they have been totally ignored in our curriculum. The young are at a vulnerable age, with inquiring minds and often easily preyed upon by antagonists and critics.

Apologetics serves the very useful purpose of providing intellectually satisfying answers to questions while at the same time fortifying gospel knowledge and strengthening testimonies.

What is happening at the Maxwell Institute is the gutting of an organization that has been at the forefront of apologetics, under the guise of "making nice" with others. This could not occur at a more inopportune time: an election year in which the Church will become an issue coupled with the ongoing onslaught against the young.

[marc]

I have learned a lot from those resources. But I have to cringe at the thought that kids or anyone needs apologetics. Alma and Amulek were not apologists and their work in the land of Ammonihah converted many including the foremost of their learned lawyers. There's a reason they did. I wish our kids understood this reason, but alas, they will not if they are taught to rely on becoming apologists. It isn't my intention to detract from the topic because I do appreciate what I've learned from Farms, etc in the lat twenty years.

[vaquero]

Alma and Amulek were not apologists and their work in the land of Ammonihah converted many including the foremost of their learned lawyers.

My wife does not like the term "apologetics" even when I explain that it comes from the Greek, apologia, meaning to answer or defend. Interestingly, apologia is the Greek work that appears for the English "answer" in 1 Peter 3:15.

I believe Alma in fact represents apologetics at its finest. He resigned his position as chief judge in order to "bear down" in pure testimony in his effort to defend the Church from the effects of those who were after the order of Nehor.

A careful reading of the question/answer episode with Zeezrom and Amulek in Alma 11, followed by Alma's expansion thereof in Chapter 12, particularly his handling of the trap question presented by Antionah in verses 21 and 21, is a systematic defense of the need for the atonement, an answering/defense that really is apologetics.

[marc]

They were apologists in that they defended the gospel, however, my understanding of apologetics is defense through rational means. I realize that Paul admonishes us to always be ready to defend our faith and I agree. Where I part ways and perhaps I'm splitting too fine of hairs is defending by means of our intellect rather than the spirit. I understand as well that we must first seek to obtain the word. We can have all the facts and even the Savior can present the case in person, as He did during His mortal ministry, but it was the Spirit that confirmed the truth. Alma and Amulek carried their scriptures with them wherever they went, but it was through much fasting and praying that they had the power unto the convincing of Zeezrom for it was the gift of discernment and the power of the priesthood that empowered them just as similar gifts gave Abinadi and Samuel the Lamanite what to teach. I do think it is a wonderful thing to have so much information gathered in one place because the Spirit cannot draw from an empty well. Alma, Amulek, Abinadi, Samuel and others already had knowledge. But after some learned individual has read through the entire contents of all apologetics websites, if he wasn't converted by the Spirit then it was all in vain. So, yes, I am left to agree with you about Alma and Amulek.

[marc]

Boyd K. Packer said it best (thanks, Legion!).

The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect.

[Helaman2000]

...

[marc]

We need more Almas and Amuleks. And Abinadis.

[7cylon7]

I hope this is not a movement to include all religions into one world religion. You know there is a movement for that and anyone or any church that stands up for what they believe will be called out as not compassionate, closed minded and un-christ like.

We will get more people interested in Christ by standing firm on what he taught, not by bending and whimpering to the call of the world and their traditions.

I want the real soul saving, love and peace generating facts of Christ and his gospel, not the watered down version of feel good about yourself at the expense of satisfying what other think of us.

[vaquero]

Well, Petersen's type of apologetics has a home at FAIR, so its not like they have lost all that much. FAIR is a private organization without direct ties to the Church. So this is actually a good thing that the Apologists can go off on their own now without having direct ties from the Church.

FARMS came into the BYU fold at the invitation of President Hinckley. Its efforts were supported by i) donations and ii) proceeds from its books and other publications. NAMI will now continue to receive the proceeds from the books and publications while FARMS must start anew. That is a loss and my primary objection, as both a donor and a purchaser.

Being affiliated with BYU does not mean the apologists have a "direct tie" to the Church. This was the fear when FARMS came to BYU and its directors were not unanimous in the decision to accept the invitation; indeed, the initial invite was turned down.

The flip side is that NAMI's new change in direction could be construed to be a Church position--as critics are now asserting, though it is not. While BYU is sponsored by the Church, much goes on at BYU that likely causes great angst among the members of the B of T.

[Helaman2000]

After further consideration, I have edited this, since it is better that I don't comment on this.

[chase]

It seems that there has been some question as to whether "apologetics" so called are needed by the youth or the young of the church. I am young (26 is young right?). I started reading Hugh Nibley at the age of 22ish, and some of the conclusions that I was able to draw with the help of his works provided me with not only strength but also with a reason to battle with some difficult questions I have had over the last few years. Due in part to his apologetic works in defense of the faith and of the Book of Mormon, I have been able to construct a paradigm which helps me to find relevance in the Church where I once doubted. I don't deny or discount the role of the spirit in confirming truth to a man, but I am grateful for the logical conclusions that I have been helped to form which have confirmed to me the confirmation of the Spirit and helped me to find a way to reconcile hard things. Sometimes we are prone to say, "Just get an answer from the Holy Ghost and believe." That's all good, but sometimes there are staggering arguments that seem contrary to faith. They aren't just trivial. They cause real insecurities if not viewed from the proper perspective. It took faith and the spirit to dig deep enough into apologetic literature to find some respite and a set of foundational perspectives that allowed me to finally relax and move forward with a pragmatic and useful view of the church. Apologetics are relevant when they are used for the promotion of faith and with the spirit to understand true principles. The holy ghost helps in that process. Young people need access to this stuff just as much as seasoned members. We have inquiring minds, and there are many who are willing to teach us falsehood. Hugh Nibley is where I went to find help, and there are many young people I know of today who are struggling with hard questions and to find truth. Don't discount the worth of these resources to the youth. We are not to young to begin learning truth.

[vaquero]

sometimes there are staggering arguments that seem contrary to faith. They aren't just trivial. They cause real insecurities if not viewed from the proper perspective.

You hit the nail on the head as to the need for apologetics. Indeed, I think the Lord recognizes this in the provision for two types of experiences with the witnesses to the Book of Mormon as well as in D & C 8:2, 3 where the word order--mind, followed by heart--is also significant.

The experience of the eight witnesses, who saw no heavenly personage, heard no voice, but hefted the plates and turned the "pages" is in contrast to the three who had a "spiritual" manifestation but were not permitted to heft or otherwise handle the plates.

Both types of "witnesses" are important as is the relationship between mind and heart as they relate to the operation of the Holy Ghost.

[JohnnyL]

I have learned a lot from those resources. But I have to cringe at the thought that kids or anyone needs apologetics. Alma and Amulek were not apologists and their work in the land of Ammonihah converted many including the foremost of their learned lawyers. There's a reason they did. I wish our kids understood this reason, but alas, they will not if they are taught to rely on becoming apologists. It isn't my intention to detract from the topic because I do appreciate what I've learned from Farms, etc in the lat twenty years.

Yes and no.
EVERYONE there had been lead astray, not just the kids or the "weak" members. Many apostates' preaching led many astray, all throughout the BoM.
And most are answered by apologetics, to a point. They are also answered by testimony. Usually, the two work together for best results.

We need more Almas and Amuleks. And Abinadis.

And Dan Petersons.