On Gloating: The Mopologists Praise Holland's 'Rebuke' of MI

[_Doctor Scratch]

It would seem that, in the run-up to the Christmas season, the Mopologists have found a gift in the form of a speech that was delivered by Elder Holland at the "new" Maxwell Institute. As far as I'm aware, no transcript or recording of the talk has yet surfaced, but that hasn't stopped Mopologists such as Dan Peterson (who was not even there) and Louis Midgley (who apparently was) from hailing the talk as a kind of apostolic "rebuke" on the Maxwell Institute's "new direction." See, for instance, Midgley's remarks on the Mormon Interpreter blog website:

For me and for many others, Elder Holland’s remarks were a deep delight. Why? Elder Holland delivered a carefully wording fully illustrated public scolding of the current state of the Institute that carries Elder Maxwell’s name. It was exactly what I expected him to say.

And Peterson chimed in with his two cents:

I wasn’t there, but I look forward to reading the text of his remarks and/or watching a videotape of them.

From what I’ve heard, it was a very impressive and important address.

Dr. Peterson, it should be noted, has also now "plugged" the Holland talk on Sic et Non at least twice. So, what's going on? As you might have gathered from the above link to LDS.org, advised Mormon academics to serve as faithful "scholar-disciples." Do the current MI folks fail to fit this definition? If so, I'd love to hear a Mopologetic explanation as to why. Per the article, Elder Holland said:

Elder Maxwell often spoke of the “disciple-scholar” and the commitment to seek learning with “full intellectual stretching” and that not all truths are of equal importance.

“The spiritual half of that union was always the more important,” said Elder Holland. He later added, “But the wonderful thing with Elder Maxwell, and the thing I want for all of us, is that it didn’t have to come down to a choice between intellect and spirit. In a consecrated soul—and consecration was one of his favorite doctrinal concepts—they would be aligned beautifully, a perfect fit, a precise overlay.

“But if it did come down to a choice, it would be faith, the yearning, burning commitment of the soul, that would always matter most in the end.”

The article continues:

“I am not suggesting our BYU approach to scholarly discussions with those not of our faith has to start with slides of your mission and end with an anthem from the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square—notice that modified name,” he said. “But any scholarly endeavor at BYU—and certainly anything coming under the rubric of the Maxwell Institute—must never principally be characterized by stowing one’s faith in a locker while we have a great exchange with those not of our faith. … 'Bracketing your faith' is what those in the field call it and it does not apply at Brigham Young University.”

Quite interesting! Of course, the Mopologists are unsurprisingly interpreting this as a complete rebuke of the "new" MI, though I'm willing to bet that MI Director Spencer Fluhman and others don't see it that way.

Another person who apparently attended the talk had this to add:

Finally, Elder Holland reminded his audience of Elder Dallin H. Oaks' clear instruction that the Maxwell Institute have no obsessions or cheering constituencies because the institute belongs to God.

Well, one would assume that this would include negative "obsessives" who are still carrying on some 6 years later after getting ousted, no? Whatever the case may be, I will be interested to see how this develops, and whether it results in any shake-ups in the world of Mopologetics.

[_Gadianton]

Thank you professor Scratch for alerting us to this important scholarly development.

I read the link. Yeah, I mean, Holland made a point I agreed with when he said that not being clear about where you stand can cost you credibility. I think that it's more than likely that Holland demands the new MI to figure out how to wave the Title of Liberty more fervently, but as he said, this is a church-wide Nelson initiative. Would he have said anything different if the old Guard were still in power? Would he have said that church wide there exist "a whole host of adjustments that are necessary in our own departments" but here at the Old MI, why, these adjustments are hardly necessary as the faith of the Mopologists is unquestionable?

So back to the point I said I agree with: the problem is, it's easy to judge everyone else on their "hidden agendas", as one Mopologist calls them. For the Heartland crowd, they are darn sure about the Mopologists' own apostate agenda to change the location of the Hill Cummorah etc. in the interest of appearing respectable to outside scholars. And the Heartland crowd must be huge from what family members have reported to me -- in comparison to either MI. One family member even was vocal against "FARMS" the last time I met up, and is a full Heartland supporter now.

