My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[mfbukowski]

After some help doing research on this, which I am totally terrible at, the help graciously provided by a fellow poster here who shall remain anonymous unless he/she wants to acknowledge the effort, I have come to the following conclusion:

I think that the initial leak was probably delivered somehow to Kevin Graham, who then leaked it to Scratch on the other board.

I have no special information on this- just looking in detail at threads on the other board. It is not that I am being all mysterious it is just that we are not supposed to link to posts over there, and even though there appear to be ways of doing it on the sly, I am probably already on the mods bad side here anyway.

But the first inkling of this was clearly from Kevin Graham, who just posted about the possibility of some "changes" to be, and then Scratch, the "malevolent stalker", on June 16th started the thread which finally broke the story which he claimed came from one of his "sources".

It's all there for the finding if you don't mind wading around in the muck to dig it out, as my friendly poster did for me.

Edit: I think I will re-post this and start another thread.

Edited June 25, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

It is highly unlikely that this was not vetted with the Board before the deed was done.

Wasn't Dr. Peterson part of the Board?

[Calm]

As a small time observer and excessive worrier, I wonder the LDS Church is on its way to mainstreaming similar to the Community of Christ, ejecting its unique doctrine and becoming increasingly Protestant. If that is the case, what will the church do with all those temples?

Highly unlikely. While this is very important to those it directly concerns, the event is unlikely to have any effect outside the immediate 'surroundings' and it certainly has no impact anywhere on any doctrinal stance of the Church.

[USU78]

It's about time we all just shut down yBu . . . nothing good ever came from that place except for the individuals who made FARMS and FAIR what they became.

Everything the administration there does turns things petrid and gooey.

Want an adopted alma mater whose studentbody's % of Mormon attendance is exceeded only slightly by yBu?

Become an Aggie.

University administrators are a miserable lot . . . and yBu's have tended, from St. Ernest forward, more miserable than most and much more highly priggish and obnoxious.

Eschew the cougar.

He only bites you in the butt.

[mfbukowski]

It's about time we all just shut down yBu . . . nothing good ever came from that place except for the individuals who made FARMS and FAIR what they became.

Everything the administration there does turns things petrid and gooey.

Want an adopted alma mater whose studentbody's % of Mormon attendance is exceeded only slightly by yBu?

Become an Aggie.

University administrators are a miserable lot . . . and yBu's have tended, from St. Ernest forward, more miserable than most and much more highly priggish and obnoxious.

Eschew the cougar.

He only bites you in the butt.

Hey USU- good to see you!

[Calm]

First gtaggart, Kerry and now USU, it is almost worth it to have these guys show up.

(anyone else I missed of long time posters long gone but not forgotten who have peeked in to make a comment or two or three?)

Edited June 25, 2012 by calmoriah

[Aliwe]

As a small time observer and excessive worrier, I wonder the LDS Church is on its way to mainstreaming similar to the Community of Christ, ejecting its unique doctrine and becoming increasingly Protestant. If that is the case, what will the church do with all those temples?

Well, the empty Catholic Cathedrals in Europe are leased out to bands like Tangerine Dream to do concerts.

[Nemesis]

Well, the empty Catholic Cathedrals in Europe are leased out to bands like Tangerine Dream to do concerts.

Once again what does this have to do with anything? Knock off random derails and actually think about what you are posting.

Nemesis

[Scott Lloyd]

University administrators are a miserable lot . . . and yBu's have tended, from St. Ernest forward, more miserable than most and much more highly priggish and obnoxious.

Careful. Two former BYU administrators are now members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

And USU78, it is good to see you back.,

[CASteinman]

I suppose it is done and people do it, but you young apologists don't ever do that to your employer.

It is far worse, what this employer did to an employee.

Your call for no letters has a problem. The "manager" of this situation performed so badly, so horribly amateurish in this action, that it seriously calls into question his capabilities. Moreover, that he has tolerated the presence of one and possibly more moles harassing Daniel Peterson from behind a veil is additional failure to lead.

I am not speaking as a novice on these things. For the last 10 years I have been paid hundreds of dollars an hour on problems such as this.

