My assessment of the situation at the Maxwell Institute

There have been a lot of rumors floating around the internet recently regarding a scandal brewing at the Maxwell Institute.  In order to provide a reality check and quell some of the more wild and brazen speculations of apostates and anti-Mormons on the fringes of Mormondom, I’ll provide the following summary of my understanding of the situation.  Some of the details may not be completely accurate, but I have original memos or eye-witness oral sources for almost all of this information.

Last week, Gerald Bradford (bradfordmg@aol.com, 801-422-8619) Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute (maxwell_institute@byu.edu, 801-422-9229), dismissed Dan Peterson (daniel_peterson@byu.edu)–arguably the most prominent contemporary LDS apologist–as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, where he has served for twenty-three years.

This is the culmination of a long-term struggle between radically different visions for the future of the Institute.  Peterson wishes to continue the traditional heritage of FARMS, providing cutting edge scholarship and apologetics on LDS scripture.  Bradford wants to move the Institute in a different direction, focusing on more secular-style studies that will be accessible and acceptable to non-Mormon scholars.  Bradford is especially opposed to LDS apologetics, which he wants to terminate entirely as part of the mission of the Institute.  He feels apologetics should be done by FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ ) or other groups.

Throughout the past two years Bradford has censored several articles that Dan planned to publish, thereby delaying publication of the Review.  Bradford finally concluded that he refuses to publish the most recent issue of the Review, which has been essentially ready to go to press for six months.  He plans to seek a new editor for the Review to move it in the entirely new direction he envisions.

After Dan was fired as editor, he said that he felt he could no longer serve the Institute in good faith as Director of Advancement (i.e. fund-raiser), since the Institute was intentionally abandoning its original mission, and Dan did not support the new direction Bradford was taking the Institute.  Dan was then threatened with further possible action against him to try to force him to continue raising money for the Institute that abandoned him.  It’s worth noting that Bradford fired Dan by email while Dan was on a multi-week journey in the Middle East–in part raising funds for the Institute–specifically so Dan could not be in Provo to defend himself.

This event concludes a nearly decade-long struggle for the soul of FARMS and the Institute.  The contemporary Maxwell Institute is something quite different from the FARMS of ten years ago.  (Note that only one of the five “directors” of the current Institute is actually involved in Book of Mormon Studies: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/about/administration.php).  Astute observers will note that there has been a steady decline in both quantity and quality of Institute publications over the past few years.  (Indeed, more cutting-edge books on the Book of Mormon have being published in the past few years by Kofford Books, Salt Press, and even Oxford University Press than by the Institute.)  They may also observe that most of the original core of FARMS scholars from a decade ago, including me, have nearly ceased publishing with the Institute, having been systematically marginalized, alienated, or ostracized by the Institute as it tried transform itself to conform with this new vision.  Needless to say, most of the original FARMS scholars have been dismayed by this inexorable movement to remake the Maxwell Institute.

I have had no desire or inclination to publicly comment on this situation.  However, this situation became public when an employee at the Maxwell Institute secretly leaked confidential memos concerning Dan’s firing to anti-Mormon apostates, who have posted these memos on the web, and have been gleefully slandering and ridiculing Dan on their message boards ever since.  Since the situation has been made public by this leak from within the Maxwell Institute itself, I felt that Dan deserved the benefit of a fair public summary of the real situation.  I also felt that interested Latter-day Saints, especially long-time supporters of the original mission of FARMS, deserved a more complete assessment of the situation, rather than being forced to rely on anti-Mormon and apostate slander and speculation.  I felt Dan deserved better, much better than this.

The Institute, for its part, has gone into full damage-control and stonewall mode, refusing to make a public announcement, or even to answer emails or phone calls on the subject from their bewildered subscribers and donors who have heard rumors of the affair, many of whom have for years donated money to the Institute specifically to facilitate Book of Mormon studies and apologetic efforts such as the Mormon Studies Review.

