My Assessment Of The Situation At The Maxwell Institute

[DBMormon]

I knew Farms before joining... been following them from a distance ever since live in ohio and have no connection to them other then LDS.... most of my ward knows what it is

[DBMormon]

If BYU didn't want to support apologetics, then it seems strange that it asked FARMS to come under its wing in the first place.

Daniel, Bill, - any others with insight..... Had you known then that the change in direction would come like this would FARMS have ever allowed itself to be absorbed by the church? no disrepect to anyone here just curious of this answer

Any thoughts if another organization would rise in it's place to function like FARMS did in the past?

Edited June 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[selek1]

The best way to contest unwarranted slam dunks is to lay all the information out on the table without making up a doctrinal or psuedo-historical speculative scenario as to how this might (or must)fit with the Received Tradition.

This flatly contradicts your earlier plea for tolerance of "alternative understandings".

It appears that you're perfectly fine with the authors drawing conclusions- so long as those conclusions are palatable to your avante garde tendencies.

This leads to individuals relying on that apologetic foundation - and then when it is shown to collapse, that 'slam dunk' becomes, once again, uncontested.

Which can happen just as readily whether the explanations are traditional or fashionable.

The current style puts band-aids on something that needs internal surgery.

That's your opinion. Others of good conscience are free to disagree.

I say present the data in the peer-reviewed literature, and then let the unaffiliated FAIR or whatever present their doctrinal interpretation/speculation on the meaning of the data according.

The problems with this position are legion, First and foremost, most "peer-reviewed" journals are heavily biased toward nautral humanism, and won't touch our material with a ten meter cattle-prod.

"Peer -review" has long been the critic's favorite hobby horse for exactly that reason.

I think the type of work FAIR does has a significant place - but the M.I., as I see it, shouldn't be that place.

If not there- then where?

I think MrMandias hit the nail on the head when he said that this entire kerfuffle- and Bradford's decision- are all about being more accepted in the faculty cocktail circuit, rather than teaching the truth about the LDS faith.

[BCSpace]

Question: How did Bradford come to head the MI and who was his predecessor?

[Bob Oliverio]

No, I'm serious here.  Is Daniel Peterson a recognized figure in the Church or in the leadership of BYU academics.  Is this Maxwell Institute a recognized academic institution outside of BYU and Utah. I am being serious, what is the significance here and to the future of the Church?  I was just assuming, based on the emotions of this thread, that this was some huge happening within the Church.  Will it be something we read in the Ensign or in the press somewhere?

Am I missing something here??

[Analytics]

Well, what do you think?

I happen to agree with the Maxwell Institute on this question; mean-spirited and vindictive apologetic rants are bad for the Church.

Interestingly, the "many people" who supposedly "hold this view" -- or, at least, who advance it -- are almost invariably anti-Mormons. Might that be a clue?

Do you think Jerry Bradford is an anti-Mormon? He is certainly advancing this view. How about the entirety of the BYU and Church hierarchy above him who are supporting him on this? Do you think the Maxwell Institute is an anti-Mormon organization? BYU? The Church itself?

Some might think it’s ironic that you accuse me of being an anti-Mormon for agreeing with the Maxwell Institute. I see no irony at all; regardless of what I say, your responses to me entail accusations of being an anti-Mormon.

[Teancum]

Let's not forget another player in this whole mess--John Dehlin of Mormon Stories, who I'm sure has well-placed informants all over. He has initiated a campaign to try and force the Church to change from the inside, and has recruitied several highly influential people (such as Joanna Brooks) advocate for him with the media. He says that he no longer believes in the Church and its teachings, yet remains a member so as to retain credibility in his mission of infiltration and mass apostasy from within. Will someone please excommunicate him already?

You are not serious are you? Really? You must now know much about Dehlin.

And to Dan, if you are reading this I want to say I am saddened and sorry about all this. I still wonder at how so many critics who despise you see you as such a monster. Personally I don't get it. Best wishes in your future.

[Scott Lloyd]

I second that emotion!

Now I've got that Smoky Robinson song stuck in my head. Thanks a lot!

[noel00]

You should model yourself on Books and Culture: A Christian Review. I cannot see many articles there dealing with antichristian books but rather writing, theology, history

[Teancum]

Whether or not Dehlin will be excommunicated anytime soon is less important to me than the fact that his true identity and purposes have been greatly illuminated over the course of the past several weeks.

And just what is his TRUE Purpose? You think you know but it seem you see conspiracy under every rock.

Hopefully, the powers that be will connect Dehlin's purposes with those of the people who have worked to effect the coup d'état at the Maxwell Institute, and move to thwart them before it is too late.

Did Dehlin have influence over this decision? You think? Perhaps the fact that there was something in the works focusing on Dehlin was more what led to this than anything else. You might really want to think about that mote and beam thing. Your holy warrior attifude may be more damaging then you care to accept.

As I noted here before there really attitudes that can be dangerous.

I predict this. Nothing will happen to Dehlin. The world is changing Will and the Church has to modify how it deals with many things. The church has done nothing to other high profile apostates in recent years. Why is that?

I predict also that Dan will stay very involved in apologetics. Where and how I do not know. More with FAIR? Something on his own? Who knows.

[Libs]

You are not serious are you? Really? You must now know much about Dehlin.

And to Dan, if you are reading this I want to say I am saddened and sorry about all this. I still wonder at how so many critics who despise you see you as such a monster. Personally I don't get it. Best wishes in your future.

I don't get it, either. I keep seeing these accusations about Dr. Peterson being thrown around, but I have never seen any evidence of it.

