mapman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Not only does he "simply [not] know," but he's wrong.As one who is interested in understanding this situation better, I'd like to know how you are so certain that it was Bro. Bradford acting independently. All the evidence I've seen hasn't provided any information one way or the other.
Storm Rider Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Jerry did not do this in isolation. There just isn't any way he would have done this without the full suport of the church. Regarding the way he did it, there are two sides of every story, and I'm not going to judge him until I hear his side. The most likely scenario is that after his long talk with Dan, Jerry talked with his superiors and they agreed that Dan forced their hand. They talked about if they should wait to tell him, and they decided that it would be better to let Dan know of their decision immediately.This is a prime example of being a reconstructionist while in complete ignorance. Already a new story is written about what REALLY happened. We wonder how the same type of drivel within anti-Mormon writings is constantly resurfacing? This is how, it began with Howe and has not stopped and the same real story out of whole cloth is passed around again and again and again. Here is the real story: you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know what you are talking about. We were not there we don't know. How about letting those who do know speak for themselves and until they speak, just stay quiet, don't speak, or say anything about what we THINK happened. I think the saying is: "stupid is as stupid does". Let's just not be stupid on this topic. 1
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 As one who is interested in understanding this situation better, I'd like to know how you are so certain that it was Bro. Bradford acting independently. All the evidence I've seen hasn't provided any information one way or the other.I reckon that "all the evidence [you've] seen" ain't very much then. Not that a lack of information has ever proven, in the past, to be an impediment to the story-telling capacity of Mormon apostates.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Emphasis on "at the moment".I stand corrected and sincerely hope that the situation works itself out properly.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Jerry did not do this in isolation. There just isn't any way he would have done this without the full suport of the church. Regarding the way he did it, there are two sides of every story, and I'm not going to judge him until I hear his side. The most likely scenario is that after his long talk with Dan, Jerry talked with his superiors and they agreed that Dan forced their hand. They talked about if they should wait to tell him, and they decided that it would be better to let Dan know of their decision immediately.You have insider information? I doubt it.This is pure fantasy. I can't believe that you would rationalize and then condone the sleazy way Dan was dismissed in this manner."Full support of the Church"? Right. I'm sure it was right at the top of the First Presidency agenda that day.This is just ridiculous in the extreme.
Somebodyz Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 In what way is this allegedly "extraordinarily effective" body of LDS apologists and apologetics being silenced? You guys are totally free to say anything you want. It isn't like the Church has a monopoly on the printing press.The Church distancing itself from you and your ilk doesn't equate with you being silenced.Gerald Bradford isn't the Church. MI isn't the Church.
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The Church has not distanced itself from me and my "ilk".This is one part of the story I find troublesome.Daniel Peterson has spent many years and an immense amount of effort in building the Review to its current status, which is a far cry from where it was when he took over the reins as editor.It appears that, after FARMS was placed under the umbrella of BYU, and therefore the direct control of the LDS Church, problems have arisen with Peterson's vision.Peterson has refused to compromise his vision. Therefore he has been kicked to the curb. And in a cravenly manner, being sent an e-mail while he is in another country. This is shameful.It seems this is an occupational hazard of those who refuse to conform.I appreciate Daniel Peterson's work a great deal and wish to publicly thank him for the positive influence he has had on my life and the lives of so many others.I also take my hat off to him that he refused to submit to the bland correlated view of a middle-level management bureaucrat.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Okay, answered my own question: Andrew C. Skinner. It appears that BYU makes these appointments. I was wondering if Bradford had been appointed/nominated by those who no longer like him.http://maxwellinstit...28&num=2&id=566It appears from this that John S. Tanner gave Bradford the job?
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 "Mean-spirited" is a subjective term based on the perspective of of the one making accusation.Dan, Bill, and others defend the church. They expose the enemies of the church and their baseless accusations for what they really are.Enemies of the church then make personal attacks against apologists (like the mischaracterization you use here) to try to shut them down.As I noted previously, when enemies of the church applaud what the MI is doing, then the MI is making a mistake.The damage done by apologists is to critics and enemies of the church. I applaud that. I also find it interesting to note that when critics and enemies of the church can't make any cogent response to what an apologist writes, they then try to marginalize them through personal attacks - such as what you've done here.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 This is the BIG lie. All of the apostates have agreed to make it their number one talking point, but it is a LIE.And it is the lie they are using in their attempt to silence what has been an extraordinarily effective body of LDS apologists and apologetics.Gave you a point, but that wasn't enough- here's another
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Those who support the Church are your enemy?I smell dirty socks.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Absolutely.I've heard nothing about Bradford making this the primary purpose of his life at the moment. Given the way he dismissed Dan, and given his clear confusion on real priorities, it is evident that the MI is NOT in good hands at the moment.From what BC posted, the article said Bradford started in "June" but there was no year that I could find anywhere.But the leaks have been going on for a while- DCP would know which were authentic and which not- so there are details here that I am not informed on.Anybody know more about when Bradford came in and when the "authentic" leaks started? Of course Dan would know but he might not want to say publicly at this time.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Anyone that would feed info. to enemies of your church is obviously an apostate in hiding. To think anything different is foolishness. MI needs to expose this mole quickly.Exactly right on the money.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The mole is merely the tip of the iceberg; the smoke to the fire.Absolutely.
