zerinus 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.Why are you calling it "dismissal"? In the Church we give people "callings," which usually lasts for a limited period of time, and they are given an "honourable release". Nobody stays in any job forever, in or out of the Church. It is always a good idea to change faces from time to time, bring in fresh blood, and move in different directions. So I don't really know what the fuss is all about. If it is true that these brethren have been serving in those positions for as long as 23 years or thereabouts, I should have thought the time was overdue to make a change. Why should they be upset at the change? Edited June 22, 2012 by zerinus
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) 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.I don't think anybody is saying that apologetics is necessarily contentious. What they are saying is that Peterson's vision for, shall we say, provocative apologetics, is in fact contentious; his brand of apologetics goes beyond dealing with the arguments and goes into speculations of motives and character of the authors being reviewed. 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.When these personal attacks are made against relatively high-profile members who are in good standing with the church according to their ecclesiastical leaders, it isn't surprising that the people in charge think a line has been crossed. If the church is taking a "big tent" approach and letting people like Dehlin remain members in good standing, would the MI be overstepping its bounds by publishing in a church-owned publication that specific members in good standing are really wolves in sheep's clothing? Edited June 22, 2012 by Analytics
maxrep12 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Peggy Stack and the Salt Lake Tribune have weighed in:http://www.sltrib.co...tudies.html.csp-SmacTrib; "sometimes writing scathing and often personal attacks on those who challenged LDS origins. It was, they believed, the essence of apologetics".I cannot begin to count the number of critics, over the years, who have plainly stated that ad hominem apologetics masquerading as scholarship was useless. As odd as it sounds, critics have always been willing to tell believing mormons how to improve their public discourse with regards to apologetics. Have we not said that individuals like Dan, indeed cause more harm than good?When a swift decicive move comes into play, and coincides with what many critics had previously addressed, the fur sure does seem to fly. We told you so. Do not pretend to be so shocked. 1
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I don't think anybody is saying that apologetics is necessarily contentious. What they are saying is that Peterson's vision for, shall we say, provocative apologetics, is in fact contentious; his brand of apologetics goes beyond dealing with the arguments and goes into speculations of motives and character of the authors being reviewed. 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.When these personal attacks are made against relatively high-profile members who are in good standing with the church according to their ecclesiastical leaders, it isn't surprising that the people in charge think a line has been crossed. If the church is taking a "big tent" approach and letting people like Dehlin remain members in good standing, would the MI be overstepping its bounds by publishing in a church-owned publication that specific members in good standing are really wolves in sheep's clothing?And here you go again attacking Dan.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 would the MI be overstepping its bounds by publishing in a church-owned publication that specific members in good standing are really wolves in sheep's clothing?Have you read the article in question?
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Gotta love this:To print such half-truths without verification seems journalistically lazy. It is a shame she doesn't understand that (1) Dehlin and those on his side--including the purported-yet-unnamed GA--Fascinating.It is not just an unnamed GA but GAs. He is claiming to be in contact with several GAs and having conversations with them. Quite amazing. I wonder if John has an office in the church office building. Edited June 22, 2012 by why me
Analytics 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.Remember what Bradford actually said in this regard:what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen. I plan to begin the process of finding a new editor right away. At the same time, I would welcome your continued involvement as a member of its soon-to-be-formed editorial advisory board.If Dan would have been more congenial and "agreed to disagree" on this, he would now being assisting Bradford in his search for an editor who wanted to edit the Mormon Studies Review in accordance with the Institute's current vision.
Cushan Rishathaim Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I don't think so. A picket line can be quite good. How should one fight injustice and unfairness? it is not the church but an academic institution that has committed the injustice. The way that this institution has fired dan and the board is unbecoming of an institution that claims to be lds.What happens if you learn that this decision (whatever mistakes were made in its carrying out) was influenced by much higher authorities? Will you call for a picket line at Church headquarters, or perhaps local Ward meeting houses?This is a Church institution and cooler heads need to prevail. Dr. Peterson is going to be fine. BYU is going to be fine. The Institute will survive this change, and so will the Church.
