Addendum to closed thread about alleged Elder Packer request

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

I don’t really understand what you’re complaining about in regards to dan getting kicked out and the brethren approved.  That hasn’t really been discussed here.  You brought that up when talking to hope_for and I.  It makes no sense. 

I just find the need to defend the truth against both the claim the brethren kicked Dan out of MI for his apologetic work AND the claim that the brethren were running MI from behind the scenes and having Dan publish stuff for them absurd.

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Didn't you read the rest of what I said?  Greg mentioned it too.  I am tired of repeating myself.  You focus on one thing and ignore the rest.

I read your entire post again, I doesn’t say anything about the Packer claim.  You do sound tired of responding, so no pressure if you don’t want to continue.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I just find the need to defend the truth against both the claim the brethren kicked Dan out of MI for his apologetic work AND the claim that the brethren were running MI from behind the scenes and having Dan publish stuff for them absurd.

I don’t hold to either position.  I think you’ve misread me.  I’ve quoted Lou about him personally getting calls from salt lake to respond to certain criticisms.  Dan even said such requests from SL were exceedingly rare but also seemed unaware that Lou got those calls.  Sounds like there is more to this. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don’t hold to either position.  I think you’ve misread me.  I’ve quoted Lou about him personally getting calls from salt lake to respond to certain criticisms.  Dan even said such requests from SL were exceedingly rare but also seemed unaware that Lou got those calls.  Sounds like there is more to this. 

If Dan never knew and he was the general editor and if Greg never knew and he was the writer who came up with the two papers in question that have been speculated on, then it appears most likely that if Lou got any calls, he responded to them personally like Robert said Nibley did and it had nothing to do with MI.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

I do not need to clarify, their [Dan and Greg] comments, they are there for all to see. I CFR you because you said; "They [Dan and Greg] are saying he [Midgley] got everything wrong" Please show me where Dan and Greg said Midgley "got everything wrong." (emphasis mine).

Please show us where Dan and Greg said Midgley got everything wrong. Not somethings, not a few things, not a specific thing, BUT "everything."

Of course I've been following. Above you mentioned Midgley apologized and that he [Midgley] got the facts wrong. Where does Gregg and Dan say Midgley got "everything" wrong?

 I have done so. I'd like to encourage you not to make up quotes, but to quote people with accuracy.

 

I am up-to-date as much as most are on this thread.

 

Yes you are attempting to disparage. You said Dan has a large ego. You have implied lying, either by Midgley, Dan, Greg, or the Q15. Implying someone is a liar is called disparaging.

 

Isn't it true, you do not know any of them? You yourself admits [above] that it is not a nice thing to say, saying unkind things is disparaging.

 

Thanks, that is better.

 

good, I look forward to seeing an elevated conversation.

I didn’t quote Dan or Greg when I said that they essentially were saying that Midgley got everything wrong.  I did provide Dan’s statement in this thread where he used the word “entirely” to describe that he agreed with what Greg said.  In this same thread the quote from Greg says “It never, ever in anyway happened” and he’s talking about the Midgley claim about Packer’s being involved.  

From all the quotes of Greg and Dan I can’t recall them agreeing with any of the statements that Midgley made, so from my perspective all this sounds like they are saying Midgley got everything wrong.  If you’re aware of anything that they agreed with that Midgley asserted, can you point that out to me as I can’t think of anything.  

Lastly, I appreciate that you want an elevated conversation as well, unfortunately your tone with me is not coming across in an elevated way.  Could be the limitations of the written word, but at any rate, I hope that we can both prove worthy of this aspiration.  

[Calm]

Stem, I have been following this conversation and engaging in my own in about 6 different places this past week, so it is quite possible I have missed something.  Feel freee to post anything you think I have missed, I would be interested to see it.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Dan never knew and he was the general editor and if Greg never knew and he was the writer who came up with the two papers in question that have been speculated on, then it appears most likely that if Lou got any calls, he responded to them personally like Robert said Nibley did and it had nothing to do with MI.

