Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Bizarre indeed. None of them gave any reason whatsoever. I hope everyone understand how highly unprofessional it is to insist on censoring an academic article WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ IT. Maybe the article should not have been published. But no one who opposed its publication was in any position to make that judgment.I agree that this alleged conduct is highly unprofessional. Ironically, this is the very reason I doubt it's what they did. But I don't hesitate to admit that the way this is unfolding lends a lot of credibility to your version of the story.
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 If Peterson's leaked email would have been diplomatic and congenial, this whole thing would have a different tone. Granted, he wasn't expecting it to be leaked, but he still should have let things cool down and not burned any bridges before responding. Bradford's original email talked of imense respect for Peterson and a desire to continue working with him. If Peterson would have gone with that riff, this whole thing would be a non-issue.OK you win it was all Dr. Peterson's fault. He had no right objecting to seeing a very successful work he had put blood, sweat, tears and love into for 23 years preempted in a direction he didn't see as fruitful. He had no right to expect respect from a supervisor in his dismissal and above all where does he get off expecting their interaction to be private. Sorry I am getting the picture finally.
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Dan's public response to his dismissal.http://www.patheos.c...expression.htmlWow.And some posters here want us to give Bradford some kind of benefit of the doubt?The most charitable way of characterizing this is gross incompetence on Bradford's part. In reality, it's probably quite a bit worse.And what on earth is he doing about the leaks to anti-Mormons?
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Is there a way to get the article published where Dehlin doesn't have the ability to have GA's intervene? I mean what's to stop G. Miller from posting it on a message board if size wasn't an issue? It seems like this paper has turned into the boogey man.NemesisDo you mean Greg Smith? I think so. Anyway, I'm sure Greg will now (assuming that the current decisions continue to stand) seek an alternative publishing avenue. But, as I understand things, it was its continuing presence in the table of contents of the long-delayed issue of the Review was the point of conflict. If the conflict is now resolved (something not entirely certain yet), then it will become appropriate to seek other publication options.By the way, I think it is a great article. Its importance cannot be understated, especially given these most recent developments.Edited to clarify one sentence. Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver
Nemesis Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 when you say "G. Miller" do you mean the author of the paper, because it wasn't G. Miller if I'm thinking of the right paper.Is this an offer?Mistake I meant G. Smith and will edit the entry.Nemesis
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 CFR that I even addressed Dan the person, much less used negative adjectives to describe him. All I said is that he likes a provocative style of apologetics. If Bill Hamblin happens to reads this post, could you respond to this? I'm not saying anything here I'd expect people to argue with. Dan has explained multiple times that he wanted the Journal to be provocative and to be willing to comment on the personalities of the authors, did he not?No he did not. Ever. He said that the intellectual history behind a person's writings is of fundamental importance to understand the writing. Books don't occur in a vacuum. They are part of a broader social context and a personal intellectual and spiritual context. You cannot engage a book, except at the most vacuous level, without understanding an author and his times. Why else do people write intellectual biographies of the great writers and intellectuals? It is a standard part of intellectual history. 2
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Dan has explained multiple times that he wanted the Journal to be provocative and to be willing to comment on the personalities of the authors, did he not?No. That is a subtle distortion of what Dan has consistently said. But I will permit him to clarify the issue, should he so choose.
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Wow.And some posters here want us to give Bradford some kind of benefit of the doubt?The most charitable way of characterizing this is gross incompetence on Bradford's part. In reality, it's probably quite a bit worse.And what on earth is he doing about the leaks to anti-Mormons?The same conclusion I had come to about 6 - 8 hours ago.
Duncan Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Duncan, the explanation given by Brother Bradford was the delay in publication of the Review and some of the suitability of the articles. What caused the delays was not specified, it appears that Brother Bradford disagrees with any apologetic writings which have been consistent fare in the Review in the past and which the other editors would have been involved in. He apparently desires for the Review to be primarily academic, making a (faulty imo) distinction between academics and apologetics.See Dr. Hamblin's post at the beginning of the thread here: aha!
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I agree that this alleged conduct is highly unprofessional. Ironically, this is the very reason I doubt it's what they did. But I don't hesitate to admit that the way this is unfolding lends a lot of credibility to your version of the story.Well, frankly, you don't know anything about it. I've had several independent eyewitness accounts from people who have had discussions with Bradford about the article, and they all consistently said that he adamantly refused to read the paper. His position was that the decision has been made, so there is nothing to discuss. It's absolutely shocking. Edited June 23, 2012 by Bill Hamblin
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 No he did not. Ever. He said that the intellectual history behind a person's writings is of fundamental importance to understand the writing. Books don't occur in a vacuum. They are part of a broader social context and a personal intellectual and spiritual context. You cannot engage a book, except at the most vacuous level, without understanding an author and his times. Why else do people write intellectual biographies of the great writers and intellectuals? It is a standard part of intellectual history.This.This is how I also understand Dan's position on the relevance of the person ("hominem") in critical reviews.