So it really comes down to what constitutes bracketing your faith. From a church leadership standpoint, I'd be amazed if they have anything specific in mind, as they have no idea how to judge all the various positions swirling around them in terms of how they might help or hurt the Church. I doubt they're going to say that the New MI has to start peddling some of the typical apologist theories that make them look silly -- I doubt they will insist the New MI denounce the documentary hypothesis anymore than they'd demand the Old MI to denounce two Hill Cummorah's or hell, the latest 15th century theory which in some respects is the most apostate theory out there.

[_Dr. Shades]

So, the only thing lacking was. . . a verbal rebuke of the new M.I. by Elder Holland, or an explicit instruction to change course.

[_MsJack]

They sure don't make prophetic rebukes like they used to.

[_Gadianton]

So, the only thing lacking was. . . a verbal rebuke of the new M.I. by Elder Holland, or an explicit instruction to change course.

Oh, your remark brought to mind that quite obviously, a serious rebuke would never be public and printed in the church magazines.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, the only thing lacking was. . . a verbal rebuke of the new M.I. by Elder Holland, or an explicit instruction to change course.

Oh, your remark brought to mind that quite obviously, a serious rebuke would never be public and printed in the church magazines.

An excellent point. The true test of the "power" of this "rebuke" is whether it will have any consequences or not. The "rebuke" of Mopologetics came in the form of them getting kicked out of the Maxwell Institute. If Holland's latest "rebuke" is just this talk, and then nothing happens (beyond, perhaps, the adjustment of some nomenclature), then who's the real winner in this?

Of course the Mopologists will gravitate to this "bracketing of faith" thing (and do you want to take bets on who it was who put that particular phrase on Holland's map?), but the Dean is right that this doesn't really work in their favor. If they are arguing that the new MI "brackets faith," in what sense do they mean? The really strange thing in all of this is that they won't ever fully say why they feel this way (even though it's rather obvious). Part of it, of course, is the fact that the new MI doesn't embrace the LGT Theory. But the apologists (again, as Dr. Robbers rightly points out) want to argue that the new MI is dumping literal belief in a historical Book of Mormon out the window. Remember Grant Hardy's talk at the FAIR Conference a couple of years ago, and how much trouble that stirred up? Yes, the Heartland Model shows that there are creative ways of "bracketing faith," but I think it's worth point out that the apologists hate the new MI way, *way* more than the Heartland crowd. Why, you wonder? Well, again: the apologists themselves are not being completely forthright, in my opinion. One thing worth observing is that the Heartland people have openly criticized FAIR and the Mopologists, and accused them of being "heretics," and so forth. The new MI, on the other hand? As far as I know, they've been totally collegial and formal. Apart from some occasional scuffles involving Blair Hodges, I don't think any of the major players from the new MI can be cited as having openly attacked the apologists. To put it another way, the Mopologists seem to be outraged that the new MI won't "play dirty." That at the end of the day, is how they define "bracketing faith." It's not that they believe in a Heartland Model, or that they won't say publicly that they think the Book of Mormon is real history. That's not the "badge of honor" for the Mopologists: it's not the thing that proves you are a true "scholar-disciple." The only thing that proves it to them is a willingness to get "dirty": to openly attack others, to engage in smear tactics, and to care so much about the cause that you'd be willing to lie, steal, or cheat--that you would be willing to openly engage in warfare with the critics. The Mopologists think that the new MI is "bracketing faith" because they are unwilling to "prove" their loyalty via public displays of bellicosity.

[_I have a question]

I'm assuming this is the talk...

With changes occurring now and in the future for the Church, Elder Holland mentioned changes that will need to happen within the Maxwell Religious Institution.

The first of these changes involves the name of the program “Mormon Studies.” Just as with the rest of the church and its transition and redirection to a name centered on Christ, the Maxwell Institute must do the same, according to Elder Holland.

