My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[Storm Rider]

T

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.

A deductive approach? This is the same thing as making assumptions (you do remember what is said about assuming something?) and sharing your opinion. Again. just don't say anything when you frigging don't know what you are talking about. It is simple; stop talking.

[selek1]

I gotta say- given all the sockpuppets that are springing up, this is one hum-dinger of a "not-a-board-war".

If only I'd known, I'd have secured the popcorn franchise early!

[Senator]

Peterson wishes to continue the traditional heritage of FARMS, providing cutting edge scholarship ...

This is not still possible under the new vision?

Bradford wants to move the Institute in a different direction, focusing on more secular-style studies that will be accessible and acceptable to non-Mormon scholars.

I would think that would be a good thing. No? Having studies void of the apologetic feel might actually invite more serious study and peer review from without. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have more of the world's great minds seriously taking a look at LDS holy writ?

Bradford is especially opposed to LDS apologetics, which he wants to terminate entirely as part of the mission of the Institute. He feels apologetics should be done by FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ ) or other groups.

Now wait. Which is it? How can he be especially opposed to apologetics when he feels it should be done in other venues? It sounds that he is not especially opposed to apologetics. He is simply apposed to its presense in an church affiliated institution. This is what I hear David T also expressing, and is a view I agree with intirely.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Senator

[jwhitlock]

T

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.

"Deductive approach"? That the decision to have better interactions with others of different faiths led to Dan's firing?

Bunk.

Bradford did not in any way have the "full" - or even partial - support of the Church in this matter. Firing Dan via e-mail is the sign of a coward, someone who knows he's doing something wrong, and doesn't want to face the person he's mistreating. To say that such a method has the support of the Church and to say that such a person who is directly changing the mission of the MI to pattern it after his own agenda, and NOT after the apostle it is named for, has the "support of the Church" is simply an untenable stretch of imagination.

[jwhitlock]

I gotta say- given all the sockpuppets that are springing up, this is one hum-dinger of a "not-a-board-war".

If only I'd known, I'd have secured the popcorn franchise early!

There does seem to be an unusual amount of activity of new single post members.

Edited June 22, 2012 by jwhitlock

[Senator]

_{I would also add how saddened I am due to the many uncharitable comments fired at Dr. Bradford.}

Edited June 22, 2012 by Senator

[treehugger]

Bradford did not in any way have the "full" - or even partial - support of the Church in this matter.

Reference please. And only a statement from "The Church" will suffice.

------------------------------------------------

On a separate note. I find it truely astonishing that so many people here, who were not involved, know so much "fact" about the situation.

This borderline irrational emotion concerning this situation is disconcerting. How is the current wagon circling criticism of MI any different than "anti-mormons" who critize BYU or other LDS Church affliations on how those entities dealt with Human Resource situations?

Edited June 22, 2012 by treehugger

[Kevin Christensen]

I remember what it was like before FARMS started up, before the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon appeared. For the young and and/or forgetful, Sam Taylor gave a talk at Sunstone that I heard in the early 80s, and later saw published in Dialogue.

My own research over a period of years has never uncovered a single truth,

however "sensitive," one-tenth as dangerous as a half-truth. So, as Satan, I

would foster happy mythology, history as we wish it might have happened. I

also would severely frown on any attempt to use humor in writing about LDS

subjects. I would studiously ignore Joseph Smith's statement that sometimes

he spoke as a prophet and sometimes as a man. He must have been kidding,

don't you think? I wonder if anyone knows of a single time, in our official history,

when Joseph spoke as anything but a prophet. I don't.

As Satan, I would also encourage Church officials to ignore all attacks on

the Church, such as the dedicated campaign of Jerald and Sandra Tanner of

the Utah Lighthouse Ministry. I would simply pooh-pooh their violently unfriendly

book, Mormonism, Shadow or Reality, issued in Salt Lake, together

with the condensed version, The Changing World of Mormonism, published in

New York. What do we care that the combined sales have been more than

50,000 copies? What does it matter that missionaries are hit with hard questions

from readers of these books and are unprepared to answer?

http://www.dialoguej..._V22N01_116.pdf

After the rise of FARMS and the regular appearances of the Review, we got Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, "Mormon scholarship, apologetics, and evangelical neglect: Losing the battle and not knowing it?," Trinity Journal (Fall 1998). The Tanners are obsolete. Now it's the internet.

