617 replies to this topic

[Senator]

jwhitlock, on 22 June 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

No assumption at all. A firing via e-mail is a spineless act that speaks volumes about the character of the person sending e-mail. It's as simple as that.

Do you have an explanation from Bradford himself, why he used the format he did?

[Cobalt-70]

Kevin Christensen, on 22 June 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

I remember what it was like before FARMS started up, before the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon appeared. For the young and and/or forgetful, Sam Taylor gave a talk at Sunstone that I heard in the early 80s, and later saw published in Dialogue.

http://www.dialoguej..._V22N01_116.pdf

After the rise of FARMS and the regular appearances of the Review, we got Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, "Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?," Trinity Journal (Fall 1998).  The Tanners are obsolete.  Now it's the internet.

But you can see how the pendulum has swung. First, LDS scholars ignore the Tanners and other critical polemical works, thinking them to be the irrelevant rantings of angry evangelicals. Farms is established to "prevent uncontested slam dunks," and it does provides some very good work over the years.

But then FARMS/MI, too (mainly through the Review), starts to indulge LDS polemics and ad hominem attacks, not just against counter-cult evangelicals of the Tanners' ilk, but also against legitimate scholars who are publishing in peer-reviewed forums and even prestigious academic presses. Seeking originally to counter the Tanners, certain MI personalities became the polemical Mormon version of not just the Tanners, but Ed Frigging Decker.

Now, maybe, the pendulum is swinging somewhere back toward the middle. Perhaps the Maxwell Institute is not going to ignore critical voices, but neither is it apparently going to be a forum for LDS polemics, personal attacks, and over-the-top defenses of Mormonism.

[why me]

Cushan Rishathaim, on 22 June 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

You're probably right, and I certainly don't pass any sort of judgment against Dan for his response. Dr. Peterson has shared with this board that he has been going through a very difficult time due to the loss of a loved one.  My heart aches for him, and I detest the way his critics have used this event to attack him and his work.  

Notice what I have blackened. And yet, the church brother sends him an email notifying him of his firing. It shows that Dan has strong faith that he continues on. Many would have just said the heck with it and left the fold.

[William Schryver]

Cushan Rishathaim, on 22 June 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Journals change editors.  It happens all the time.

As is quite apparent in this particular change of editorship, it entails much more than would normally attach to such an event.

See my post above: Future Prospects for NAMIRS

Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

[Senator]

Kate, on 22 June 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

I don't have time to read the whole thread, so if someone already asked this, then I apologize for the repeat, but as subscribers to MI, can we make a statement by asking to be refunded for the remaining year?  Just thinking that if enough people did that, it could cause them to pause and think more about this new vision.

Hey, let's all do this for the scouting program as well!!!!

[mfbukowski]

ERayR, on 22 June 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Try this scenario.  Someone detests Dan.  Someone leaks e-mails, etc trying to thwart Dan's direction.  Gerald Bradford gets appointed.  Someone cozies up to Bradford and convinces him that Dan is dangerous.  Bradford, who has been appointed one step beyond his capabilities, known as the peter principle, succumbs to the flattery and we get the mess we now have.

Not so far fetched as I have seen it happen in business several times.  In business it is almost always a costly mistake and it is sometimes fatal to the business.

I see this as a likely scenario, the poor guy might not have a clue about what he was about to get into.  But the point is, he should have known

I mean seriously- if he didn't see it coming that alone is an indication he shouldn't have the job.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

why me, on 22 June 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

How should a brother treat a brother? If the firing is done by email, the brother doing it has become apart of the world and not a very good part of that world. There is no excuse for treating a brother this way.

I suppose there may have been a better way to handle the matter, I don't know the details, nor all of the various players involved nor the time frame for their expectations, but I suspect Jerry Bradford would not claim perfection, nor should he or anyone else be held to that standard.

[ERayR]

Senator, on 22 June 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

I guess if that's your gig, then have at 'er



Typically yes.  But as yet we simply are not privy to the full context.

It is poor form under any context to discharge someone at this level of management in such a manner.  The proper method is to call them into your office and confront them face to face.  I gues that this coupled with the leaks is what bothers me most.  If it had been handled properly an in office meeting would have been held and Dr. Peterson would have been informed of managements decision and offer they were making.  He then could have decided whether to accept or reject their offer of continued participation in that capacity.  Then after all was settled a quiet announcement to the effect that Dr. Peterson was being replaced.  If he had accepted the offer to remain in an advisory capacity that could have been mentioned.

