My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[William Schryver]

I suppose there may have been a better way to handle the matter, I don't know the details, nor all of the various players involved nor the time frame for their expectations, but I suspect Jerry Bradford would not claim perfection, nor should he or anyone else be held to that standard.

I do agree with you that, fortunately, it was anything but a perfect coup d'état. It was executed in a bumbling, amateurish fashion--resulting (to our ultimate favor, I believe) in this unprecedented public dust up.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

As is quite apparent in this particular change of editorship, it entails much more than would normally attach to such an event.

See my post above: Future Prospects for NAMIRS

Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

Of course there were reasons for this change. I addressed this in my initial post in this thread (no. 294 or so). I'm simply stating that no one in this thread that I know of is privy to all of them, nor the people who they were instigated by. Changes in editors happen all of the time for various reasons, including a change in direction. I don't see why you are trying to justify the reason for this change given by Dan's critics as the correct one.

[William Schryver]

That is not how I see it at all. The Review did not come into being just to respond to the Tanners. (I've read all 23 volumes of the Review, so I know what I'm talking about.) Publication via any press is an invitation to further review from all comers, not a badge of immunity.

Nothing in the Review has ever come close to Ed Decker. (Mr. "Spires on LDS churches are to impale Jesus when he comes." You think that is a fair comparison to any writing in the Review" let alone of the Review in general?) Nor have I seen it as a forum for personal attacks. Nor for over-the-top defenses. This blanket characterization, unsupported by any specifics does not correspond to what I have read in the Review. Scholarship with personality, yes. That means I see the Review as allowing for personality. I don't always have to agree, but I always know I'm dealing with a person. Not neutered handpuppets.

Remember that I've been published in the Review several times. I'm not just a customer, but a contributor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

QFT

This is precisely accurate.

[David T]

I find it fascinating the degree of melodrama that this has raised. I mean, really? Is this really that epic? It's the change in emphasis in publications from one institution on Mormon Scholarship, the results of which will probably not be apparent to the vast majority of those who read it.

It will lose a few angry subscribers, and gain some more that it didn't have before. Maybe some new ones just because of this highly-niche publicity.

Life will go on. The Church will go on. This isn't another Great Apostasy. It's not a Great Reformation. It's the change in management and emphases for a series of magazines.

Some people hate the idea. Others love the idea. Most couldn't care less.

Edited June 22, 2012 by David T

[Senator]

So if your children were fighting, you would only scold the one who didn't usually fight because you didn't expect such behaviour from him while letting the other child off the hook because he was always getting into fights anyway.

Actually I have that very scenario with my kids, and yes I have to treat them differently. "Knock it off!!", solves the problem with one, who knows better, while such a response would only spark further combativeness in the other. I have to approach her with different tone and words.

[morgan.deane]

I think any time you are going to cashier somebody, it is better to do it face-to-face than by e-mail.

Can we all agree on this?

Yes. Even when I was fired from a lame high school job at Blockbuster I was called into the office and the meeting ended with a handshake. I would think an individual with a 23 year record of stellar stewardship would have been treated better. But I also want more information before we blame all of this on Bradford. If I understand correctly, Peterson was on some sort of fundraising trip. It is possible that he was notified immediately so he wouldn't raise money under false pretenses or with outdated information. There are many other items that I don't know, so the lynch mob forming over the email firing is just as wrong as the witch is dead dance on the other board.

Edited June 22, 2012 by morgan.deane

[ERayR]

I do agree with you that, fortunately, it was anything but a perfect coup d'état. It was executed in a bumbling, amateurish fashion--resulting (to our ultimate favor, I believe) in this unprecedented public dust up.

I think you are correct. I said as much in my post#368 above. We would have been having an entirely different discussion had it been handled correctly.

[Calm]

I really do not understand what the big deal is. It is not like apologetics will stop. FAIR is very capable of fulfilling this role. So few people actually read anything produced by MI as it is. I suspect that there are only perhaps 2 dozen members of the church that post here on a regular basis, making the number of concerned citizens so tiny that this whole issues does not even equate to a tempest in a teapot. There are three sides to every story: his, hers and the truth. We will never know two of the sides.