Having lived through that period of change, seeing the emergence of carefully researched defenses of LDS faith, as well as a far more open approaches to LDS history, a clear trend to go-to-the-source and publish it, rather that repeat the same old edited stories uncritically, I have no yearning to go backwards. One of the things that the growth and success of FARMS/MI and FAIR has demonstrated was that there was a pressing need for what they offered, and that CES and Religious Studies people should have been doing it all the time. We should not forget that the success of FARMS and the Review was also a rebuke to the failure by those employed by the church to do what needed to be done by those best placed to have done so.

As to what happens in the future, we'll see. We've got a lot of talent to draw upon, as the Review demonstrates, or at least, did for over twenty years. Where will the voices be heard?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 22, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[William Schryver]

I find it truely astonishing that so many people here, who were not involved, know so much "fact" about the situation.

There are people, including the author of the OP, who know much "fact" about the situation.

This borderline irrational emotion concerning this situation is disconcerting.

I agree that many of the apostates rejoicing over what they believe to have happened are expressing what amounts to "borderline irrational emotion."

[jwhitlock]

_{I would also add how saddened I am due to the many uncharitable comments fired at Dr. Bradford.}

But evidently not particularly saddened about the uncharitable comments fired at Dan.

[Libs]

I have question, if anyone knows. If MI is not going to do Book of Mormon research anymore, what kind of research are they going to do? And why would BofM research not be considered "scholarly"?

[wenglund]

I am not in a position to judge the decision that was made or why it was made. And, even were I in a position, I think administrative and trajectory decisions ought to be judged on result rather than speculation or current emotions. This does not mean that I am not disappointed to see go the primary reason for my multi-decade interes in FARMS/MI (i.e. Dr. Peterson) and to learn that certain axiously awaited articles and favored authors may not be published by MI. I am very much saddened.

And, this also doesn't mean I condon the manner in which the dismissal evidently occured. I don't.

However, I am in a position to wish both parties all the best whichever way things finally end up (I am confident that it will turn out amicably given Dr. Peterson's genteel disposition), and to express immense appreciation for Dr. Peterson's unrivalled apologetic efforts over the years. Like others here and elsewhere, I hope to see his efforts continued indefinately.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[Senator]

But evidently not particularly saddened about the uncharitable comments fired at Dan.

I take into concideration from whence they spring. From some I expect such, others I don't.

What posts have been particularly uncharitable towards Dan in this thread. I've seen nothing but a show of support for him. Perhaps I passed over them.

[Nevo]

One of the things that the growth and success of FARMS/MI and FAIR has demonstrated was that there was a pressing need for what they offered, and that CES and Religious Studies people should have been doing it all the time. We should not forget that the success of FARMS and the Review was also a rebuke to the failure by those employed by the church to do what needed to be done by those best placed to have done so.

I agree. Now that CES and the Religion department have been begun to step up their "inoculation" efforts, I wonder if—as John the Baptist gave way to Jesus in John 3:30—it is to be expected that FARMS/MI and FAIR "must decrease."

[jwhitlock]

Reference please. And only a statement from "The Church" will suffice.

Perhaps you should ask Analytics for his reference since he claimed that Bradford had the full support of the Church for firing Dan via an e-mail. Or is that not a concern to you?

On a separate note. I find it truely astonishing that so many people here, who were not involved, know so much "fact" about the situation.

Are you indicating Dan was not actually fired, or that the situation of his firing was not cowardly? Or are those particular "facts" irrelevant?

This borderline irrational emotion concerning this situation is disconcerting. How is the current wagon circling criticism of MI any different than "anti-mormons" who critize BYU or other LDS Church affliations on how those entities dealt with Human Resource situations?

The criticism is of Bradford and what he's doing in the name of MI. It is hoped that the situation will get resolved properly, since it's not "just" an HR situation, but rather a shallow, agenda driven political push to remake the MI into something it was never intended to be.

Of course, as Will has noted, the real irrationality is not located here but among our enemies who are falling all over themselves with glee at Dan's firing. Apparently you and those who agree with your post seem to think that doesn't matter at all.

[jwhitlock]

I take into concideration from whence they spring. From some I expect such, others I don't.

What posts have been particularly uncharitable towards Dan in this thread. I've seen nothing but a show of support for him. Perhaps I passed over them.

