My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[Senator]

However, the choice was to do it all very publicly. To discharge him by e-mail then to leak the whole thing in what looks like an attempt to force him to remain as a fund raiser is at the very least is grossly unprofessional.

You are assuming Bradford had any knowledge of the leakage.

[John Ping Pong]

Quoted For Truth? Why would it not?

Surely I am not the only one familiar with the more commonplace expression?

[ERayR]

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.

Contributors should care because, if this simple function of management is mishandled to this degree, what kind of management mishandling can be expected on other issues?

[jwhitlock]

Do you have an explanation from Bradford himself, why he used the format he did?

Do I need one? Or is it commonly accepted behavior to fire someone via e-mail? I'm not aware of any explanation, which speaks volumes in and of itself. Since this method of firing is typically spineless in nature, and since no explanation is forthcoming, then I have no qualms drawing some very reasonable conclusions about Bradford.

[Teancum]

I just thought of the irony of this topic of this thread, at least for me personally. It starts with a support of Dan Peterson, which I think is quite fine. Some speculate, and perhaps correctly, that the recent John Dehlin affair may be in part, behind Dan's dismissal. For me personally, the two people on line that have been the most kind and supportive of me when I have had questions and issues are John Dehlin and Dan Peterson. Both reached out, were kind, polite and supportive. Dan more than once has offered to meet with me personally. John the same. Both of them are in part responsible for helping find a way to maintain my participation in the LDS Church, albeit less orthodox than it used to be. I owe a lot to both of them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find it fascinating the degree of melodrama that this has raised. I mean, really?

Well, you keep posting on this seemingly unimportant thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do I need one? Or is it commonly accepted behavior to fire someone via e-mail? I'm not aware of any explanation, which speaks volumes in and of itself. Since this method of firing is typically spineless in nature, and since no explanation is forthcoming, then I have no qualms drawing some very reasonable conclusions about Bradford.

Senator is just trolling us.

[jwhitlock]

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.

Perfection? No one is demanding perfection. However, it is reasonable to expect semi-decent behavior, and an apology and effort to make things right when something like this happens.

None of which appears to be happening.

[David T]

Well, you keep posting on this seemingly unimportant thread.

To recognize it as a point of discussion is one thing. There are those who have compared this to epic degrees of Apostasy in the Book of Mormon, and to a massive disturbance and attack to the Work of the Church. It's the latter which I find as being melodramatic and way out of proportion to reality.

[Freedom]

I have sent many a dismissal by email when both sides were already clear on the matter at hand. There was a prolonged discussion and not just on the one day, the publication had been delayed for months due to the lack of consensus between those involved in the discussion, the director needed to move forward with his mandated vision for the publication, the editor was not bending, a change had to be made and time was pressing on.

I have not heard of any protests at BYU, I have not noticed any articles written in the local media, and I have only noticed about 10 posters here who are outraged. That is fewer people than I had over for dinner last Sunday.

[ERayR]

You are assuming Bradford had any knowledge of the leakage.

I am assuming that if he didn't know it is another evidence of lack of management skills. Dr. Peterson has not kept it a secret.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I was making a rhetorical point by referencing Decker. But I don't see how you can fail to see the ad hominemism in the Review. I don't know how many Review articles I have read that pretty much ignore the author's substance, and direct their guns toward the author himself or herself. And I'm not just talking about Hamblin's infamous "Metcalfe is Butthead" incident. It's things like dismissing an author as anti-LDS or apostate, or questioning the author's background or credentials, or implying an ulterior motive, or questioning the author's integrity or honesty. You seriously have never seen that in the pages of the Review?

[Freedom]

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

Have you seen the financial statements for the institute, and do they identify the source of funding? The director was appointed because his superiors agree with his philosophy. To call this a coup is just ignorant and even juvenile.

[jwhitlock]

, the director needed to move forward with his mandated vision for the publication,

His mandated vision? Whose vision are we talking about? Bradford appears to be driving his own vision for the MI, from what I'm reading.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I'm done here, and have said my piece. Lest anyone mistake my view, I'm very supportive of the work Dr. Peterson has done in the past, and I look forward to hearing from him in the future. I have never said that I agree with the decision that was made, but I do believe that people should refrain from passing judgment on either Dr. Peterson or Dr. Bradford over this matter. We're simply not privy to all of the facts, players, and motivations, and in my estimation, it does more harm than good to offer public speculation and attribute wrongful motives.

[David T]

http://maxwellinstit...d=150&type=news

A New Beginning for the Mormon Studies Review

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship is continually striving to align its work with the academy's highest objectives and standards, as befits an organized research unit at Brigham Young University. Our areas of endeavor include the study of LDS scripture and other religious texts and related fields of religious scholarship, including the burgeoning field of Mormon studies.

To better serve these goals, last year we renamed our venerable FARMS Review to Mormon Studies Review. For many years the FARMS Reviewhas filled an important niche in the intellectual life of its many readers under the vigorous editorship of Professor Daniel C. Peterson and his associates, Louis C. Midgley, George L. Mitton, and, more recently, Gregory L. Smith and Robert White. We thank these colleagues and the many contributing writers to the Review for their industry and scholarship over the past twenty-three years.

We are proud of the accomplishments of the FARMS Review. But to better position the new Mormon Studies Review within its academic discipline, we are now assembling a board of scholars in this field to advise us and will appoint a new editorial team. We regret that we must suspend publication during this period of reorganization and reorientation, but we are certain that our current—and many new—readers will find the new Mormon Studies Review a valuable scholarly resource for the discipline.