If the so-called loss of MI is of concern, this seems to imply that FAIR is not equal to the task, so perhaps FAIR needs to re-evaluate their role.

The big deal for me is 1) how it was done--the termination from his job as editor of a long time contributor, someone who had been involved in the institute long before the person who fired him came on board and 2) fundraising in the past and present has in my awareness often based on pointing to the good work MI is doing in apologetics as well as increasing the reputation of the Church in scholarship. If it is now abandoning apologetics completely and has been trying to in the past, it seems that the goals of the MI (or rather Brother Bradford's) have been misrepresented to its supporters. Hopefully the last will be corrected now and all who have contributed in the past in order to contribute to works that defended the Church against criticism, etc. will be aware this is not longer a priority with the MI and therefore find another institute to lend their support to in this cause. Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

Nor have I seen it as a forum for personal attacks. Nor for over-the-top defenses. This blanket characterization, unsupported by any specifics does not correspond to what I have read in the Review. Scholarship with personality, yes. That means I see the Review as allowing for personality. I don't always have to agree, but I always know I'm dealing with a person.

Remember that I've been published in the Review several times. I'm not just a customer, but a contributor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

As you may know Kevin, if one repeats a claim often enough it becomes believable by the people reading it over and over again. And this is what Dan was combating. How to keep members from being taken in by false claims that are repeated over and over again by certain people who the members are reading? And how will the new FARM's Journal handle these attacks by the critics?

I am afraid that we lost a battle when Dan was fired. And the Review may not be up to the challenge.

[Cobalt-70]

And the critic pendulum? Is it heading toward the middle? I don't think so. It is hard hitting, taking President Monson to task with personal attacks, mocking Joseph Smith and bashing are own apologists such as Dan or Will. And with over the top interpretations of church history. What would you suggest we should do to defend the lds church?

Let FAIR handle it. This is largely a battle between internet amateurs. Let the academics at BYU stay out of the fray. Render under Academia that which is academic, and render unto internet forums that which is polemical.

[Calm]

Actually I have that very scenario with my kids, and yes I have to treat them differently. "Knock it off!!", solves the problem with one, who knows better, while such a response would only spark further combativeness in the other. I have to approach her with different tone and words.

But you do approach her, you don't just ignore the behaviour, right?

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I do agree with you that, fortunately, it was anything but a perfect coup d'état. It was executed in a bumbling, amateurish fashion--resulting (to our ultimate favor, I believe) in this unprecedented public dust up.

A coup d'état refers to an illegal deposition of a government, typically by a small group within the establishment. Again, you have no idea who the players were in this decision, nor their motives. Personally, I wouldn't expect any changes as a result of a "public dust up," no matter how unprecedented, but we shall see.

[why me]

Correction: It's not true that Dr. Bradford and I "weren't talking." We spoke for several hours in his office just a few days before I left for Israel. There were different perspectives, but it wasn't an argument or a fight. No voices were raised, and the conversation ended, so far as I could tell, amicably.

I wanted to bump this post because it shows just how unjust your firing was by email. Sorry for the shock that this must have caused you.

[Teancum]

I've always believed him best characterized as an "apostate evangelist". He's an evangelist for apostasy, in his own cunning way. He provides "struggling Saints" with all the material reasons and psychological rationalizations to disaffect from Mormonism; he consoles them during the rough transition period from believer to non-believer; then he helps them justify themselves once they've fully arrived at the state of unfaith. It started out as a cottage-industry-on-a-shoestring, but it has now grown into quite the apostate factory.

Well you are wrong. He assists people in choosing what ever path they choose and helping them accomplish it. Stay leave, by TBM, stay as a NOMer. etc. I can tell you personally one of the reasons I am still active LDS is because of the caring support John Dehlin gave me. When I met him in person he was very happy that I have found a path the make the LDS Church work for me. Genuinely very happy. Much different than those of your ilk who are hostile to anyone who does not toe to the Monolithic Mormonism of your making.