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 CFR that I even addressed Dan the person, much less used negative adjectives to describe him. All I said is that he likes a provocative style of apologetics. If Bill Hamblin happens to reads this post, could you respond to this? I'm not saying anything here I'd expect people to argue with. Dan has explained multiple times that he wanted the Journal to be provocative and to be willing to comment on the personalities of the authors, did he not?"Mean-spirited"? "Hate filled"? In the same sentence as you were talking about both Dan and BIll?This was how you set the stage in another thread. And you build upon it in this thread as follows:" It's as if Peterson interpreted the directive "don't let them have any uncontested slam dunks" as a license to commit flagrant fouls on people who were going for legitimate dunks if doing so was the only way to contest it."So much for fake protestations of innocence. 1
Nemesis Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Is this an offer?This site would not be opposed to the idea, but I think there would be higher profile sites that would be better venues.Nemesis
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) NONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THE PUBLICATION HAD ACTUALLY READ THE PAPER!!!!Let me repeat this for clarification purposes:NONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THE PUBLICATION HAD ACTUALLY READ THE PAPER!!!! Not a single one. And, indeed, not a single one has read it to this day. Bradford expressly told Dan he did not want to read the article.I was just informed by private email that I am mistaken. After the affair was concluded the leaker (yes, everyone knows who it is) did read the article. Here was the result, according to my informant:"Not quite true. The leak read it after he leaked. He had a 2 hr meeting with Lou [Midgley] and Dan [Peterson] where they asked for specific examples of problems, language he didn't like, etc. He didn't give a single one. ... He was basically opposed to the idea of us reviewing Dehlin's work. Which is why he would leak before reading. The content didn't matter. And, he admitted he skimmed it when reading. He did attack Smith, though, for including the names of the people he was citing, because this supposedly proved he was on a witch hunt."I was under the illusion that scholars are supposed to cite the sources they are quoting. None of the other people who wanted the article censored, including Bradford, have ever read it.I think it is extraordinarily telling that the leaker himself could not cite a single example of ad hominem in the article after he had read it, that he wanted to censor before he read it for being ad hominem. Edited June 23, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 1
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 This site would not be opposed to the idea, but I think there would be higher profile sites that would be better venues.NemesisI've passed on the offer, but I suspect you are right.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 In order to potentially understand Dr. Peterson's thinking on understanding the author of a book, it is rather obvious now (isn't it?) that an author's beliefs, assumptions, hates, and fears definitely color his presentation.......remember Bloom's "The American Religion" where he all but fell down and worshipped Joseph Smith? Did anyone ever read the reviews though? It actually DOES matter about the author of a book. That in itself is not an ad hominim.For instance, what if a book shows up entitled "The Joseph Smith Papyri: New Analysis, New Issues" and authored by John Gee? Now what if that SAME book was authored instead by Robert Ritner? Can anyone in their sane mind pretend that doesn't matter to all interested parties? It does MATTER about who the author is, the beliefs, religion, or lack thereof, national affiliation, etc....... 3
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I was just informed by private email that I am mistaken. After the affair was concluded the leaker (yes, everyone knows who it is) did read the article. Here was the result, according to my informant:I was under the illusion that scholars are supposed to cite the sources they are quoting. None of the other people who wanted the article censored, including Bradford, have ever read it.I think it is extraordinarily telling that the leaker himself could not cite a single example of ad hominem in the article after he had read it, that he wanted to censor before he read it for being ad hominem.Kerry asks:O.K., so I am out of the loop, who is the leaker?
Popular Post Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Popular Post Posted June 23, 2012 Another important thing is that the apostates who insist on silencing Dan for being ad hominem do so ON PURELY AD HOMINEM GROUNDS: not because Dan is publishing inaccurate for false information, but because Dan is such a mean and nasty person. The hypocrisy of all this is beyond nincompoopery. 5
Senator Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 And some posters here want us to give Bradford some kind of benefit of the doubt?Nah, not me. My one day stint on an internet message board concerning the issue has me alas convinced!!Throw me a pitchfork......Let's string this man up!!!!!
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I was just informed by private email that I am mistaken. After the affair was concluded the leaker (yes, everyone knows who it is) did read the article. Here was the result, according to my informant:I was under the illusion that scholars are supposed to cite the sources they are quoting. None of the other people who wanted the article censored, including Bradford, have ever read it.I think it is extraordinarily telling that the leaker himself could not cite a single example of ad hominem in the article after he had read it, that he wanted to censor before he read it for being ad hominem.Is the leaker still employed by the MI? Has any action been taken against that person?
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) No he did not. Ever. He said that the intellectual history behind a person's writings is of fundamental importance to understand the writing. Books don't occur in a vacuum. They are part of a broader social context and a personal intellectual and spiritual context. You cannot engage a book, except at the most vacuous level, without understanding an author and his times. Why else do people write intellectual biographies of the great writers and intellectuals? It is a standard part of intellectual history.If you want to understand Dan's position, read this:http://maxwellinstit...=6&num=1&id=147 Edited June 23, 2012 by Bill Hamblin
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Is the leaker still employed by the MI? Has any action been taken against that person?You'll have to ask them. I suppose it is possible that the leaker about the Dehlin article is not the same as the leaker of the confidential memos, but I'm not confident that it is better for the Institute to have two leakers instead of just one. But Bradford certainly knows who leaked the information about the forthcoming publication of the article about Dehlin. Edited June 23, 2012 by Bill Hamblin
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You'll have to ask them.Yer killing me, out here in the boondocks. But I do understand the response - though it's difficult to understand how such a person could continue to be allowed to be involved if their perfidy is so well known.
PacMan Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I'm writing BYU. No more donations until Gerald Bradford is gone. Regardless of the reasons, it is inexcusable that it happened like this. And it is inexcusable that Bradford leaked the e-mails to the press (if you believe Dan when he said that he (Dan) didn't - I certainly believe him). It is an absolute embarrasement.
Recommended Posts