We will be in contact with our subscribers shortly with information about a subscription refund. We have not yet set a launch date for the newReview, but we will post further developments on our website as they occur.

Edited June 22, 2012 by David T

[alter idem]

I think it's natural for those of us here at MADB who have aquaintance with Dr. P through his participation here, to be upset by this firing. It's natural that we would question the decisions made by those in the Maxwell Institute, because we feel protective of him and his work. But I think we need to be careful not to lose sight of the big picture.

Dr. P had been in this position for 23 years and that's a long time. I think we should be grateful he got to wield his influence as long as he did.

But clearly, Church leadership has put different people in positions of authority and they have a different vision for the direction of the Review. I don't want to be so stubborn and proud that I can't allow that I might not have the same vision that they do. I am uncomfortable with people wanting to hurt the Review by pulling funds or trying to undermine their right to make decisions for their organization. I don't think Dr. P would want that either because he gave a lot of his time and effort to this org. and I don't think he'd want it harmed. While I think it's fine to express support for Dr. P and even write to the Institute in support, I don't think it is wise to be so blindly angry that we are not willing to acknowledge that we are speculating on a lot of this and don't know what their intentions are and maybe we should give them a chance.

I suspect that if the MI moves away from apologetics that won't be the end of them--they will just find a new home or create a new organization to support them. Surely if there is that much monetary support for these efforts they won't be ended but will just change venues. In situations like this that look to be bad, I like to think of the Bro of Jared's optimism when he said that if the Lord was going to 'drive them out of the land', at least maybe he'd take them to a place of 'milk and honey'. In other words, something better would come of it. Maybe something better will come out of this--for the MI as well as for Dr. P and Mormon apologetics.

If the Gospel is true and the church is run by inspired men and they in turn choose people they believe will be guided by the spirit, then we have no need to fear, but we should pray that decisions will be for the best and will be inspired to bring about what the Lord would have us do.

[KevinG]

I'm still a few pages back scratching my head over the reflexive assumption that apologetics (defense of the faith) is somehow opposed to respect of all faiths and/or scholarship?!

I have managed to clarify many misconceptions of Mormonism with friends while appreciating their religion and faith. I've also seen this done quite deftly by people like Professor Peterson (Islamic studies anyone?)

Someone is selling a canard that apologetics is necessarily contentious and I fear from the external evidence it may be succeeding in shutting up voices that support the Saints in the face of calumny.

As an amateur I am not beholden to an institute or college but having cogent responses and real historical documents to draw upon from places like FARMS, the Maxwell Institute and other good sources is valuable to my own learning and teaching.

The quality of apologetic and historical materials has noticeably increased over the last couple of decades I've been involved in the LDS Church and in discussions about my faith.

If any mistake was made by Dr. Peterson it would be his condescending to address ridiculous accusations in public forums like this one allowing the critics and yes enemies of the church to drag him into the mud, then point fingers and blame him for the fight. A tactic they still use by quoting a single statement in the Joseph Smith History about God's displeasure with religious professors contending to say "the Mormons started it!"

The saddest part of all is that it seems the Maxwell institute is taking the stance that you can research Mormonism but you cannot appear to be actively defending Mormonism at the same time.

While I understand academic and editorial priorities changing over time I hope the Maxwell Institute does not throw out the baby with the bathwater because a critical trend to vilify apologetic activities.

(Sorry for the multiple edits- just getting my thoughts straight)

Edited June 22, 2012 by KevinG

[Calm]

Have you seen the financial statements for the institute, and do they identify the source of funding? The director was appointed because his superiors agree with his philosophy. To call this a coup is just ignorant and even juvenile.

I haven't called it a coup.

We don't know if the director represented his goals as the same as he does now. His attitudes could have changed over the years, after all.

This is simply, in my view, yet another move in the conflict between scholars who want to remain purely academic and scholars who tend to see their role as more practical. It happens in pretty much every field of study I've seen, theoretical vs. applied.

Unfortunately this time what was involved were people's careers and personal investments, perhaps even something Dan might have considered part of his life's work and not just a discussion on which has more longterm value, impact on people's lives, contributions to the knowledge of men, etc.

Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Senator]

I am assuming that if he didn't know it is another evidence of lack of management skills. Dr. Peterson has not kept it a secret.

Lacking management skills is a far cry from the allegation of being complicit in a cowardly, spineless, sleezy coup.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Senator

[John Ping Pong]

If the Gospel is true and the church is run by inspired men and they in turn choose people they believe will be guided by the spirit, then we have no need to fear, but we should pray that decisions will be for the best and will be inspired to bring about what the Lord would have us do.

If.

[Senator]

We're simply not privy to all of the facts, players, and motivations, and in my estimation, it does more harm than good to offer public speculation and attribute wrongful motives.

Indeed. That's supposed to be the pervue of the critics and anti-mormons.

[John Ping Pong]

Crap. Meet fan.

[why me]

Contributors should care because, if this simple function of management is mishandled to this degree, what kind of management mishandling can be expected on other issues?

I don't think that other issues matter. However, how it was handled with Dan shows that the board over there needs to be replaced. Or if not the board, Mr. Bradford needs to be replaced since he has lost credibility because of the way he handled Dan. I would claim a lack of trust in his leadership.

[why me]

Sounds like a board war

No.

But the topic of Will is off topic for this thread.