ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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 detest in your enemies for so long.When a person uses the internet to discharge someone from employment it doesn't speak well of their management skills in their current situation.
Analytics Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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 issueCorrect; thanks. The decision maker's at the MI and Dan have different visions of the MI. They came to an impasse, and the consequences of that resulted. In no way is that an attack on Dan.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?You misunderstand (at this point, I have to wonder if it's deliberate?). Bradford has the full support of BYU (and thereby the church) with the new direction the MI is taking. The "via email" issue is a different, minor issue. Was firing him via email an act of cowardice because he doesn't have the balls to fire Dan to his face? Or was it was intended as a courtesy because he wanted to let Dan know as soon as the decision was made (and approved)? I'm quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and withold judgment until I hear both sides of the story.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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.Just as long, of course, as that venue is not the MI. Correct?As far as no idea who is behind the changes, who fired Dan? Bradford. How did he do it? Via e-mail. What assumptions do you see in all that?
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 "Deductive approach"? That the decision to have better interactions with others of different faiths led to Dan's firing?Especially since Dan has been at the forefront of establishing longterm relationships with many people and organizations of other faiths. 3
treehugger Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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?Your defectively response is evidence enough that you know not of the details of the claim you made. That is fine, we all have our opinions that we negligently present as fact.Are you indicating Dan was not actually fired, or that the situation of his firing was not cowardly? Or are those particular "facts" irrelevant? another deflection. many people have made statements beyond the fact of Petersons dismissal, which statements are seemingly presented as absolute facts. ... to remake the MI into something it was never intended to be. Reference please, that you know what the MI was intended to be, and that it was never intended to be what it will become - it seems you failed to noticed that you present as fact an event that has yet to occur.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. yes, there are many on both sides who are blinded to their irrational emotional state on the matter.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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."To me, this would be the equivalent of saying: "Now that we have the service academy curriculum updated to current needs, we can go ahead and stand down the regular Army, Air Force, and Navy."
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 To me, this would be the equivalent of saying: "Now that we have the service academy curriculum updated to current needs, we can go ahead and stand down the regular Army, Air Force, and Navy."There is a need among adults as much as there is among youth to have access to such materials. 1
Senator Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 When a person uses the internet to discharge someone from employment it doesn't speak well of their management skills in their current situation.When a person uses the internet to erect conspiracy theories based on partial, one sided information, it doesn't speak well of their evaluation skills.
Senator Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 As far as no idea who is behind the changes, who fired Dan? Bradford. How did he do it? Via e-mail. What assumptions do you see in all that?That it was an act of cowardice.
William Schryver Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) 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.I don't think "our enemies" are "falling all over themselves with glee at Dan's firing" nearly as much as they are rejoicing over the IMPLICATIONS of his firing, and the trajectory they perceive in the Maxwell Institute. Here is how one prescient poster put it:The short term prospects for NAMIRS is simple: The liberals have won. There has been a ongoing fight between more liberal Mormons who populate the bloggernacle vs. the more conservative Mormons who populate discussion boards and FARMS/NAMIRS for the heart and soul of Internet Mormons. DCP's firing is a clear indication that the former group has won, and my guess is they have won decisively. Someone sympathetic to their cause will be appointed to helm NAMIRS and edit the Mormon Studies Review (formerly known as FARMS Review of Books). ... This group will be more politically correct and academically respectable and I predict their Mormon Studies Review will be seen as academically respectable within the next five years, at least among those who care about Mormon Studies, which is something the new NAMIRS crew is sure to wildly overestimate....The main change for NAMIRS is I predict they will churn our academically respectable articles which only a small group of people care about. These articles will be tedious and uninteresting to the vast majority of rank and file LDS members. Also, in