Note -- NONE of this has anything to do with Bradford's decision, which is a decision that can be understood even if not agreed with and is certainly within the reasonable rights and responsibilities of his position. Rather, this is about his capacity as a leader of that organization. He may not be utterly incompetent, but this series of events gives cause to wonder and I guarantee that if I were his line supervisor, I would let him know he was on the bubble over this -- not the decision, but the way he administered this whole deal.

[CASteinman]

The one-sentence BYU statement to Stack speaks volumes, indeed. That is the most it could say, but it was enough to signal the fact that it stood behind Dr. Bradford. Dr. Bradford's actions were BYU's, and the Board of Trustees'. It is highly unlikely that this was not vetted with the Board before the deed was done. Ever since Wilkenson's administration, BYU's public decisions have been very deliberative.

I agree. I do not know Dr. Peterson, but I suspect he is rather trusting and naive about those around and above him. I do not say that as a criticism. In a way, I am probably like that too, although I have been bit a few times now and perhaps that had given me more cause to pay attention. In addition, I think if Dr. Peterson had been paying attention, he may have well detected the writing on the wall.

Nevertheless, even with full board approval and even if directed by a full vote of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12, this was very very badly handled by Bradford. As I said before, if I were his boss, I would tell him "I thought I could trust you to do a better job than this".

[mfbukowski]

I agree. I do not know Dr. Peterson, but I suspect he is rather trusting and naive about those around and above him. I do not say that as a criticism. In a way, I am probably like that too, although I have been bit a few times now and perhaps that had given me more cause to pay attention. In addition, I think if Dr. Peterson had been paying attention, he may have well detected the writing on the wall.

Nevertheless, even with full board approval and even if directed by a full vote of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12, this was very very badly handled by Bradford. As I said before, if I were his boss, I would tell him "I thought I could trust you to do a better job than this".

I joined the church at age 31 after having a fair amount of worldly experience and have never been able to believe how naive Mormons tend to be, even "sophisticated" ones.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I joined the church at age 31 after having a fair amount of worldly experience and have never been able to believe how naive Mormons tend to be, even "sophisticated" ones.

That's because we are taught what to think, we are not taught how to think. There is a vast chasm of difference between the two approaches. Critical thinking skills have been the fundamental greatest weakness in church teachings about the Gospel. We are never taught how to use them, but we are taught what to believe, and with all our hearts, and go with testimony everytime contradictory evidence shows up. It WILL catch up to us, if it hasn't already in our time. I am not criticizing, I am simply observing the obvious.......

[mfbukowski]

That's because we are taught what to think, we are not taught how to think. There is a vast chasm of difference between the two approaches. Critical thinking skills have been the fundamental greatest weakness in church teachings about the Gospel. We are never taught how to use them, but we are taught what to believe, and with all our hearts, and go with testimony everytime contradictory evidence shows up. It WILL catch up to us, if it hasn't already in our time. I am not criticizing, I am simply observing the obvious.......

Honestly I think the problem is that not enough people study contemporary philosophy- it is seen as suspicious.

The philosophical question is whether or not one is enough of a literalist to think that factual information which is empirically verifiable has anything to do with what one takes on faith.

I think it does not. I think my position is probably closest to what might be called "Wittgensteinian fideism". Fortunately I took that position before I joined the church, studying William James and the Pragmatists like Dewey, and Pierce. Otherwise I would not have believed any of it or seen testimony as anything other than indigestion or at worst, marginal psychosis.

Wittgenstein and fideism

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein did not write systematically about religion, though he did lecture on the topic. Some of his students' notes have been collected and published. On the other hand, it has been asserted that religion as a "form of life" is something that intrigued Wittgenstein to a great degree. In his 1967 article, entitled "Wittgensteinian Fideism," Kai Nielsen argues that certain aspects of Wittgenstein's thought have been interpreted by Wittgensteinians in a "fideistic" manner. According to this position, religion is a self-contained—and primarily expressive—enterprise, governed by its own internal logic or “grammar.” This view—commonly called Wittgensteinian fideism—states: (1) that religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; (2) that religious concepts and discourse are essentially self-referential; and (3) that religion cannot be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism#Wittgenstein_and_fideism

[CASteinman]

That's because we are taught what to think, we are not taught how to think.