However, the choice was to do it all very publicly.  To discharge him by e-mail then to leak the whole thing in what looks like an attempt to force him to remain as a fund raiser is at the very least is grossly unprofessional.  That amount of unprofessional ism, to me reflects unfavorably on Dr.Bradford's management ability.

If it had been handled well we would not be having this conversation.  We probably would have been discussing the fate of Book of Mormon apologetics. .

[William Schryver]

Cobalt-70, on 22 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

But then FARMS/MI, too (mainly through the Review), starts to indulge LDS polemics and ad hominem attacks, not just against counter-cult evangelicals of the Tanners' ilk, but also against legitimate scholars who are publishing in peer-reviewed forums and even prestigious academic presses.

This is a myth concocted and perpetuated by clever apostates who recognized in this approach a way to manipulate public opinion as to what the Review is like.  There is virtually nothing in the way of "ad hominem attacks" in the Review.  There never has been.

Again, it is a myth whose underlying purpose was to accomplish what happened a little more than a week ago.

Edited by William Schryver, 22 June 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[Kevin Christensen]

Cobalt-70, on 22 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

But you can see how the pendulum has swung. First, LDS scholars ignore the Tanners and other critical polemical works, thinking them to be the irrelevant rantings of angry evangelicals. Farms is established to "prevent uncontested slam dunks," and it does provides some very good work over the years.

But then FARMS/MI, too (mainly through the Review), starts to indulge LDS polemics and ad hominem attacks, not just against counter-cult evangelicals of the Tanners' ilk, but also against legitimate scholars who are publishing in peer-reviewed forums and even prestigious academic presses. Seeking originally to counter the Tanners, certain MI personalities became the polemical Mormon version of not just the Tanners, but Ed Frigging Decker.

Now, maybe, the pendulum is swinging somewhere back toward the middle. Perhaps the Maxwell Institute is not going to ignore critical voices, but neither is it apparently going to be a forum for LDS polemics, personal attacks, and over-the-top defenses of Mormonism.

That is not how I see it at all.  The Review did not come into being just to respond to the Tanners.  (I've read all 23 volumes of the Review, so I know what I'm talking about.)  Publication via any press is an invitation to further review from all comers, not a badge of immunity.

Nothing in the Review has ever come close to Ed Decker. (Mr. "Spires on LDS churches are to impale Jesus when he comes."  You think that is a fair comparison to any writing in the Review" let alone of the Review in general?) Nor have I seen it as a forum for personal attacks.  Nor for over-the-top defenses.  This blanket characterization, unsupported by any specifics does not correspond to what I have read in the Review.  Scholarship with personality, yes.  That means I see the Review as allowing for personality.  I don't always have to agree, but I always know I'm dealing with a person.  Not neutered handpuppets.

Remember that I've been published in the Review several times.  I'm not just a customer, but a contributor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen, 22 June 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[Senator]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 22 June 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Dude
You are not serious.

Like,Totally.

Quote

This is not an assumption. At worst it is just an opinion. At best it is a fact/ I think it is really quite cowardly to fire some one by email.

So you would admit to be operating on an informed level, somewhere between opinion, and fact?

[Freedom]

I really do not understand what the big deal is. It is not like apologetics will stop. FAIR is very capable of fulfilling this role. So few people actually read anything produced by MI as it is. I suspect that there are only perhaps 2 dozen members of the church that post here on a regular basis, making the number of concerned citizens so tiny that this whole issues does not even equate to a tempest in a teapot. There are three sides to every story: his, hers and the truth. We will never know two of the sides.

If the so-called loss of MI is of concern, this seems to imply that FAIR is not equal to the task, so perhaps FAIR needs to re-evaluate their role.

[John Ping Pong]

Cushan Rishathaim, on 22 June 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I suppose there may have been a better way to handle the matter, I don't know the details, nor all of the various players involved nor the time frame for their expectations, but I suspect Jerry Bradford would not claim perfection, nor should he or anyone else be held to that standard.

I think any time you are going to cashier somebody, it is better to do it face-to-face than by e-mail.

Can we all agree on this?

[calmoriah]

Kevin Christensen, on 22 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

That is not how I see it at all.  The Review did not come into being just to respond to the Tanners.  (I've read all 23 volumes of the Review, so I know what I'm talking about.)  Publication via any press is an invitation to further review from all comers, not a badge of immunity.