pursuit of academic respectability NAMIRS will not do any apologetics. Contributing further to the lack of desire to do apologetics will be the fact that the new NAMIRS crew will likely be mostly sympathetic to secular criticisms of LDS history and doctrine. Thus they won't see any need to respond to things they largely agree with. ...In sum, I think the original mission of FARMS, to defend the LDS church, will be dead within 5 or so years. At this point the LDS church will realize it has made a Faustian bargain. Sure, in the short term they will have hired a more respectable crew to get them through the "Mormon Moment". But the "Mormon Moment" will soon die and in the long term they will have lost the institutional means to defend the church. This will come at a critical time as knowledge of the seedy underbelly of LDS history and doctrine will only continue to grow. At that point the LDS church will have to make a choice among three really bad options: 1) Take apologetics in house at the church office building, but lose plausible deniability in the process. 2) Try and get NAMIRS to refocus on the original mission of FARMS, which won't work because NAMIRS will largely be sympathetic to the criticisms being made. Or 3) Try and reconstitute a sequel to FARMS, apart from NAMIRS. This will also be hard because the old crew will have moved on, died, retired, or no longer have the fighting spirit left (everyone gets old eventually).But the bottom line is that Mopologetics, and every other form of LDS Apologetics will be on life support or dead in the long term.(Link)It is frequently demoralizing to me that "our enemies" are quite often smarter than we are about these things. We need to wake up to the way "our enemies" function, and how they are seeking to injure and, if they can, destroy the Kingdom. Edited June 22, 2012 by William Schryver 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) 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.Hey I have an idea, just for once when a critic does the same why don't you berate them? Edited June 22, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 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 issueReally.Evidently, when Analytics uses "mean-spirited" to describe Dan, and then goes on to describe what Dan writes as filled with "hate", you don't see that as any kind of personal attack. And when he goes on to soft pedal (using incredible fantasies that he makes up) what happened to Dan, and to rationalize it as something Good, you also see that as "reasonable".Well, you folks certainly know how to spin things.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 That it was an act of cowardice.RoflWell it was an act of cowardice.No assumption there.
ERayR Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 When a person uses the internet to erect conspiracy theories based on partial, one sided information, it doesn't speak well of their evaluation skills.The internet is where conspiracy theories are supposed to be erected. Nobody takes them seriously anyway. On the other hand to discharge one from employment, especially at this level, should be done in person.
Calm Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The main change for NAMIRS is I predict they will churn our academically respectable articles which only a small group of people care about.I think this person is underestimating the interest in Mormon Studies, which has been expanding among a number of universities...an expansion that started several years prior to the so-called "Mormon Moment". 1
Teancum 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.Perhaps but it sure seems like there is a lot of anecdotal evidence of this. But I suppose they are all just liars when they talk about how much of the apologetics helped them out or towards being out of the Church. Personally I think it is a mixed bag. Some helps, but some certainly hurts the Church. For me, I could no longer do apologetics for many reasons one of which is the arguments just started seeming shallow and specious. My biggest complaint was it seemed that to defend one had to toss a lot of prior leaders and what they said under the bus. But that is just one conclusion.I guess you can continue YOUR style of defense and believe your style is helping and not hurting the Church and time will tell. 2
Cushan Rishathaim Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Just as long, of course, as that venue is not the MI. Correct?No, that is certainly not correct. Dr. Bradford's email made clear that Dr. Peterson would continue to serve in an advisory role for the journal, and I have no doubt that if he wishes for his insights into LDS scripture to appear in various MI publications that they would. Dr. Peterson hasn't been silenced. The reactions that we're seeing to these events are irrational, on many levels, including those of Dr. Peterson's critics.Journals change editors. It happens all the time. The editors of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, for example, published by FARMS and the MI have included Stephen Ricks, John Sorenson, Kent Brown, and Paul Hoskisson. These types of changes happen for various reasons, and you are simply not privy to all of the ones that led to this one, nor the various players, including those above Dr. Bradford who influenced this decision.Again, as I see it, these changes are in no way a negative reflection on Dr. Peterson personally, nor his remarkable career.As far as no idea who is behind the changes, who fired Dan? Bradford. How did he do it? Via e-mail. What assumptions do you see in all that?You are assuming that you have enough information to pass judgment on the motivations behind these actions. I'm simply asserting that you don't, and in the same way that Dan's critics should avoid making assumptions about him, so should you (and everyone else for that matter) concerning Dr. Bradford. 2
