Popular Post Bill Hamblin Posted June 22, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 22, 2012 This just up on the MI news:http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/news/index.php?id=150&type=news A New Beginning for the Mormon Studies ReviewThe Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship is continually striving to align its work with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University. Our areas of endeavor include the study of LDS scripture and other religious texts and related fields of religious scholarship, including the burgeoning field of Mormon studies. To better serve these goals, last year we renamed our venerable FARMS Review to Mormon Studies Review. For many years the FARMS Review has filled an important niche in the intellectual life of its many readers under the vigorous editorship of Professor Daniel C. Peterson and his associates, Louis C. Midgley, George L. Mitton, and, more recently, Gregory L. Smith and Robert White. We thank these colleagues and the many contributing writers to the Review for their industry and scholarship over the past twenty-three years.We are proud of the accomplishments of the FARMS Review. But to better position the new Mormon Studies Review within its academic discipline, we are now assembling a board of scholars in this field to advise us and will appoint a new editorial team. We regret that we must suspend publication during this period of reorganization and reorientation, but we are certain that our current—and many new—readers will find the new Mormon Studies Review a valuable scholarly resource for the discipline.We will be in contact with our subscribers shortly with information about a subscription refund. We have not yet set a launch date for the newReview, but we will post further developments on our website as they occur.I note, for the record, that none of the editors except Dan has had any direct communication with Bradford about this decision. They were never informed that they have been dismissed. Indeed, Lou Midgley is out of the country on vacation, and does not have internet access, and has no idea what's going on. Even if this change is a good idea, treating people this way, after years of service, is simply shameful. 9
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 This just up on the MI news:http://maxwellinstit...d=150&type=newsIs it sad to say I am not surprised in the least?
Ron Beron Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) This just up on the MI news:http://maxwellinstit...d=150&type=newsI note, for the record, that none of the editors except Dan has had any direct communication with Bradford about this decision. They were never informed that they have been dismissed. Indeed, Lou Midgley is out of the country on vacation, and does not have internet access, and has no idea what's going on. Even if this change is a good idea, treating people this way, after years of service, is simply shameful.While in the long run this may appear to be beneficial to the overall academic spirit of the church and BYU I believe they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. To distance oneself from the intellectual watershed these individuals have contributed may prove to be an error. Edited June 22, 2012 by Ron Beron 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Hey maybe we could get Senator in here and tell us how courageous this really is. I really am not that involved with this stuff, but having worked in the real world if I think this is really sheepish.
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Is it sad to say I am not surprised in the least?calmoriah On the other thread you suggested this may be "Dr, Bradford's method of dealing with unpleasant tasks. It very well may be but it does not speak very highly of him to dismiss the staff through a news bite. It seems that compared to the others Dr. Peterson got the royal treatment. It indicates arrogance or at the very least a disregard for others. Not a good beginning for a change of direction. 1
KevinG Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Perhaps what I posted on the other thread is more appropriate here:"I'm still a few pages back scratching my head over the reflexive assumption that apologetics (defense of the faith) is somehow opposed to respect of all faiths and/or scholarship?!I have managed to clarify many misconceptions of Mormonism with friends while appreciating their religion and faith. I've also seen this done quite deftly by people like Professor Peterson (Islamic studies anyone?)Someone is selling a canard that apologetics is necessarily contentious and I fear from the external evidence it may be succeeding in shutting up voices that support the Saints in the face of calumny.As an amateur I am not beholden to an institute or college but having cogent responses and real historical documents to draw upon from places like FARMS, the Maxwell Institute and other good sources is valuable to my own learning and teaching.The quality of apologetic and historical materials has noticeably increased over the last couple of decades I've been involved in the LDS Church and in discussions about my faith.If any mistake was made by Dr. Peterson it would be his condescending to address ridiculous accusations in public forums like this one allowing the critics and yes enemies of the church to drag him into the mud, then point fingers and blame him for the fight. A tactic they still use by quoting a single statement in the Joseph Smith History about God's displeasure with religious professors contending to say "the Mormons started it!"The saddest part of all is that it seems the Maxwell institute is taking the stance that you can research Mormonism but you cannot appear to be actively defending Mormonism at the same time.While I understand academic and editorial priorities changing over time I hope the Maxwell Institute does not throw out the baby with the bathwater because a critical trend to vilify apologetic activities." 2
Kenngo1969 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The offer of a refund seems a tacit admission that many people aren't going to be happy with the direction The Review is taking.
David T Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) The offer of a refund seems a tacit admission that many people aren't going to be happy with the direction The Review is taking. No, it seems an admission that there will be no more issues this year. Something specifically stated in the release."We regret that we must suspend publication during this period of reorganization and reorientation, but we are certain that our current—and many new—readers will find the new Mormon Studies Review a valuable scholarly resource for the discipline." Edited June 22, 2012 by David T 1
Cushan Rishathaim Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I note, for the record, that none of the editors except Dan has had any direct communication with Bradford about this decision. They were never informed that they have been dismissed. Indeed, Lou Midgley is out of the country on vacation, and does not have internet access, and has no idea what's going on. Even if this change is a good idea, treating people this way, after years of service, is simply shameful.I agree, and it makes me feel very bad for these men who have done so much. However, I would simply add that I suspect that this is a direct result of the plethora of inquires the MI has received regarding this matter, and the very public nature of this event. Unfortunately, it would seem that under the circumstance that the MI felt forced to make this public announcement before they would have liked. I would like to express public gratitude for the service that these men have rendered over the years in editing this important journal.Wow, thank goodness for the edit feature! Edited June 22, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim
Bill Hamblin Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 I agree, and it makes me feel very bad for these men who have done so much. However, I would simply add that I suspect that this is a direct result of the plethora of inquires the MI has received regarding this matter, and the very public nature of this event. Unfortunately, it would seem that under the circumstance that the MI felt forced to make this pubic announcement before they would have liked. I would like to express public gratitude for the service that these men have rendered over the years in editing this important journal.Well, at least they could have emailed them like they did Dan. The other four associate editors don't even deserve that much respect.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 I should also add that in any professional organization, the old editor is never released until the new editor has been chosen and is in place ready to editor. Furthermore, the old editor is always part of the committee to select the new editor. None of this is happening at the Institute.