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Have you read the article in question?No. All I know is that in the judment of the MI's director (which we now know does in fact have the full support of BYU), the article wasn't suitable for publication in Mormon Stories Review. I know that the people who have read it and would like to see it published have been talking about the need to call out wolves in sheep's clothing. Do you think I'm putting the pieces together incorrectly? It seems pretty obvious to me what's going on here. Edited June 22, 2012 by Analytics
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Lets hope for a fight back. Silence in such cases never changes the injustice. This will be brief. I may or may not have other comments on the topic in the future, depending on how and where things go. I still want to be careful. I have no desire to injure either the Maxwell Institute or the University, and I’m not particularly interested in a glorious martyrdom. (There will, I fear, be grievous damage to the Institute, but it won’t come at my hands.)http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/06/of-gratitude-and-its-expression.html
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 What happens if you learn that this decision (whatever mistakes were made in its carrying out) was influenced by much higher authorities? Will you call for a picket line at Church headquarters, or perhaps local Ward meeting houses?Yes I would. No one should be fired by email in the way that this was done to someone who has just lost a loved one. And if the church was behind it, so much the worse. But the church was not behind it and if they were they would never have condoned an email firing of Dan. At least I hope not.
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 http://www.patheos.c...expression.htmlI never said that Dan should lead the picket line or the petition drive. But his friends and supporters can. Now that it is in the press, the reputation of MI is already on thin ice. And when it comes out just what happened, the ice will crack. But people can still voice their opinions and defend the just against the unjust.
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 And here you go again attacking Dan.Dan has clearly explained that the very purpose of the FARMS Review was to provide provocative reviews, and he has repeatedly defended his position that delving into the authors and their motives is fair game. My point is merely that apologetics doesn't have to be that way.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I never said that Dan should lead the picket line or the petition drive. But his friends and supporters can. Now that it is in the press, the reputation of MI is already on thin ice. And when it comes out just what happened, the ice will crack. But people can still voice their opinions and defend the just against the unjust.So you are just going to ignore his desire for the Institute or the University not to be further injured?
Cushan Rishathaim Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Yes I would. No one should be fired by email in the way that this was done to someone who has just lost a loved one. And if the church was behind it, so much the worse. But the church was not behind it and if they were they would never have condoned an email firing of Dan. At least I hope not.I guarantee that the General Authorities of the Church are aware of this matter. I think you should leave the issue to them. If you no longer wish to subscribe to the Institute's publications, purchase their books, etc. that's your decision, but as of 1997, FARMS became an official Church institution and even though both they and oftentimes "middle managers" make mistakes, I believe we should trust our leaders to do the right thing without formal picket lines, etc. Edited June 22, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Why are you calling it "dismissal"? In the Church we give people "callings," This was not in church, but in a university setting.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 22, 2012 Author Posted June 22, 2012 Dan's public response to his dismissal.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/06/of-gratitude-and-its-expression.html 3
Bob Crockett Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 This is just getting worse. People I have admired for years could seriously use some PR help right now.
bluebell Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Dan's public response to his dismissal.http://www.patheos.c...expression.htmlA classy response-good for him.Whatever is happening at MI and whoever is behind it, the way it was handled is embarrassing to the one who handled it. It was cowardly and immature. Someone should have manned up. 2
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 A classy response-good for him.Whatever is happening at MI and whoever is behind it, the way it was handled is embarrassing to the one who handled it. It was cowardly and immature. Someone should have manned up.It is remarkable what saying "look, I made a mistake and I'm sorry" can accomplish. 1
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 With how this mishandling went from bad to worse- I would almost think that Mr. Bradford is intentionally trying to destroy MI.
bluebell Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 It is remarkable what saying "look, I made a mistake and I'm sorry" can accomplish.So true.The hardest words to say are usually the ones that will actually do the most good.
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 With how this mishandling went from bad to worse- I would almost think that Mr. Bradford is intentionally trying to destroy MI.That would sabotage his own career as well. I doubt he is that devious or stupid.
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 That would sabotage his own career as well. I doubt he is that devious or stupid.Devious yes. The jury is still out on the other charge. Oops repent you heathen. I will I will give me a chance.
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 No. All I know is that in the judment of the MI's director (which we now know does in fact have the full support of BYU), the article wasn't suitable for publication in Mormon Stories Review. I know that the people who have read it and would like to see it published have been talking about the need to call out wolves in sheep's clothing. Do you think I'm putting the pieces together incorrectly? It seems pretty obvious to me what's going on here.I have read the article. It does not contain a single ad hominem element in its 100+ pages.It is a very important article that ought to have been published yesterday.
Recommended Posts