Except that’s not what Lou said happened.  But I’m ok with your conclusion.  It simply means Lou is lying, making stuff up, or has really mixed things up.  I’m still there making there’s more to it

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Juliann and myself reporting our knowledge of what was discussed at FM.  Juliann was a founding board member, I was active since 2003 and management sometime in 2012 iirc, maybe earlier.  I have said this before ( that I could confirm it had been consistently told by Dan and Greg since the beginning.  Juliann has said the same.  I am dumbfounded you are having this hard of time following the conversation.  It is starting to feel like a game.

I have elaborated  way too many times.  I am not going to repeat myself yet again. 

Thanks for clarifying who the other two indirect parties are.  So it sounds like you’re corroborating that the stories of Dan and Greg have been consistently the same over the past 6+ years on this subject.  Thanks, that’s good to know.  

You still didn’t answer my question about what you think the statements by Midgley mean exactly.  Also, I’m not playing a game, I sure wish you’d give me the benefit of the doubt as I’ve been on this board long enough to prove I’m not just a troll...  

[Calm]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Except that’s not what Lou said happened.  But I’m ok with your conclusion.  It simply means Lou is lying, making stuff up, or has really mixed things up.  I’m still there making there’s more to it

Lou is brilliant, but he has almost 90 years iirc (I think he is the same age as my mom who is 88) and he has crammed in a ton of stuff over the years.   I massively mix things up from time to time.  I can give an elaborate description of when I heard about the lifting of the .Priesthood Ban in my high school class.  Thing is, when the ban lifted I was a junior in college...and yet it is a very, very vivid memory that I believed for a number of years until it suddenly dawned on me the timing didn't work.  I have never been able to replace it with a memory of what I was actually doing even though I know exactly where I should have been.  It is easy for me to believe Lou has mixed stuff up majorly in this case because I see it happening all the time with people of all ages, young and old and have had it happened to me.

Lou would have to know he would likely be corrected if he lied ( he knows how closely everything said is examined and challenged), so I see it as highly unlikely his error was intentional.  Same thing with making stuff up.  It would be stupid for him to make stuff up on Interpreter and Dan's blog or anywhere else he hangs out because he knows others who were involved read the same stuff.  Even if no one said anything and Lou managed to impress the uninformed, what kind of idiot do you think it would make him look like in the eyes of those who knew the real events to make stuff up?

Logically what makes the most sense is Lou misremembered.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

You still didn’t answer my question about what you think the statements by Midgley mean exactly.  Also, I’m not playing a game, I sure wish you’d give me the benefit of the doubt as I’ve been on this board long enough to prove I’m not just a troll...  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71446-addendum-to-closed-thread-about-alleged-elder-packer-request/?do=findComment&comment=1209880335

Add-on:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71425-a-course-correction-for-the-maxwell-institute/?do=findComment&comment=1209879658

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71446-addendum-to-closed-thread-about-alleged-elder-packer-request/?do=findComment&comment=1209880335

 

Yes, and my follow up to that post of yours asked for more details: 

“Perhaps timing was a mistake, but he also gave other very specific details, like that Packer was involved, and Dan and Greg say Packer was not involved in this matter or in any other matter at all.  That’s too specific a claim to dismiss as a timing mistake.  Any theories as to what’s happening with that claim? “

Why the very specific details about Packer.  That’s not so easily explained away as a timing mistake.  If Packer was never ever involved as it sounds like Dan and Greg are saying, how could Midgley make a statement like that? 

Read board policy and either answer the CsFR or leave the thread.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, and my follow up to that post of yours asked for more details: 

“Perhaps timing was a mistake, but he also gave other very specific details, like that Packer was involved, and Dan and Greg say Packer was not involved in this matter or in any other matter at all.  That’s too specific a claim to dismiss as a timing mistake.  Any theories as to what’s happening with that claim? “

Why the very specific details about Packer.  That’s not so easily explained away as a timing mistake.  If Packer was never ever involved as it sounds like Dan and Greg are saying, how could Midgley make a statement like that? 

Read board policy and either answer the CsFR or leave the thread.