Senator Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Hey I have an idea, just for once when a critic does the same why don't you berate them?You want me to berate more than I already do?No, you just want me to be an equal opportunity berator. I can understand that.But as I said. I expect certain comments and reactions from some and not from others.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Correct; thanks. The decision maker's at the MI and Dan have different visions of the MI. They came to an impasse, and the consequences of that resulted. In no way is that an attack on Dan.You misunderstand (at this point, I have to wonder if it's deliberate?). Bradford has the full support of BYU (and thereby the church) with the new direction the MI is taking. The "via email" issue is a different, minor issue. Was firing him via email an act of cowardice because he doesn't have the balls to fire Dan to his face? Or was it was intended as a courtesy because he wanted to let Dan know as soon as the decision was made (and approved)? I'm quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and withold judgment until I hear both sides of the story.I'm quite sure I don't misunderstand anything about what you posted. Indeed, you continue with this rather bizarre rationalization about how this is all somehow benign and not really an issue.In the same spirit of what you're doing, I'm sure that Bradford took his cue from the Penn State board of trustees when they canned Paterno over the phone. I'm sure they thought it was a "courtesy" there, too.I'm sure that you'll be quite willing to give Bradford the benefit of whatever minimal doubt there is left for the foreseeable future. After all, Dan is gone, and your side seems to be winning for the time being, doesn't it.Oh, and let's not forget about the mole, whose intentions were obviously malicious. Of course, since you seem to think that "mean-spirited" and "hateful" are just benign adjectives for how your characterize Dan, I doubt that you have any realistic perspective about what constitutes an attack on Dan, or not.
Kate Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I am assuming that most of the funding for the MI comes from faithful members interested in scholarship by faithful scholars. It has appeared to me to be the primary audience of the MI publications in the past. If so, it seems very strange to turn one's back on one's supporters in order to seek connection with those not providing funding while disregarding those who do.I don't have time to read the whole thread, so if someone already asked this, then I apologize for the repeat, but as subscribers to MI, can we make a statement by asking to be refunded for the remaining year? Just thinking that if enough people did that, it could cause them to pause and think more about this new vision.
jwhitlock Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 You are assuming that you have enough information to pass judgment on the motivations behind these actions. I'm simply asserting that you don't, and in the same way that Dan's critics should avoid making assumptions about him, so should you (and everyone else for that matter) concerning Dr. Bradford.No assumption at all. A firing via e-mail is a spineless act that speaks volumes about the character of the person sending e-mail. It's as simple as that. 1
Senator Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 RoflWell it was an act of cowardice.No assumption there.No, you don't know this.
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Again, as I see it, these changes are in no way a negative reflection on Dr. Peterson personally, nor his remarkable career.Except for the fact that Dan got the news by email when he was out of the country. I think that most people receiving such an email would consider it to be insulting. And how to continue on the board after that insulting treatment?Maybe I have gotten it all wrong. But i do believe that it was done by email.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) No, you don't know this.DudeYou are not serious. This is not an assumption. At worst it is just an opinion. At best it is a fact/ I think it is really quite cowardly to fire some one by email. Anyone that i have known that has fired someone does it in person. And When I have fired people it was in person. I never once did it by phone let alone an email. Even the biggest morons that I have worked with deserved an in person meeting.Do you even live in the real world? Ever had a real job that is not in government?I guess you think it was courageous to fire Dan by email . Edited June 22, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
why me Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 I don't have time to read the whole thread, so if someone already asked this, then I apologize for the repeat, but as subscribers to MI, can we make a statement by asking to be refunded for the remaining year? Just thinking that if enough people did that, it could cause them to pause and think more about this new vision.It wouldn't hurt to make your wishes known. The more dissatisfaction expressed the better even if you were not successful.
Recommended Posts