I’m posting this summary of my understanding of the situation to alleviate further slander of Dan by apostates.  Dan did not ask me to do this.  I alone am responsible for this memo.

I’m sure Dan would appreciate any expressions of sympathy and support that could be emailed to him at: daniel_peterson@byu.edu  (Anti-Mormons and apostates, please get lost.)

[Note:  Apparently a phrase I used means something different in English English than American English, so I made a slight editorial change.  I apologize if I offended anyone.]

22 comments to My assessment of the situation at the Maxwell Institute

  1. Kerry Shirts says:

    THANK YOU for giving us the skinny (so far) as you understand it………

  2. Nate says:

    Major bummer.

  3. Amanda says:

    Thank you for the head’s up. I had no idea what was going on and was growing increasingly frustrated at the confusion. Now I am just frustrated for another reason…

  4. Karl Nehring says:

    Thank you for posting this perspective. I had begun to wonder why things seemed to be slowing down so much at the Institute. Will they now just dip more into tithing funds to finance whatever it is they plan to do? Whatever…

  5. Bill, thanks for your post. We’re with Dan 100% on this.

  6. Carson says:

    Thanks for posting this. As someone who joined FARMS 18 years ago, I was wanting know and couldn’t get a reliable synopsis.

  7. Bill,
    Thanks for the summary. I’m also with Dan on this and sent a message to the Institute and Dan stating that as soon as I found out. I know some in the Church want to take a kinder/gentler approach to apologetics but abandoning apologetics all together allows critics to make the proverbial slam dunks against the Church. It also has provided anti-Mormons some vindication against Dan which is a real shame. If I had any influence, I would remove Jerry Bradford a make Dan the Executive Director but sadly, I am have no real inflence in this arena. I’ll be praying that somehow this is made right.
    Mike Hickenbotham

  8. Dave says:

    Thanks for posting reliable information that clarifies the situation. It’s unfair that the emails were leaked and published, but once that has happened the Maxwell Institute is really under an obligation to make a public statement.

  9. David Linn says:

    I’m not surprised by the ham-fisted way this was done. BYU is notoriously bad in the area of petty personal agendas overshadowing the greater good. Dan should be reinstated with rose petals thrown at his feet.

  10. Allen Lambert says:

    As one associated with FARMS since 1983 I deplore the recent direction. And find it appalling that Dan P. was fired for the reason offered. Dan has probably been the single most important person for FARMS for many years — he and Lou M.

    Allen Lambert
    Ithaca, NY

  11. frank mcleskey says:

    The turning point for the agenda FARMS/MI has pursued for these many years came in 1991 when Dan defended strongly his approach to Mormon apologetics against Signature books which had severely criticized the reviewers of a book of essays edited by Dan Vogel.. From that point till Dan’s dismissal the scholars at FARMS/MI have “blasted away” at critics so some say. Bradford has decided that alleged kind of ammo is not needed.
    FWIW good folk can disagree without either side being necessarily wrong. Dr. Bradford the ball is in your court ! Dr Peterson- well done and thanx for 20+ very interesting years.

  12. Is there any way that FARMS can be re-instituted by the original founding Apologetic Scholars? Or, will this mean that since Bradford wants FAIR to take up the more Apologetic Approach – will the Scholars build up FAIR in a newer 21st Century arm of LDS Apologetics with their own Book imprint (which is not hard to do with the technology of POD)?

    Personally, I have read some of the filth and vitriolic statements targeting DP. Maxwell Institute has just handed our enemies ammo necessary to fire at will at any and all respectable scholarship that DP and others may now put out. I would not be surprised if our enemies turn around and start attacking many of the “new vision and direction of” the Newly ventured Maxwell Institute.

  13. I don’t understand why the urge to shy away from apologetics. It’s an incredibly needed pursuit and has tremendously blessed thousands of saints. But even if one disagrees, the way this was handled is breathtakingly underhanded. I’m glad to see so much support for Dan.

  14. [...] June 20, 2012, 9:24 PM (MST?) – William J. Hamblin confirms via a post on his blog (cross-posted at the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Forum, hereon MDDB) that the leaked e-mails are [...]