I think I was pretty clear.  I am not going to repeat myself in another variation given how long it took for you to observe that .Juliann and .I had been confirming Dan and Greg's comments based on their being consistent.

 

[Calm]

Stem, you were right.  I had missed some few comments on the one blog/conversation I didn't check yesterday, of course. 

I knew that Bradford and Lou talked a lot in the past.  My memory is Lou presented it as long time friends rather than employer and employee.

As far as "I sometimes would get a phone call from Salt Lake asking for information or if we were planning to respond to some attack on the Book of Mormon and so forth" compared to what Dan and Greg said....why if they wanted something addressed are they calling Lou instead of Dan, who was I believe the general editor and/or the chairman of the board (someone can correct me if I have it wrong, I didn't keep track of such things in the past and in trying to check dates am going from incomplete online info that might be incorrect, such as wiki)?  It sounds more like a friend talking to a friend to me (as Lou has described discussions he has had in the past) than again employer to employee.  So Dan and Greg may be talking about something different (actual direction as opposed to curiosity about what is going on perhaps since Lou says they were asking for info on what was being published, not making suggestions...though some might see that as amounting to the same thing) than what Lou is.  And Lou makes it sound like if he passed this on to anyone, it was Bradford he talked to....who wasn't interested in their interest, so nothing likely came of it.

stem, if you think I missed something in that explanation of possibilities, feel free to point it out.  My iPad kept reloading the page, so I still may have even missed a post.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So?  Again you are getting unnecessarily defensive m.  I appreciate Roberts input and find it interesting.  

I got the  interesting part, it was the "helpful" bit I didn't get.  It makes more sense after rereading the second sic et non blog involved in the discussion (kind of wished Dan had chosen one blog and stuck with it  )

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Except that’s not what Lou said happened.  But I’m ok with your conclusion.  It simply means Lou is lying, making stuff up, or has really mixed things up.  I’m still there making there’s more to it

Lou says he talked to Bradford about the calls and Bradford dismissed them.  Did I miss where Lou said he told anyone else?  

Add-on:  I get why some might think him not telling Dan about this beggars belief, but Bradford's reaction is rather suppressive, imo. If there was no chance in hell in getting stuff published, why bother talking to the other editors about it?  I think a lot would depend on exactly what the calls were like and who they were from.  Nothing I have read so far in old emails indicates they were from GAs themselves. 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If you are thinking I’m one of the two you have totally flubbed my thoughts.  The claim of dan getting kicked out because the brethren don’t want criticism was never a position I’ve held.  And it was lou who said brethren have asked for it, and dan confirmed as much.  Lou claimed the brethren sometimes call him to address certain attacks.  Dan says such requests were exceedingly rare.  

So what exactly am I not processing?  

What may be confusing is the brethren are said to approve of the actions of defense in favor of “secular religious studies”.  For years, for instance, maxwells words of no uncontested slam dunks was invoked.   But in 2012 the brethren let the take over happen.  

I am aware of no evidence that has the Brethren favoring any takeover at MI.  This was a small time coup run primarily by Jerry Bradford.  All universities have such political shenanigans taking place from time to time.  In this case, a dean was creating a fiefdom.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/4/2019 at 6:58 PM, Calm said:

And yet, if I understood Robert correctly, what he said had nothing to do with FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, but was a private thing Nibley did.

Robert has apparently no awareness that Lou ever did anything similar.

And I have never heard Lou mention he was doing something like this, though he has talked about gettogethers as friends with at least one GA (the friend Greg mentioned) (having dinner with interesting conversation kind of thing).

Lou Midgley was my mentor for a number of years at BYU, and I have treasured his friendship in the years since.  He is a great scholar and raconteur.  Nibley and the Brethren had a special relationship which had nothing to do with FARMS, and Lou may have filled in for the Brethren after the death of Nibley -- again unrelated to FARMS.  The confusion comes when one realizes that Lou has been a coeditor of FARMS Review and of Interpreter.  That has apparently led some poorly informed people to confute the two things.

