My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute
#81
Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:34 AM
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
#82
Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:39 AM
Log, on 21 June 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#83
Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:43 AM
Cobalt-70, on 21 June 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:
You never give up on the reconsturctionist position; you are at least consistent. Unfortunately, it is a very poor understanding of facts, but thank you for sharing your opinion again, and again, and again.
“When from Thy stern tutoring, I would quickly flee, turn me from my Tarshish to where is best for me. Help me in my Nineveh to serve with love and truth; not on a hillside posted, mid shade of gourd or booth. When my modest suffering seems so vexing, wrong, and sore, may I recall what freely flowed from each and every pore. Dear Lord of the Abba Cry, Help me in my duress to endure it well enough and to say, . . . 'Nevertheless.'” - Neal A. Maxwell
#84
Posted 21 June 2012 - 12:51 AM
why me, on 20 June 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#85
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:13 AM
Scott Lloyd, on 21 June 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:
This is often overlooked. In the heat of the moment, the email is the only outlet if that person is away from the workplace and also out of the country. However, I was once told that one should never respond in the heat of the moment but to wait until the emotional waters calim. But this is not easy to do when the emotional turbulence happens.
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
#86
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:17 AM
Scott Lloyd, on 21 June 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:
Whoever it is, their intent was to harm Dan. Moles do not need to get it always right because their intent is not to always give accurate information. Information can be given only to spread a rumor or do harm.
Someone seems to using the same informant on a different board. Although I have often wondered if this informant resembles Harvey in that Jimmie Stewart movie. Only in the imagination.
... I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)
#87
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:18 AM
why me, on 21 June 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#88
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:22 AM
why me, on 21 June 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:
Someone seems to using the same informant on a different board. Although I have often wondered if this informant resembles Harvey in that Jimmie Stewart movie. Only in the imagination.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#89
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:37 AM
#90
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:44 AM
Bill Hamblin, on 20 June 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:
Last week, Gerald Bradford ([email protected], 801-422-8619) Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute ([email protected], 801-422-9229), dismissed Dan Peterson ([email protected])--arguably the most prominent contemporary LDS apologist--as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, where he has served for twenty-three years.
Peterson wishes to continue the traditional heritage of FARMS, providing cutting edge scholarship and apologetics on LDS scripture. Bradford wants to move the Institute in a different direction, focusing on more secular-style studies that will be accessible and acceptable to non-Mormon scholars. Bradford is especially opposed to LDS apologetics, which he wants to terminate entirely as part of the mission of the Institute.
This event concludes a nearly decade-long struggle for the soul of FARMS and the Institute. ..... Astute observers will note that there has been a steady decline in both quantity and quality of Institute publications over the past few years.
I have had no desire or inclination to publicly comment on this situation.
I think you just did, Bill.
My LinkedIn Profile (thanks for the idea ttribe!)
"If we can't have frank discussions about our flaws, then we are domineering and repressive. Pretending that everything is perfect is nonsense - if it were we'd be sipping cocoa and crunching biscotti with Enoch in that great big Barnes & Nobles in the sky..." -- mercyngrace 1/12/10
#91
Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:58 AM
When you're friend is being pilloried it becomes extremely difficult to remain silent.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
#92
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:06 AM
* I have some specific reasons to believe that those to whom I copied my response to Jerry Bradford were not the source of the leak.
* I have no reason to believe that any General Authority was involved in any way in the decision to terminate my editorship of the Review.
* Nobody at the Institute has been disciplined in any way for the leak.
* My travels were not financed by the Maxwell Institute. I was in Israel because a wealthy family hired me to take them there; they paid my expenses. I'm currently in Switzerland, entirely on my own dime. (And it's breathtakingly expensive.) I'm biding my time -- didn't want to undergo jet lag too many more times this summer -- until I'm scheduled to lecture on a cruise around the United Kingdom. The travel company will be paying for that. I'm trying to use my time here in the Alps (a place that I love, and where I served my mission) to get some work done. Unfortunately, I've been somewhat distracted of late.
