Many know of the recent shift and turn-around the Maxwell Institute just took. There are many in the Mormon intellectual and apologetic community who are outraged. If you are unsure of what happened, here is a brief rundown: Daniel C. Peterson, BYU Professor and highly regarded expert in Islamic studies, was recently let go from his position in the Mormon Studies Review (formerly FARMS Review). The decision was rumored out before it was made and Brother Peterson unfortunately stumbled across some leaked emails before he was properly informed. The emails had made it to an anti-Mormon website. So the decision was no surprise to Brother Peterson who, understandably, was quite insulted and hurt by the whole thing.
I am not in the business of saying who is right and who is wrong and what decision the Maxwell Institute should go. I certainly think that Mormon Scholarship is evolving into something really important and the Maxwell Institute needs to keep up with it.
Here are a few of my concerns with it:
CONCERN NO. 1: How did an anti-Mormon website get it so quick? It is one thing that the emails leaked, but the fact that the antagonists have gotten so quickly makes me wonder who leaked it and to whom did they leak the information? I do not mind having "skeptics" or non-believers working on LDS Academia; however, it is a bit concerning if they are out-and-out antagonists to the religion.
CONCERN NO. 2: Why are some people using this to discredit the work of Brother Peterson and others who have gone before him? There are websites out there attempting to discredit Hugh Nibley's work and paint Daniel C. Peterson as a bad person. What makes it more alarming is that these websites are from people who are members of the Church! I do not agree with it.
What I fear is that many who have the capacity and capability to think critically and help bolster the image of the Church are attempting to come into "intellectual" league with our anti-Mormon counter-community. Many in the anti-Mormon community seem to be more "enlightened" and intellectual than the Daniel Petersons and Hugh Nibleys so people try to follow suit with them.
I mention that is a fear because one cannot fight fire with fire in the sphere of gospel topics. I will give one prime example: There was an A.P. on my mission who was amazing at countering anti-Mormon doctrine. We were in the heart of the anti-Mormon community. More literature opposing the Church came from our mission than any other one area in the world. He was good. No one could defeat him. Except himself. As good as he was, it was not good enough to encounter it all the time without being negatively affected. He now is one of those who works tirelessly to oppose the Church. No amount of Bible-bash defeats was worth losing him.
CONCERN NO. 3: On the flip side of concern no. 2, why are members so concerned and caught up with how the scholarship is approached? This may be why the Maxwell Institute is taking a new approach. Too often members have sought this information and shifted their testimony based on prayer, fasting,etc... and relied on this.
If a testimony is not nourished, it will fail. And in the world of testimony-nourishment, scientific proof is akin to empty calories: it tastes good, but yields no real growth. We have to stop trying to bear our testimonies with the concluding words: "There is no way Joseph Smith could have known that!" As odd as it seems, spiritual witness is much more concrete than physical. Many religions can boast about tangible witnesses, miracles, and archeological evidence; however, it is a rare thing to have a church confidently tell it's investigators, "You can pray and know for yourself..."
CONCERN NO. 4: My final and most alarming concern is the overwhelming divisiveness this is yielding. Furthermore, with as many pseudonyms as are floating around (and remember, Elder Quentin L. Cook warned us of these hidden identities) there is a chance that these bickering siblings in the gospel worship side-by-side in the Temple. There is an overwhelming feeling of contention. There should be a consensus and unity amongst those who are professing and discussing their faith. It seems that the antagonists to our faith are more unified at times than we are. Furthermore, many scholars seem to disagree about many things within the Church but can still act civilly to one another.
So why does this concern me?
Because as a Church we need to be unified ourselves. We cannot stand together on speculative ground. We cannot stand together on Church ground and have such diatribe towards one another. It is the Devil's doctrine. We can, however, continue to offer insights and promote gospel study civilly. Truth will not come about as result of endless fighting and finger-pointing.
I mention these concerns so that we can simply be unified in the faith. Do not retard the growth of Zion because you cannot be of one heart and one mind.
Sorry to hear about the missionary in your mission who left the church. It reminds me of the importance of not getting caught up in gospel hobbies.
ReplyDeleteI am grateful for Brother Peterson's work. He has been editor for a long time now though and I think it's good to shake things up a bit. It's too bad how it all came down. I hope he is doing ok with it all. Hopefully he still keeps writing for FAIR etc.
I completely agree when you say that we have to stop bearing our testimonies by saying "There is no way Joseph Smith could have known that!"
I much prefer apologetics that leave you realizing that there are sound logical reasons to believe (insert any gospel principle or doctrine here), and then encourages you to learn for yourself through the power of the spirit. Marlin K Jensen visited our ward and talked about the three scriptural ways of knowing a true prophet or teacher from a false one. 1. by their fruits (he listed a few of the amazing prophecies and accomplishments of JS), 2. by trying out the commandments they teach, and 3 by revelation through the Holy Ghost. It was the best talk I ever heard on dealing with difficult aspects of church history or doctrine. Too bad he is emeritus soon. I would love to hear him talk about that in GC. He encouraged us that if we keep these three things in mind it doesn't matter what comes our way, we'll have strong testimonies. I think he is right.
I would love to hear about that talk. I think Elder Jensen has the perfect balance. The apologetics serve to enrich his testimony; not validate it. Elder Jensen has also talked a lot on the need for open and honest narratives on church history. He commented on the "Google problem" at Utah State Univ. calling the current scene a problem akin in nature to the Kirtland apostasy. I think that he nailed it right on the head. Like I said, I do not disagree with the decision for a changing of the guard--I just think that the events leading to it and the events that have come as a result are a bit troubling.
ReplyDeleteI like your reference to gospel hobbies. I agree 100% with you. There are too many out there that are exchanging gospel hobby time for gospel study time. I really believe that you cannot maintain your testimony without reading the scriptures as call to repentance. I think that the people who are leaving the church on the basis of intellectual pursuits and gospel hobbies are more often the ones that are failing to take instruction from their gospel study. The prophets do not preach in order to teach us about deep doctrine: they preach to call us to repent.