In a letter addressed to Elder Holland from President Nelson, Nelson promises blessings for the Institute if following through the challenge to transition to a more Christ-centered name.

“If they can claim the name of the Lord Jesus Christ some way in their name, the Lord will bless them in their mission,” President Nelson said.

Elder Holland notes another change that must be made in the 21st century for the Maxwell Institute is to “capitalize on their positionality,” Elder Holland said.

“Share what we might take for granted but which others might see true jewels in the Latter-day Saint crown,” Elder Holland said.

He touched on topics such as family history work and the Joseph Smith papers as examples of topics to be outwardly shared and studied by members and non-members alike.

The Maxwell Institute requires scholars, but more than anything it requires those who are always willing, to uphold the greater mission of the Church, according to Holland.

“We know that not every seminar you hold in the academic world will be a formal first lesson from Preach My Gospel, nor will every essay you produce be submitted to the Ensign for the entire Church to see,” Elder Holland said. “While we are not obligated to declare everything we believe at any given time in any one setting we are also not to even look like what we do not believe.”

https://universe.byu.edu/2018/11/11/eld ... education/
That last quote is pretty damning, in my opinion. Scholars shouldn't examine what the Church doesn't believe? They should only look at one side of the coin? They should carefully restrict what they declare in any given setting?

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-princ ... y?lang=eng

The overall tone I'm seeing in these brief excerpts from Holland is that Nelson wants the scholarly studies to evolve into a purely faith promoting seminary. It's a significant withdrawal from actual scholarship.

[_moksha]

I imagine this battle between the apologetic shock troops and the pure scholars will be raging for some time, regardless of the interpretations of Elder Holland's speech.

Such interpretations only serve to fan the flames of this intermormine conflict. If only the Brethren would deliver unto the Elders of the Mormon Interpreter the promised ziggurat in the milk and honey hills of Orem, it would greatly soothe the tension between these two groups.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think the supposed "rebuke" is merely a misinterpretation from a naughty child of his/her parent's message to all the children. DCP and his crowd of attackers were the ones rebuked way back when and are still butt hurt. They are looking for their parent church to do the same to their siblings, for vindication, and so any rebuke is misinterpreted as something it is not. Nelson's name change nonsense is really a call to come home to his vision of old time Mormon religion based on "following the brethren," as defined by the "brethren." Holland's speech seems to echo that. From the quotes, it doesn't seem to be a rebuke of anyone specific and DCP and his crowd are seeing things in the 15th century clouds that aren't there, as usual. I wonder if they filter everything through an elizabethian translator now that Early Modern English is the latest theory? In any event, it seems Holland's speech is more of a call to make sure that the 'brethren's" message of the church being the best thing ever is always emphasized, regardless of what nonsensical speculations the so called academics put forward.

[_Stem]

When I hear an apostle speak I hear a message far closer to a "you can't possibly think the Book of Mormon is inspired and not historical" than a "there's plenty of room to consider the Book of Mormon inspired and not historical". yes, from Elder Holland as much as anyone. So I see why Peterson and Midgely would get excited by Elder Holland's remarks on the topic of Mormon studies. I can't blame them for that. They likely get all excited when he talks all tough about not being able to go around or over the Book of Mormon. I imagine any believer who seriously considers the Book of Mormon to be inspired yet not based on history also sees tons of area around and over the Book of Mormon for lives to tread effectively.

I don't' know I get what change he's communicating to the current MI folks though. Does he not think these folks are praying and fasting and such as they do their studies related work? It sounds like more of a reminder or re-emphasis than a change to me.

I wouldn't doubt at all if Holland secretly hopes to see the old Midgely, Peterson MI again, but when thinking practically realizes it's a net negative. I'm guessing he wants to see the MI return a bit more to what it was and sincerely thinks it'll be harsher on the progressive Mormon voice if they focus in on praying and only doing things that build up members faith. In other words he seems to be about as creative as the old MI regime.