[Calm]

It is possible that he was notified immediately so he wouldn't raise money under false pretenses or with outdated information.

That could have been handled by simply telling him to hold off on collecting any final commitments and the reasons why would be explained when he got home. And considering how they were just talking as well as the report that this change has been taking place over time makes it seem unlikely that there was such an immediate need that could not have been addressed at the prior meeting before he left. Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I find it fascinating the degree of melodrama that this has raised. I mean, really? Is this really that epic? It's the change in emphasis in publications from one institution on Mormon Scholarship, the results of which will probably not be apparent to the vast majority of those who read it.

It will lose a few angry subscribers, and gain some more that it didn't have before. Maybe some new ones just because of this highly-niche publicity.

Life will go on. The Church will go on. This isn't another Great Apostasy. It's not a Great Reformation. It's the change in management and emphases for a series of magazines.

Some people hate the idea. Others love the idea. Most couldn't care less.

QFT

This is precisely accurate.

[alter idem]

I've had some second thoughts on the email firing. At first I thought Bradford did it because he is spineless-sending an email while the person is on vacation. But there is another possible reason why he did it this way. Some I've discussed this with pointed out that since the article was being held up for six months it is clear Dr. P. knew there was trouble with his 'vision' of the Review and his removal was probably not a surprise. I wonder if Bradford did it this way to prevent Dr. P from being able to do much about the decision. With him over in the Middle East it may have been a pre-emptive and calculated move. Dr. P does seem to have a lot of friends in high places who might've intervened if he'd been here to deal with this in person.

I still think it wasn't the best way to handle it--but there are two sides to the story and unfortunately, we don't hear Bradford's explanation.

[Freedom]

The big deal for me is 1) how it was done--the termination from his job as editor of a long time contributor, someone who had been involved in the institute long before the person who fired him came on board and 2) fundraising in the past and present has in my awareness often based on pointing to the good work MI is doing in apologetics as well as increasing the reputation of the Church in scholarship. If it is now abandoning apologetics completely and has been trying to in the past, it seems that the goals of the MI (or rather Brother Bradford's) have been misrepresented to its supporters. Hopefully the last will be corrected now and all who have contributed in the past in order to contribute to works that defended the Church against criticism, etc. will be aware this is not longer a priority with the MI and therefore find another institute to lend their support to in this cause.

It was handled poorly in your opinion. I've heard that there is a huge dust up over the matter. Dust up? Outside of this forum, what members of the church really care? How it was handled is between the two involved. We do not know what led up to the email. Bradford's change of direction has been ongoing for some time and we should assume it has the support of those who appointed him. If not, he would have been replaced. Time will also tell is those who are so upset by these events are right. I doubt the funding will stop - in fact I would not be surprised if it continued the same and that, on the grander scale, we won't notice much of a difference.

[Calm]

I wonder if Bradford did it this way to prevent Dr. P from being able to do much about the decision.

I am not sure how this is supposed to be any better.

[Calm]

I doubt the funding will stop - in fact I would not be surprised if it continued the same and that, on the grander scale, we won't notice much of a difference.

Except that Dan has been one of the biggest fundraisers for the Institute....

[John Ping Pong]

QFT

Is the use of this acronym considered acceptable on this board?

[Senator]

It is poor form under any context to discharge someone at this level of management in such a manner.

Any context? I'm not so sure of that.

And because I'm unsure of that I refuse to villify or convict the man till I at least hear directly from him his reasoning for doing such.

[David T]

Is the use of this acronym considered acceptable on this board?

Quoted For Truth? Why would it not?

Edited June 22, 2012 by David T

[John Ping Pong]

QFT

Here it is again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That could have been handled by simply telling him to hold off on collecting any final commitments and the reasons why would be explained when he got home. And considering how they were just talking as well as the report that this change has been taking place over time makes it seem unlikely that there was such an immediate need that could not have been addressed at the prior meeting before he left.

I agree. 5 points for you.