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I agree, and it makes me feel very bad for these men who have done so much. However, I would simply add that I suspect that this is a direct result of the plethora of inquires the MI has received regarding this matter, and the very public nature of this event. Unfortunately, it would seem that under the circumstance that the MI felt forced to make this pubic announcement before they would have liked. I would like to express public gratitude for the service that these men have rendered over the years in editing this important journal.As I outlined on the other thread none of this 'dust up' would have happened had Dr. Bradford handled this correctly. Edited June 22, 2012 by ERayR
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I should also add that in any professional organization, the old editor is never released until the new editor has been chosen and is in place ready to editor. Furthermore, the old editor is always part of the committee to select the new editor. None of this is happening at the Institute.An indication this action was taken in haste and in response to some perceived emergency. 1
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Well, at least they could have emailed them like they did Dan. The other four associate editors don't even deserve that much respect.To restate it smacks of arrogance and lack of concern for others. If this announcement is in response to public concern they are in panic mode and damage control and not doing a very good job. Edited June 22, 2012 by ERayR
Cushan Rishathaim Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Well, at least they could have emailed them like they did Dan. The other four associate editors don't even deserve that much respect.That is unfortunate, and makes me feel bad. I will also add that I have agreed with many of your assessments, including this point, which I felt really nailed the issue:What I find objectionable is that the resources, personnel, time, and money that were originally dedicated to the FARMS mission have been diverted to other projects related to the new vision of its mission, while systematically dismantling the elements of the original mission, as most can be most starkly seen by Dan’s recent dismissal as editor of the Mormon Studies Review. So I actually am in agreement.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 An indication this action was taken in haste and in response to some perceived emergency.Or someone thought the timing was convenient....misjudged thinking it wouldn't cause as big of a splash if done this way and at this time (when campus is dead for one thing).
Duncan Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I am wondering what brought on all these dismissals on and what brought on Dr. Peterson's termination? I just wondering if I missed a post or something because it seems to have come out of no where. As I said I have nothing but the utmost respect for Bro. Peterson!
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I should also add that in any professional organization, the old editor is never released until the new editor has been chosen and is in place ready to editor. Furthermore, the old editor is always part of the committee to select the new editor. None of this is happening at the Institute.Mormon Studies Review Editor Selection Committee, 2012: Edited June 22, 2012 by William Schryver 2
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 It is now time to fight back. I think that the people on this forum who live in the area of the maxwell institute should begin a picket line. And voice their disdain for such treatment. It is obvious that certain people wish to destroy the journal. Time to raise our voices and claim the initiative.
wenglund Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Mormon Studies Review Editor Selection Committee, 2012:I can't tell....are there any moderators from this board in that picture? (just kidding)Thanks, -Wade Englund-
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 This just up on the MI news:http://maxwellinstit...d=150&type=newsI note, for the record, that none of the editors except Dan has had any direct communication with Bradford about this decision. They were never informed that they have been dismissed. Indeed, Lou Midgley is out of the country on vacation, and does not have internet access, and has no idea what's going on. Even if this change is a good idea, treating people this way, after years of service, is simply shameful.And may I add that a editorial boycott should be in place by lds academics and scholars. People should not support such underhanded tactics.
Popular Post Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) It is now time to fight back. I think that the people on this forum who live in the area of the maxwell institute should begin a picket line. And voice their disdain for such treatment. It is obvious that certain people wish to destroy the journal. Time to raise our voices and claim the initiative.No. Whatever occurs should be done with respect for the Church as it is what funds and oversees the MI. The last thing that Dan and others involved probably want is anything that trashes the reputation of the institute they have worked to build up over the years. Before anything is done, wait to hear from those who have actually suffered from the actions of Brother Bradford to see what they want. They may just want to handled it in their own way, in their own time and the worse thing that could be done is for someone from the outside to get things even more contentious.It is obvious that certain people wish to destroy the journal.And what you are considering doing is likely to do more damage.I highly doubt that Brother Bradford or anyone who works for him wants to destroy the Journal. They just want to take it in the direction they want as opposed to where it has been in the past. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, as Bill stated. What was wrong is the ineffective management actions and that can be addressed without overreacting and calling for a strike, etc. Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah 8
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I am wondering what brought on all these dismissals on and what brought on Dr. Peterson's termination? I just wondering if I missed a post or something because it seems to have come out of no where. As I said I have nothing but the utmost respect for Bro. Peterson!Being in the forefront of the battle is a dangerous place and Dan was in the forefront of the battle.
Recommended Posts