Nothing in the Review has ever come close to Ed Decker. (Mr. "Spires on LDS churches are to impale Jesus when he comes."  You think that is a fair comparison to any writing in the Review" let alone of the Review in general?) Nor have I seen it as a forum for personal attacks.  Nor for over-the-top defenses.  This blanket characterization, unsupported by any specifics does not correspond to what I have read in the Review.  Scholarship with personality, yes.  That means I see the Review as allowing for personality.  I don't always have to agree, but I always know I'm dealing with a person.  Not neutered handpuppets.

Remember that I've been published in the Review several times.  I'm not just a customer, but a contributor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

As soon as I get my rep points for the day, I'm coming back here.

[why me]

Cobalt-70, on 22 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Now, maybe, the pendulum is swinging somewhere back toward the middle. Perhaps the Maxwell Institute is not going to ignore critical voices, but neither is it apparently going to be a forum for LDS polemics, personal attacks, and over-the-top defenses of Mormonism.

People involved in academia know the consequences of publishing a book or an academic article. It can be critiqued harshly. For example,  orthodox marxists often critique neo marxists. Critcal educators critique 'establishment' educators. And academics can be very defensive and harsh toward one another. It comes with the turf.

And the critic pendulum? Is it heading toward the middle? I don't think so. It is hard hitting, taking President Monson to task with personal attacks, mocking Joseph Smith and bashing are own apologists such as Dan or Will. And with over the top interpretations of church history. What would you suggest we should do to defend the lds church?

[William Schryver]

Cushan Rishathaim, on 22 June 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I suppose there may have been a better way to handle the matter, I don't know the details, nor all of the various players involved nor the time frame for their expectations, but I suspect Jerry Bradford would not claim perfection, nor should he or anyone else be held to that standard.

I do agree with you that, fortunately, it was anything but a perfect coup d'état.  It was executed in a bumbling, amateurish fashion--resulting (to our ultimate favor, I believe) in this unprecedented public dust up.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

William Schryver, on 22 June 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

As is quite apparent in this particular change of editorship, it entails much more than would normally attach to such an event.

See my post above: Future Prospects for NAMIRS

Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

Of course there were reasons for this change.  I addressed this in my initial post in this thread (no. 294 or so).  I'm simply stating that no one in this thread that I know of is privy to all of them, nor the people who they were instigated by.  Changes in editors happen all of the time for various reasons, including a change in direction.  I don't see why you are trying to justify the reason for this change given by Dan's critics as the correct one.

[William Schryver]

Kevin Christensen, on 22 June 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

That is not how I see it at all.  The Review did not come into being just to respond to the Tanners.  (I've read all 23 volumes of the Review, so I know what I'm talking about.)  Publication via any press is an invitation to further review from all comers, not a badge of immunity.

Nothing in the Review has ever come close to Ed Decker. (Mr. "Spires on LDS churches are to impale Jesus when he comes."  You think that is a fair comparison to any writing in the Review" let alone of the Review in general?) Nor have I seen it as a forum for personal attacks.  Nor for over-the-top defenses.  This blanket characterization, unsupported by any specifics does not correspond to what I have read in the Review.  Scholarship with personality, yes.  That means I see the Review as allowing for personality.  I don't always have to agree, but I always know I'm dealing with a person.  Not neutered handpuppets.

Remember that I've been published in the Review several times.  I'm not just a customer, but a contributor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

QFT

This is precisely accurate.

[David T]

I find it fascinating the degree of melodrama that this has raised. I mean, really? Is this really that epic? It's the change in emphasis in publications from one institution on Mormon Scholarship, the results of which will probably not be apparent to the vast majority of those who read it.

It will lose a few angry subscribers, and gain some more that it didn't have before. Maybe some new ones just because of this highly-niche publicity.

Life will go on. The Church will go on. This isn't another Great Apostasy. It's not a Great Reformation. It's the change in management and emphases for a series of magazines.

Some people hate the idea. Others love the idea. Most couldn't care less.

Edited by David T, 22 June 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[Senator]

calmoriah, on 22 June 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

So if your children were fighting, you would only scold the one who didn't usually fight because you didn't expect such behaviour from him while letting the other child off the hook because he was always getting into fights anyway.

Actually I have that very scenario with my kids, and yes I have to treat them differently. "Knock it off!!", solves the problem with one, who knows better, while such a response would only spark further combativeness in the other. I have to approach her with different tone and words.