* I knew that this would be a melancholy trip here, because the last two times I was in Switzerland and Austria, it was with my brother, to whom I introduced the place and who came to love it as I do. We were last here -- including the very same small chalet-hotel in Lauterbrunnen where I'm now typing -- in 2010, when we came over for the Passion Play in Oberammergau. My only sibling, my very close friend, and the last surviving member (besides me) of my nuclear family, he died suddenly at the end of March. I almost decided not to come here, thinking that the painful associations might be unbearable. They've been tough indeed, but this recent unpleasantness with the Institute has compounded the problem immeasurably.
* I don't intend to "go nuclear." I love the Church, the University, and the Institute.
* I'm not conscious of having done anything wrong.
* There are, as I see it, two main factors at play here: First is a genuine dislike for apologetics on the part of a relatively small group, including, to my very recent surprise, a minority faction within the Institute. Second is a serious misunderstanding, on the part of certain Institute and University administrators, of some of my actions, attitudes, and statements, which is very difficult to clear up from thousands of miles away.
* I'm still hoping for a resolution that will be satisfactory to all concerned. I'm an eternal optimist, though I admit that, in this case, things seem to be stacked against me.
* I really appreciate the expressions of support here. I've been receiving emails from many very kind people, and I know that some have written to or called the Maxwell Institute. I'm grateful for all of this. I hope that the messages to the Institute will have some impact.
With best wishes to everyone,
Dan Peterson
#93
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:07 AM
Scott Lloyd, on 21 June 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:
When you're friend is being pilloried it becomes extremely difficult to remain silent.
A sentiment I completely understand.
I wish Dan the best.
My LinkedIn Profile (thanks for the idea ttribe!)
"If we can't have frank discussions about our flaws, then we are domineering and repressive. Pretending that everything is perfect is nonsense - if it were we'd be sipping cocoa and crunching biscotti with Enoch in that great big Barnes & Nobles in the sky..." -- mercyngrace 1/12/10
#94
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:07 AM
Is this something the BYU Board of Directors might get involved in?
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
#95
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:26 AM
Uther, on 21 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:
I have a strong conviction that this is a strategic move instigated from levels way above Gerald Bradford.
I doubt it.
Uther, on 21 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:
Reading Hamblins thoughts gives a frigthening insight into the minds of the current danites
Ever unable to concieve of the tiniest error on their own behaf.
Danites? Really. Come on, get real. There's nothing in error from Hamblin's post as far as I or anyone else outside the immediate scoop can tell.
Uther, on 21 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:
Always pointing fingers at enemies wronging them.
I think a mirror would serve the best aim for an enemy.
Then you seem to need one youself.
Uther, on 21 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:
It is one thing to call others to repentance, but it is a harder thing to repent.
Who are you talking about? Bill Hamblin called someone to repentence? To whom was is?
Uther, on 21 June 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:
Maby there is something to learn from the Nephites?
Yup. Don't leak confidential information and don't support apostates.
Edited by Darren10, 21 June 2012 - 02:26 AM.
#96
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:30 AM
mfbukowski, on 21 June 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:
Yup. Here's what Hamblin said:
Quote
If they desire to clear anything up, correct any incorrect information it looks as though they have an open invite to do so.
#98
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:41 AM
Log, on 21 June 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:
Is this something the BYU Board of Directors might get involved in?
That's why I asked for confirmation if the Maxwell Institute is located on BYU Provo campus. If so (and I'm now 99% certain it is) I certainly hope that the BYU Board of Directors gets involved. I don't mind writing them either. Afterall, BYU calls me for donations.
#99
Posted 21 June 2012 - 02:45 AM
Darren10, on 21 June 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:
I just read Dan Petersen's post and so I think we can all safely discard the assumption that LDS "higher up" officials were involved in this. My underastanding is that the LDS Church does give lots of leway for decision making. Even at BYU. Personally, I like that. I wanted to be very specific as to the conditions when I would oppose LDS funds helping an institution. I truly do not want the LDS Church dictating how these institutions are run. And they don't.
#100
Posted 21 June 2012 - 03:22 AM
sethpayne, on 21 June 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:
A sentiment I completely understand.
I wish Dan the best.
Seth, just want to say that I have very recently become acquainted with your blog, and I am very impressed with your calm and reasoned approach. I have seen you described on another board as "one of the good guys," and as I look back over past interactions we've had here, I'm at long last coming to realize that.
Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders.
If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least.
An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it.
... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