mfbukowski Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 As one who is interested in understanding this situation better, I'd like to know how you are so certain that it was Bro. Bradford acting independently. All the evidence I've seen hasn't provided any information one way or the other.Yeah right. He's going to disclose his sources. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck you know.
hoyen Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The mole is merely the tip of the iceberg; the smoke to the fire.William what is the fire? What else is going on?
mapman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I reckon that "all the evidence [you've] seen" ain't very much then. Not that a lack of information has ever proven, in the past, to be an impediment to the story-telling capacity of Mormon apostates.I know. The evidence on the internet isn't very much, which is why I was asking you. Could you just answer this question? Do you have more information about this matter than has been put on the internet? "Yes" or "no" will satisfy me. Edited June 22, 2012 by mapman
mapman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Yeah right. He's going to disclose his sources. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck you know.What do you think I'm trying to do? I'm just trying to sort through all the claims being put forth to try to figure out what is going on.
Popular Post Cushan Rishathaim Posted June 22, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 22, 2012 Unfortunately, there are a lot of posters in this forum who have chosen to vilify Dr. Bradford. To do so without all of the facts is just simply wrong. People should refrain from passing judgment on any of the parties involved in this situation. To provide perhaps a bit more perspective, John Welch established FARMS in 1979. FARMS moved to Provo the following year when Dr. Welch joined the faculty at BYU. As an independent research organization, FARMS experienced considerable growth during the 1990’s, to the point that the foundation was invited to become part of BYU in 1997 by President Hinckley. This invitation followed a well-established pattern. Church leaders have always felt a strong desire to maintain some control over messages being shared with the Saints, especially on matters pertaining to the scriptures. One might consider the establishment of the Church’s Correlation Department in 1972, and the Deseret Book purchase of Covenant Communications and Seagull Book and Tape, together with the mandate that all independent LDS book publishers work through Deseret Book in order for their material to appear in LDS Bookstores.One doesn’t have to be an “insider” to observe the fact that once FARMS became part of BYU, major changes began to be made to the foundation, involving such issues as personnel, mission statements, and even the very name itself.It is extremely unfortunate that this most recent change took place in public. This was not only very unprofessional, but became a means for Dr. Peterson’s critics to further vilify him. There’s no question that Dr. Peterson is an extraordinarily talented individual who has and will continue to do remarkable work in defending the faith, and promoting scholarly research on LDS topics.It would be wrong, however, to simply assume that this decision was made only by Dr. Bradford. No one has all of the facts, and I would hope that people would refrain from passing judgment on either Dan or Jerry, both of whom are good men. In the case of Dr. Peterson, I believe that the decisions made by various individuals in this matter are not a negative reflection of him personally, or his valuable work. The reality is that the world has changed dramatically since 1997, due in large part to the information accessibility provided through the Internet. It’s very clear that the Church not only wants to have control over the message given to the Saints, but also the way that that message is disturbed, especially by organizations officially connected with the Church.I don’t believe that this decision is a negative reflection on Dr. Peterson. As he himself admits on a frequent basis, both he and his name have become vilified over the years by critics and struggling members alike, and decisions by the powers that be might very well reflect what they recognize constitute general perceptions as opposed to reality. It’s very unfortunately (even tragic) that these events were carried out in public, but I would hope that people would refrain from passing judgment on either of these two men, especially without possessing all of the facts.I have no doubt that Dr. Peterson will continue to carry out his great work as a professor at BYU, and a defender of the faith, and I look forward to his contributions in various venues. 6
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Yeah right. He's going to disclose his sources. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck you know.Well, as a matter of fact, I did. But I landed on my head, so it didn't hurt.
John Ping Pong Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I smell dirty socks.Perhaps they're due for a wash.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Unfortunately, there are a lot of posters in this forum who have chosen to vilify Dr. Bradford. Some times a bad decision is just a bad decision.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I know. The evidence on the internet isn't very much, which is why I was asking you. Could you just answer this question? Do you have more information about this matter than has been put on the internet? "Yes" or "no" will satisfy me.Yes.
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 TYou have insider information? I doubt it.This is pure fantasy. I can't believe that you would rationalize and then condone the sleazy way Dan was dismissed in this manner."Full support of the Church"? Right. I'm sure it was right at the top of the First Presidency agenda that day.This is just ridiculous in the extreme.That is not what I'm saying. I'm taking a more deductive approach. An informant of my own told me that the Church at the level of the apostles has made the deliberate decision that they were going to actively strive to get a long better with different faiths (this is simply the application Golden Rule: treat people of other faiths the way you'd like them). This subtle change went down through the ranks to the MI. Bradford and the people he reports to thought about how this should be applied to the MI, which lead to it dropping is apologetics mission and replacing it with a mission to promote mutual respect and goodwill among people of all faiths. The MI's desire to follow this new mission and Peterson's reluctance to do so is what lead to him being fired. This was the culmination of a long series of events--not a sudden thing. Bradford wasn't acting as a rogue, and he simply wouldn't have done this if he didn't know he had the full support of the Church.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Bradford wasn't acting as a rogue, and he simply wouldn't have done this if he didn't know he had the full support of the Church.You're wrong. 2
Recommended Posts