BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 That would sabotage his own career as well. I doubt he is that devious or stupid.Never underestimate the power of a mortal man to sabotage his own life.
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Devious yes. The jury is still out on the other charge.Oops repent you heathen. I will I will give me a chance.Honestly the whole emailing while at a 'safe' distance and not speaking to other editors before making public announcement and other noncommunication, he reminds me of someone else whose main problem was he just didn't like handling confrontation/conflict. Didn't want to argue with people, so just preempted any chance that they could do it. Of course in the long run, it created more conflict, but if that could be handed off to others to deal with, he didn't mind that. I may be completely wrong in connecting the two individuals with as little of info that I have, but at this point it's a possibility to me.
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Never underestimate the power of a mortal man to sabotage his own life.Unfortunately I have seen that too often. Generally not intentionally though.
mapman Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 This is all very bewildering and embarrassing. I have enjoyed reading FARMS/MI publications since I was a kid and some of Bro. Peterson's articles in particular I have enjoyed. I feel bad because I am sure that there are lots of people feeling terrible right now. I hope that things can end up being resolved in some way and that the MI will continue to publish quality work. I think that it served an important place in producing scholarly work concerned with the ancient world and scriptures and as far as I can tell this will still be part of their work. I admit that I do not enjoy reading scholarly work for its apologetic value that much, but I recognize that it serves an important function so hopefully FAIR or some other organization can carry on what the FARMS Review used to do.
Analytics 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.True enough, but by the same token the way Hamblin and Peterson have publically responded seems to be intended for the same destroy it also. It's like they are saying, "While I would never say nor do anything to harm the Maxwell Institute, let me tell you about all of the rotten things they did to me. I love the MI and hope it does well, but its new course is a disaster and its director is a mean apostate-lover. While I'd hate for it to happen, I fear they are going to lose all of their subscribers (to cancel your subscription, please call 1-800-327-6715 between 8:30 and 5:00 MDT, or send an email to maxwell_institute@byu.edu)." 1
KevinG Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 True enough, but by the same token the way Hamblin and Peterson have publically responded seems to be intended for the same destroy it also. It's like they are saying, "While I would never say nor do anything to harm the Maxwell Institute, let me tell you about all of the rotten things they did to me. I love the MI and hope it does well, but its new course is a disaster and its director is a mean apostate-lover. While I'd hate for it to happen, I fear they are going to lose all of their subscribers (to cancel your subscription, please call 1-800-327-6715 between 8:30 and 5:00 MDT, or send an email to maxwell_institute@byu.edu)."The only note about cancelling subscriptions was published by the Maxwell Institute itself in it's announcement.
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 This is all very bewildering and embarrassing. I have enjoyed reading FARMS/MI publications since I was a kid and some of Bro. Peterson's articles in particular I have enjoyed. I feel bad because I am sure that there are lots of people feeling terrible right now. I hope that things can end up being resolved in some way and that the MI will continue to publish quality work. I think that it served an important place in producing scholarly work concerned with the ancient world and scriptures and as far as I can tell this will still be part of their work. I admit that I do not enjoy reading scholarly work for its apologetic value that much, but I recognize that it serves an important function so hopefully FAIR or some other organization can carry on what the FARMS Review used to do.Oh I have no doubt that they will produce good scholarly work. It is just what approach will they take. Anything, no matter how good, that doesn't answer the critics and anti-Mormons will not be that valuable to most of us, IMNSHO
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 True enough, but by the same token the way Hamblin and Peterson have publically responded seems to be intended for the same destroy it alsoDr. Hamblin stated he didn't have a problem with the new mission of the Institute...felt it was a worthy one, he had a problem with the way Dr. Bradford was going about the changeover, neglecting the old mission without being clear about it, etc. Dr. Peterson has been specific in his criticism toward Dr. Bradford in handling the changeover as well. First he heard about the change for the Review being made specific being just a few weeks ago.At least that is how I have read their comments.
Nemesis Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 What are we fighting for again? And does Dr. Peterson et al want you all to be fighting this fight? I think its great to support those among us who have been fighting the good fight but we need to support them in a manner that is productive not counter-productive. Let's be careful what we are advocating please.Nemesis
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 True enough, but by the same token the way Hamblin and Peterson have publically responded seems to be intended for the same destroy it also. It's like they are saying, "While I would never say nor do anything to harm the Maxwell Institute, let me tell you about all of the rotten things they did to me. I love the MI and hope it does well, but its new course is a disaster and its director is a mean apostate-lover. While I'd hate for it to happen, I fear they are going to lose all of their subscribers (to cancel your subscription, please call 1-800-327-6715 between 8:30 and 5:00 MDT, or send an email to maxwell_institute@byu.edu)."What Dr. Bradford did, intentionally or not, is to launch an attack on these men's careers. I think Dr. Peterson's response was very necessary in order to defend his career. To do nothing would have been tantamount to surrendering his career. Since Dr. Bradford chose, perhaps not intentionally, a public sacking the response and defense must also be somewhat public. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I am curious how FAIR will grow as a result of this. Should be an interesting study in the affects of completely changing the vision of an established institution with a loyal base.
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.If that's the case, why did they refuse to publish it?
Popular Post Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Popular Post Posted June 23, 2012 Of course, everyone needs to remember that none of this would be a matter of public discussion if someone at the Maxwell Institute had not leaked confidential memos to the apostate and anti-Mormon board. 7
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) If that's the case, why did they refuse to publish it?Don't you mean why did "he" refuse to publish it?I think it is very clear from Dr. Bradford's comments that he didn't see such a article as the type of secular scholarship that he wants MI to publish. Edited June 23, 2012 by calmoriah
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) If that's the case, why did they refuse to publish it?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. Edited June 23, 2012 by Bill Hamblin
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.So why do you persist in using such negative adjectives when talking about Dan personally? Surely that doesn't have to be part of your alleged point.
William Schryver 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.Makes one wonder ...
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 What Dr. Bradford did, intentionally or not, is to launch an attack on these men's careers. I think Dr. Peterson's response was very necessary in order to defend his career. To do nothing would have been tantamount to surrendering his career. Since Dr. Bradford chose, perhaps not intentionally, a public sacking the response and defense must also be somewhat public.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.
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.Bizzare. Why did he oppose its publication?
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.That is very, very interesting.
Nemesis Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.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. Smith from posting it on a message board if size wasn't an issue? It seems like this paper has turned into the boogey man.Nemesis
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 Bizzare. Why did he oppose its publication?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.
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 So why do you persist in using such negative adjectives when talking about Dan personally? Surely that doesn't have to be part of your alleged point.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?
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 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. Smith from posting it on a message board if size wasn't an issue? It seems like this paper has turned into the boogey man.NemesisIn the long run I'd be willing to put it on my blog, when and if Greg Smith gives me permission. It is a great article, articulate and professional, without a whiff of ad hominem. I'm sure it will get out eventually.
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I mean what's to stop G. Smith from posting it on a message board if size wasn't an issue? It seems like this paper has turned into the boogey man.NemesisIs this an offer? Edited June 23, 2012 by Nemesis Edited out Mistake
Recommended Posts