This is a deeply cynical opinion. It is not a statement of fact.

[Cobalt-70]

Leaking private correspondence or performance information to a third party. Like I said "If"

I don't see any confidential performance information in Dr. Bradford's email. Moreover, the email is nothing but complimentary to Peterson. I don't see a problem. It is not good that it leaked, and they should internally investigate who leaked it, but I can't see that it is actionable. The only personal and embarrassing things that came out were in Peterson's own email, which he sent to 18 recipients, which effectively means that he published it himself.

[CASteinman]

The only personal and embarrassing things that came out were in Peterson's own email, which he sent to 18 recipients, which effectively means that he published it himself.

Absolutely incorrect.

[Cobalt-70]

Interesting article. It seems Mr. Bradford is in the wrong position; what he seems to want to function in the capacity of the Dean of Religion at BYU. There is a disconnect between the role of the Department of Religion and the Maxwell Institute. This would point to a confusion among those leaders to whom Bradford reports. This is becoming like Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby story; everytime we try to grasp it, it becomes a bigger mess.

The BYU Department of Religion is not really in the business of academic Mormon studies. The mission of the Religion department is to "assist individuals in their efforts to come unto Christ." Basically, it is an extension of the Church Education System--a sophisticated and glorified Institute program. If members of the Religion Department want to do academic Mormon studies--and many of them make fine contributions--then that's great, but that is not their primary mission. Members of the Religion department are no more entitled to a special place at the Mormon studies table than faculty from other departments, such as English, History, Fine Arts, Sociology, Anthropology, etc.

[Cobalt-70]

As a small time observer and excessive worrier, I wonder the LDS Church is on its way to mainstreaming similar to the Community of Christ, ejecting its unique doctrine and becoming increasingly Protestant. If that is the case, what will the church do with all those temples?

This mainstreaming process has been going on since 1890. It is a much slower process, however, for the larger and more conservative LDS Church than for the Community of Christ, and in the LDS Church, old doctrines never truly die. Ultimately, though, I think the equilibrium point for the LDS Church will be a state where Mormons who believe in Adam God, Heavenly Mother, and the Trinity may partake from the same Sacrament tray.

[CASteinman]

The BYU Department of Religion is not really in the business of academic Mormon studies. The mission of the Religion department is to "assist individuals in their efforts to come unto Christ." Basically, it is an extension of the Church Education System--a sophisticated and glorified Institute program

Actually, the mission of BYU is essentially the same thing -- and BYU -- the whole school -- is an extension of the Church Education System.

[CASteinman]

I think the equilibrium point for the LDS Church will be a state where Mormons who believe in Adam God, Heavenly Mother, and the Trinity may partake from the same Sacrament tray.

Then the equilibrium point has already been achieved.

[Cobalt-70]

Then the equilibrium point has already been achieved.

I should say, without two of them being officially considered "wrong," and without the Heavenly Mother believer being censured for praying to her.

Edited June 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CASteinman]

I should say, without two of them being officially considered "wrong," and without the Heavenly Mother believer being censured for praying to her.

Well, at that point it would not really be equilibrium. It would be out of balance and apostate.

[The Nehor]

That's because we are taught what to think, we are not taught how to think. There is a vast chasm of difference between the two approaches. Critical thinking skills have been the fundamental greatest weakness in church teachings about the Gospel. We are never taught how to use them, but we are taught what to believe, and with all our hearts, and go with testimony everytime contradictory evidence shows up. It WILL catch up to us, if it hasn't already in our time. I am not criticizing, I am simply observing the obvious.......

This is not obvious or even correct. Even if it were true my education did not come solely from the church. Part came from revelations, from parents, from friends, from schooling, and from some hard knocks.

I critiqued (and dismissed) your arguments and observations proving that despite the handicap of being raised in the church I have at least some semblance of critical thinking skills.

[Calm]

I critiqued (and dismissed) your arguments and observations proving that despite the handicap of being raised in the church I have at least some semblance of critical thinking skills.

Ah, but can you label them with the right logical fallacy?