I do know of conversations Lou has had with at least one GA, but it was unrelated to any concern of FARMS.  Lou does have his own personal life.  We should allow him that, without a lot of conspiratorial nonsense thrown in.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

 

Quote

I do know of conversations Lou has had with at least one GA, but it was unrelated to any concern of FARMS.  Lou does have his own personal life.  We should allow him that, without a lot of conspiratorial nonsense thrown in.

That is how I have always understood his stories about friendly meals and interesting conversations, his personal life.  It sounded like fun.

Quote

ranconteur

I so love this word...and perfect label for Lou.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[sunstoned]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am aware of no evidence that has the Brethren favoring any takeover at MI.  This was a small time coup run primarily by Jerry Bradford.  All universities have such political shenanigans taking place from time to time.  In this case, a dean was creating a fiefdom.

I concur. It is my experience that this type of thing does happen with surprising frequency.  I transitioned into academia from industry years ago thinking that the change would allow me a reprieve from corporate politics.  I was mistaken.  

[strappinglad]

Not to muddy the water, but I heard that bro Midgley met with a Russian limo driver once 10 years ago. 😱

[Calm]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Not to muddy the water, but I heard that bro Midgley met with a Russian limo driver once 10 years ago. 😱

Iirc, he was in Russia when this went down, so now you mentioned this, everything is explained.

[Calm]

I hate blogs that post new comments in the middle of old ones no matter how you "sort" them.

Just needed to get that out.

FYI, posted by Greg Smith on Dan's bog a few hours ago:

Quote

The apostles knew nothing about the paper until after Dehlin's temporarily-successful efforts to censor it. As my paper demonstrated at length, Dehlin's remarks did not always accord with the facts. I see no reason to suppose here that that was any different.

Also, apostles don't give instructions to BYU. This is a long-standing principle (I was told so by an apostle once). The only people who give instructions to BYU is the First Presidency (i.e., the heads of the board of trustees).

So, an apostle would not, by policy, have phoned up the MI and told them not to publish.

Jerry Bradford and Pres Samuelson were the ones who halted publication. And I'm pretty sure that if they could have claimed apostolic sanction or instruction for what they did, they would have.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/12/my-alleged-war-against-the-maxwell-institute.html

Seems to me if apostles won't tell MI not to publish, they probably wouldn't be telling them to publish as well.  Doesn't mean they wouldn't as individuals express interest in upcoming publications.  

 

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Lou Midgley was my mentor for a number of years at BYU, and I have treasured his friendship in the years since. 

He was my branch president at BYU in 1975, and in that capacity he helped me cope with some difficult problems I was dealing with.  I remember him fondly.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He is a great scholar and ranconteur.  

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I so love this word...and perfect label for Lou.

I like the word, too, but it's raconteur.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

................................I like the word, too, but it's raconteur.

Yep.  Sorry.  My mind knows it and says it correctly, but in this case I mistyped it.  An artifact of old age and damaged nerves in my neck.  Maybe too much Tang Soo Do in my youth (Moo Duk Kwan).

[BHodges]

On 1/4/2019 at 6:41 PM, stemelbow said:

What may be confusing is the brethren are said to approve of the actions of defense in favor of “secular religious studies”.  For years, for instance, maxwells words of no uncontested slam dunks was invoked.   But in 2012 the brethren let the take over happen.  

There does seem to be some confusion. The claim that the Maxwell Institute abandoned apologetics in favor of "secular religious studies" is false. I've objected to this accusation with counter-evidence so often I've lost count (like here, for example). The work the Institute itself has supported and published since 2012 proves the allegation false. Such work includes, but isn't limited to, the following:

An award-winning eight-volume book series investigating key passages of Latter-day Saint scripture; the 6-volume-and-growing "Living Faith" book series in which scholars affirm, defend, and fortify faith while discussing things they've learned by engaging the life of the mind in the academy; a 4-volume scripture study series by Latter-day Saint philosopher James Faulconer, specifically crafted to assist the church's Gospel Doctrine instructors (possible updated versions pending); over eighty episodes of faith-promoting and professionally produced award-winning podcast interviews with Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint scholars alike, reflecting on faith and reason, the academic study of religious faith, Latter-day Saint scripture and history, responses to criticism of church belief/practice, and explorations of intersections with other faiths like Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism; dozens of public lectures specifically for Latter-day Saints from speakers like John W. Welch, Terryl Givens, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Deidre Green, Janiece Johnson, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, and more—almost all of which having been made available online, reaching thousands and thousands of viewers; and six volumes of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