  15. John Perry says:

    I find this development very interesting in light of the request included in the most recent mailing of the JBMS etc dated May 1, 2012 and signed by both M. Gerald Bradford and Daniel C. Peterson.

    As many of you have also seen, the second paragraph of this mailer describes one of the MI missions as providing professional responses to criticisms of the Church and its teachings, and asks its readers to share examples where “any of our publications have been especially helpful to you in answering your own questions or those of your family and friends”. I have just such an example with my own daughter, but wonder if this is even of interest to the MI with the shift in their focus. Surely, Dr Peterson was a big part of the material I used to help her come back. With him essentially muzzled, I will need to rely on other sources since attacks on the Church will never cease. I’ll evaluate my continuing membership based on what I see from future publications.

  16. This is called a “Mormon Moment” when the candidacy of Mitt Romney and many other cultural circumstances have increased public interest in the Church and its members. The Brethren have encouraged members to get involved in public internet forums to ensure our views are heard. At the same time many have expressed concern that the typical de minimis approach to teaching members and youth about Church history has led many to feel blindsided by the Church when they learn negative facts or characterizations for the first time from people who are enemies of Mormonism. FARMS has served as the Mormon armory, providing the intellectual firepower that has let us defend ourselves and persuade Church members that it is intellectually respectable to be Mormon. The apparent disavowal of defensive work by the Maxwell Institute as the direct descendant of Farms is akin to the betrayal Captain Moroni felt when there were no reinforcements and supplies coming from the capital.

    How can apologetics be distinct from the mission of the Institute? The crown Jewels in its inventory are the works of Hugh Nibley, who excelled at both scholarship and in tge appkication of scholarship to defend the faith of the Latter-day Saints. There us no reason it cannot do both. The scholarly journals I read involving theology and society do not shy away from controversy. I deas which offend no one are usually of little value.

  17. [...] Young University.  I don’t want to rehash everything again here (you can read about it here, here, here, here, here, and here).  Suffice it to say that I am extremely disappointed, saddened, [...]

  18. grego says:

    Thanks for posting.

    I definitely feel the apologetics are necessary, but I didn’t like the way some of the reviews were carried out –there really were too many personal attacks on critics (I’ve done my share, too), I often had to stop reading and remember who the “good” guy was, so to say. Not good. However, there are times when I’ve found a study of the critic’s character to be very helpful:
    1. when the character is important to understand the context;
    2. when the attacks are intentional, purposefully untruthful, intended to mislead, and full of accusation;
    3. especially when the character of the critic fits a pattern of attack that can be extended to most other attacks. I mention this because once someone points out/ helps you realize that a certain critic(s) usually uses the same underhanded methods of dealing with topics instead of serious scholarship and questions, and that this is actually the norm among critics, the next time you hear something from them, it doesn’t shock and scare you that “the church has problems”–you already assume that it’s a lie (which it usually is) that will be found out in time (like in an apologetic review). This might not be important to many sure apologists, but to those weak in the faith (overall or at the moment), it can be a big game-changer and stress-buster.
    I still believe attacks should be on things that are truly evident in the piece, especially if backed up by previous similar pieces and methods, and helpful–not methods of revenge, belittling, displays of arrogance, etc.
    I’m not sure how much all this was considered in the decision.

  19. Chuck Boyd says:

    Cousin Hamblin – thanks so much for your candid statement of what you know of this controversy – you are taking a big risk, and I appreciate your willigness to do so on the record in defense of Dan and the foundingnvision of FARMS hat Elder Maxwell and President Hinckley loved and supported – bless you and many thanks !! Chuck Boyd, descendant of Jacob Hamblin

  20. [...] were officially confirmed. (For a non-exhaustive sample of related posts and articles see: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, [...]

  21. Steve Amosa says:

    Its sad to hear but I’m a big supporter of DP and hope and pray this will be resolved ASAP. Thanks for the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s