No perhaps about it. Analytics comments amounted to nothing more than a personal attack on Dan here; wonder how you missed that, for instance.

[ERayR]

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.

Try this scenario. Someone detests Dan. Someone leaks e-mails, etc trying to thwart Dan's direction. Gerald Bradford gets appointed. Someone cozies up to Bradford and convinces him that Dan is dangerous. Bradford, who has been appointed one step beyond his capabilities, known as the peter principle, succumbs to the flattery and we get the mess we now have.

Not so far fetched as I have seen it happen in business several times. In business it is almost always a costly mistake and it is sometimes fatal to the business.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

The criticism is of Bradford and what he's doing in the name of MI. It is hoped that the situation will get resolved properly, since it's not "just" an HR situation, but rather a shallow, agenda driven political push to remake the MI into something it was never intended to be.

You are making all kinds of assumptions in this thread, when in reality, you have no idea who is behind the changes to the Institute, nor their reasons. I would suggest that rather than adopting this approach, that people simply express love and support to Dr. Peterson, as well as their gratitude for his remarkable accomplishments which will no doubt continue for quite sometime in various venues.

[Scott Lloyd]

We know that John specifically asked his GA friend to step in, and we know that the friend did so without even knowing what he was stepping in to stop, suggesting that the only reason he did so was because he was asked and not out of any personal desire to get involved.

Since we do not know if Dan asked anyone for the same favor, we can't honestly say that the GAs were unwilling to help him (because we don't know that).

In fact, in a post on this thread, Dan specifically expressed his reluctance to trouble the Brethren about this matter, noting that they have a lot on their plate.

So, because he shows humility, consideration and restraint, somebody jumps to the conclusion that no GA would help him if asked.

And so it goes.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

No perhaps about it. Analytics comments amounted to nothing more than a personal attack on Dan here; wonder how you missed that, for instance.

Probably because it wasn't much of an attack. He mostly was speculating as to the motives of why MI did what it did and the players involved. The "amounted" attack that you see, is probably due to your obviously hightened current emotion state over the issue

[Teancum]

Bradford may simply be adopting a far-too trusting posture towards the enemies of the Church, failing to recognise just how delighted they would be to see its defenders disarmed. After all, it does appear that he, or someone close to him, was deceived by Ms Jack's utterly conscienceless smear campaign against Will Schryver not so long ago.

.

Your twisted view of Ms Jack's so called smear campaign is typical of your over the top hyperbole and flat out false. Any reasonable person could simply review the posts the Will made and conclude that his behavior certainly was not that of one wanting to aspire to defending the Church in a premier publication. In fact many of the things he said in his posts towards women on the board everyone here seems to hate would be embarrassing for most holder of the LDS priesthood to say. The fact that you defend this behavior and call it a smear speaks loudly the the die on any hill apologetics you embrace.

[Calm]

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.

OTOH, the method of sandbagging Dan while he was overseas and though not out of complete contact, out of easy contact phonewise, plus him being significantly preoccupied with a full plate seems to indicate to me someone who is hoping that by the time Dan is back, his actions will be accepted as fait accompli rather than someone who thinks he has his ducks all stacked in a row up front.

Plus I have my doubts any GA would disrespect Dan's work for the Church in the past so much as to agree to dismissing him through an email.

[Senator]

Try this scenario. Someone detests Dan. Someone leaks e-mails, etc trying to thwart Dan's direction. Gerald Bradford gets appointed. Someone cozies up to Bradford and convinces him that Dan is dangerous. Bradford, who has been appointed one step beyond his capabilities, known as the peter principle, succumbs to the flattery and we get the mess we now have.

Not so far fetched as I have seen it happen in business several times. In business it is almost always a costly mistake and it is sometimes fatal to the business.

Please, people!

Would you at least wait to hear the other side of the story before you start concocting conspiracy theories? Or at least till sufficient time has passed that it is apparent that no "other side" is forthcoming?

You are engaging in the very same behavior that you have detested in your enemies for so long.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Senator

[Calm]

Gerald Bradford isn't the Church. MI isn't the Church.

Gerald Bradford isn't MI though perhaps he thinks he is.

[blackstrap]

I anxiously await the letter from the First Presidency that will be read in sacrament meeting,and will thoroughly clarify the situation and recommend how the membership should respond!.......waiting........waiting....