What's more, I personally oversaw a project making over one hundred FARMS Preliminary Reports freely available online for the first time ever. We're currently working on an even more stable and accessible home for these past catalog items. In terms of books alone the Institute has published more, not fewer, books fortifying the faith of Latter-day Saints since 2012 than in the Institute's prior 6 or so years of existence—approximately 19 books from 2006 to 2012 compared to 27 books between 2013 and 2018 by my count. These new books have sold more copies than anything the Institute previously published—perhaps with the exception of some of the Nibley books. We've generated wide-spread interest in these works. We've partnered with Deseret Book to make them more widely available than previous Institute publications.

Given all of these examples of inspiring and fortifying—and there are even more than these—where did anyone get the impression that the Institute had simply become nothing but a venue for "secular religious studies" or that it "abandoned apologetics"? In my opinion, this misconception stems mainly from the transformation of the FARMS Review into the Mormon Studies Review. The former was geared specifically to Latter-day Saints. It responded to books deemed critical of the church, but it also included many contributions which explored various historical, theological, and philosophical topics some Latter-day Saints might find interesting. The MSR by contrast was geared specifically to the academy as a way to track the emerging field of Mormon studies, to help professionals around the country and beyond grapple with scholarship about the church, to encourage responsible engagement with our tradition, and to inspire Latter-day Saints who are interested in such work (a minority of Saints, to be sure). That transformation occurred during the so-called "Mormon moment" when the church had a great interest in helping the public, the media, and the academy to better understand our tradition, to have a credible seat at the discussion table. That shift in the Review—from facing Latter-day Saints to facing the academy directly—was implicitly held up by some as the only relevant piece of information about the Institute, as the reason for the Institute's entire existence. For those who only knew about the Institute through the FARMS Review (a large portion of its followers at the time according to my own anecdotal experience), it seemed as if the Institute itself had turned away from the Saints and from commending and defending the Saints. As my list above suggests, however, aside from the shift in the new MSR, the Institute actually increased and diversified its other publications to bolster and defend the faith of the Saints. 

As I mentioned in the other thread, the Mormon Studies Review has subsequently been moved to the University of Illinois Press. After its current issue the Institute no longer owns or oversees its production. In accordance with the Institute's new mission statement—more than mere window dressing, it took several years to craft in consultation with BYU's administration and Board of Trustees (which includes members of the Quorum of the Twelve) and with input from an external review in 2014 before the appointment of the current director—the Institute has shifted its priorities more than ever to inspiring and fortifying Latter-day Saints in particular. This is why our Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (METI) was transferred to the internationally renowned publisher Bill, and why our Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts (CPART) was wound down last year. These were difficult decisions and they weren't painless. But they happened so that time, resources, and personnel could be even more dedicated to the new mission statement. This is what the Institute's current administration and BYU wants. These developments didn't generate much public outcry compared to the Mormon Studies Review (with the exception of Dr. Peterson and one or two others voicing their regrets and sorrows, offering their perspectives). But the departure of these eminently scholarly endeavors wasn't held up as a signal that the Institute was abandoning its academic mission and its work which directly faced the academy. 

In short, I've seen the Institute continue to focus on fortifying and inspiring the faith of Latter-day Saints in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ when the FARMS Review changed, and I see now that the Institute is even more committed to this mission now as formalized in its actual mission statement and embodied in the work Institute scholars continue to produce and will continue producing. The Institute is publishing more work than ever before (sans the Review), and it's housing more scholars and student research assistants who are working directly on Latter-day Saint topics than ever before.

Edited January 7, 2019 by BHodges
added links, fixed some expressions.