pointed out elsewhere<\/a>, this is actually the latest flare up in a long-running debate between people who hold very different views about the mission of the Maxwell Institute and how it can most effectively be served. In pointing this out, I do not wish to depreciate any of the principals, who are no doubt good people pursuing what in their judgment represents the best interest of the Institute. Nevertheless, I suspect that the heart of this debate centers more specifically on the disregard some at the Institute have for scholarly apologetics. While this bias is not unusual among academics, it actually belongs to a philosophical position that has fallen on hard times.<\/p>\nThe Larger Issue<\/strong><\/p>\nIt is important to understand that for some, scholarly apologetics is an oxymoron that violates their deepest epistemological convictions\u2014convictions predicated on a near ideological adherence to the \u201cfact\/value distinction.\u201d This view holds that in scholarly research, the maintenance of a posture of unwavering neutrality is imperative in order to achieve intellectual objectivity. It insists that, undistorted by human values or preferences,\u00a0research is only then able to reveal relevant facts in their true nature, \u201cas they are in themselves.\u201d Not surprisingly, those who hold this view consider the business of apologetics as something of secondary importance, at best, to be carried on separately, lest it contaminate the larger process of\u00a0discovering \u201cobjective truth.\u201d<\/p>\n
Arguments based on methodological claims that value free research, neutrality and objectivity, harbor an unjustified, and in some respects disabling, prejudice of their own. For well over a century,\u00a0such claims have been under attack and, epistemologically speaking, all but abandoned as a philosophically defensible. In fairness some of these tenets continue to be popular on practical grounds, and the research protocols they authorize have no doubt proven useful. The bottom line, however, is that the most effective scholars realize that all research is preconditioned and necessarily led by key values and basic commitments.<\/p>\n
Although I have only managed to provide a brief gloss here on what is a very complex issue, I think it can assist in better situating our understanding of the events underway at the Institute. It should be noted that a neutralist\u2019s methodological stance offers a variety of possible positions:<\/p>\n
\n- some might take a softer posture, recognizing that complete \u201cneutrality\u201d is never truly an option but a worthy ideal;<\/li>\n
- others might hold that because the prejudice which enshrines neutrality is so wide spread among researchers, the work at the Institute will only gain currency if its framing language reflects such an objectivist bias\u2014if only as an operating necessity; while<\/li>\n
- most might argue that, without being disingenuous, adopting elements of the well-mannered idiom associated with the neutralist\u2019s position has the advantage of reducing the edge of exchanges with those somewhat antagonistic to Mormonism, while still gaining the respect of fellow academics and the broader non-Mormon readership.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is easy to see how those who see the primary task of the Maxwell Institute in general, and the\u00a0Mormon Studies Review<\/em>\u00a0in particular, to be the spirited and rigorous defense of the Mormon faith would consider a retreat to a \u201cvalue free,\u201d or \u201cneutral\u201d form of research to be a disengagement from what is most central. Such a shift could leave many everyday members confused in the wake of unjustified claims made about the Church and its history by normal scholars and the far more lethal onslaught from anti-Mormon groups.<\/p>\nDan Peterson<\/strong><\/p>\nPeterson\u2019s approach to scholarly apologetics may not be for everyone, particularly since his writing can occasionally have an edge to it.\u00a0 But Peterson, whom I know and respect, is an honest and dedicated academic who engages in high-quality scholarship focused on defending the foundations of the Church and its beliefs. \u00a0I cannot help but believe that Peterson\u2019s limitless energy and clear integrity will be sorely missed in his former capacities at the Institute. \u00a0The same can be said of people like Jack Welch, Louis Midgley, Bill Hamblin, George Mitton and others who have either been dismissed or marginalized as a result of changes presently occurring at the Institute<\/p>\n
Moving Forward<\/strong><\/p>\nWhatever eventually happens with the Institute, it is crucial that the issues covered under its mandate be dealt with by scholars who without embarrassment are fully engaged, spiritually and intellectually, in increasing both our knowledge and understanding of the Mormon faith and standing up in its defense. \u00a0It would be a terrible loss if the Institute\u2019s mission were reduced to only a \u201csafe\u201d and narrowly defined program involving the digitalization and study of ancient texts, however otherwise beneficial these efforts may be. Ironically, even such a limited agenda could not escape the shadow of apologia since there is no objectivist foundation on which to ground the exegetical method or establish an unconditioned hermeneutic from which to begin.<\/p>\n
To be sure, the malevolent attacks made on the Church by some of its sectarian and secular detractors should not stand as a legitimate exemplar of apologetic posture. \u00a0The work conducted by the Institute (and everywhere else) should be conducted in an inclusive, generous and kind manner\u2014as an expression of the Gospel where service, not winning, is the real goal. \u00a0The goal of an honest apologia should be to expose the failures in the dishonest, misguided, or simply mistaken efforts of others through a high-minded, intellectual and spiritually-guided response; one that is able to draw the honest reader to a more secure ground without neglecting consideration of areas where we too have progress to make. \u00a0It is this aim that distinguishes the very best work done at the Institute from the work of those who would attack, either explicitly or implicitly, what we as a Church hold sacred.\u00a0 All of us who value this approach can hope that the present attempt to create an alternative mission for the Maxwell Institute, one that neglects the reason for its very existence, will be reconsidered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[A guest post by Professor David Earl Bohn, retired professor of political philosophy at Brigham Young University] Recently, the Maxwell Institute announced a significant change of course on its website\u2014one that re-directs the Institute\u2019s focus away from apologetics and Mormon-centered research and toward a more generic emphasis on religious scholarship. The “bloggernacle” had actually been abuzz about rumors of \u00a0these developments since before they were officially confirmed. (For a non-exhaustive sample of related posts and articles see:\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here,\u00a0here, and\u00a0here). Cause for Concern Many of us who care deeply about Mormon research and scholarship have witnessed these developments unfold with some concern.\u00a0 The character of these changes and the actual manner in which they have been carried out thus far have raised serious questions about whether the very raison d’\u00eatre of the Maxwell Institute, including the significant achievements of the\u00a0Mormon Studies Review\u00a0(and its predecessor), are not being undermined or even abandoned. Over time, all institutions necessarily undergo \u201ca change of guard.\u201d For organizations that have clear mandates such as the Maxwell Institute and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (or \u201cFARMS\u201d)\u2014which came under the Institute\u2019s umbrella in 1997\u2014this transition might be expected to bring differences of style and manner, along […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1279,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,53,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-church-history","category-latter-day-saint-thought","category-mormon-studies"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1279"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21216"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21881,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21216\/revisions\/21881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}