I also don't believe John Dehlin has done anything worthy of excommunication. I do see a place for both John and Dan in LDS apologetics. Very different styles, but both very useful/helpful, in their own ways.

[Scott Lloyd]

(Anti-Mormons and apostates, please get lost.)

[Note: Apparently a phrase I used means something different in English English than American English, so I made a slight editorial change. I apologize if I offended anyone.]

You could have modified one word and avoided the vulgarity. But I completely understand -- and share -- the sentiment.

[Pahoran]

I happen to agree with the Maxwell Institute on this question; mean-spirited and vindictive apologetic rants are bad for the Church.

Here's the thing: if you really believed that, you'd be in favour of them.

But that still wouldn't mean you'd be in favour of anything published in the Review, though.

But I love the way you so slyly try to wrap yourself in the MI flag. As everyone here knows, you are not agreeing with the MI when you make that statement; you are agreeing with something you choose to impute to the MI as if that were its position.

Do you think Jerry Bradford is an anti-Mormon? He is certainly advancing this view.

Is he? Call for references, please. What did he say and where did he say it?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Bradford had indeed been deceived by this canard. Would that make him an anti-Mormon? No; it would simply make him a "useful idiot" for those who had deceived him. It is not unheard of for ivory-tower academics and/or institutional bureaucrats to be hopelessly naive about what is happening in the real world. 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.

However, that all assumes, for the sake of argument, that Bradford had indeed been deceived by that canard. The reality is that you merely assume that he had; you choose to interpret his actions in that light.

The fact is, whatever his real motivations or intentions may be, this development is a victory for the anti-Mormons. Which is why you are all high-fiving each other over on your hate board.

Some might think it’s ironic that you accuse me of being an anti-Mormon for agreeing with the Maxwell Institute.

As you perfectly well know, I have said no such thing. What I can't understand is why you feel that it is an "accusation" to say that you are opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ. Why be ashamed of who you are?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

I also don't believe John Dehlin has done anything worthy of excommunication. I do see a place for both John and Dan in LDS apologetics. Very different styles, but both very useful/helpful, in their own ways.

I'm not calling for John's excommunication either. But to call what he does "LDS apologetics" I think tortures the meaning of the term.

[selek1]

This statement:

This year I won't contribute because I see no need for another banal journal that publishes articles maybe 10 people will read, and because I supported Dr. Peterson's work.

Contradicts this one:

Since then, FARMS has gone from a small almost-hobby-horse of specialized Book of Mormon studies and the publisher of papers and a review to a widely-read and controversial semi-annual...

Again, I don't buy the "while away" nonsense. Not in today's world. A tenured professor is always on the clock.

As to the while away "nonsense", we know that Dan was in Bradford's office just four days before his trip began, and if memory serves, it was roughly ten days between that conversation and the cowardly e-mail.

Do you really want to argue that Bradford did not know what was coming during that last meeting?

Do you really want to argue that Bradford could not have handled the dismissal either before the trip or waited until Dan's return?

No- Okham's Razor dictates that this was handled this way for one reason and one reason only- because Bradford didn't want to have look Dan in the eye while cutting him loose.

And that's cowardice.

Edited June 22, 2012 by selek1

[Bob Oliverio]

Ok, who is this Bradford guy and is he more/less important than this Peterson guy?

[selek1]

Ok, who is this Bradford guy and is he more/less important than this Peterson guy?

Read the O.P.

The answer to your question can be found therein.

[Bob Oliverio]

Read the O.P.

The answer to your question can be found therein.

Thanks, I did.  Doesn't answer my question.  For those of us outside of Provo, is this Mr Peterson an important figure in the Church or it's mission?  I really don't understand all fuss here.  Is this something that all members should be informed about?

[why me]

Thanks, I did. Doesn't answer my question. For those of us outside of Provo, is this Mr Peterson an important figure in the Church or it's mission? I really don't understand all fuss here. Is this something that all members should be informed about?

Dan has written many articles in lds newspapers: Mormon Times, Desseret News etc. He is also a public figure in LDS apologetics. Is he a GA? No. But he is important for those who have read his articles in the newspapers and have listened and read his apologetics. He is also a professor at BYU and a scholar and is known on campus.

I am sure that I have left something out but outside of these things, he is not that important except as a human being who should have been handled with more respect.

[mormonheretic]

Bob, I think you need to define "important to the church." Dan isn't the kind of guy who is going to speak at General Conference. If that's what you mean by "important", than no, Dan is not important.

However, in the world of internet Mormons, Dan is quite well-known. He has fans among members, detractors from anti-Mormons. So in the Bloggernacle, Dan is "important." He is probably one of the most visible defenders of the Church, but if you're not on the Bloggernacle very much, that's probably why you've never heard of him.

Until this kerfuffle, I had never heard of Bradford.

I am curious how the Dehlin paper fits into this. It seems to me to be overblown in importance to this issue; however, I do wonder if it was the last straw on the direction of the Review.

[why me]

Bob, I think you need to define "important to the church." Dan isn't the kind of guy who is going to speak at General Conference. If that's what you mean by "important", than no, Dan is not important.

However, in the world of internet Mormons, Dan is quite well-known. He has fans among members, detractors from anti-Mormons. So in the Bloggernacle, Dan is "important." He is probably one of the most visible defenders of the Church, but if you're not on the Bloggernacle very much, that's probably why you've never heard of him.

He is also a professor and a scholar and known in those circles where his scholarly expertise is valued. This removal of course has an impact in those circles too since Dan has to explain just why he was removed. Dan is not paid for his apologetics but he is paid for his academic expertise. And I am sure that GAs have read his articles in the newpapers such as Mormon Times and Desseret News.

And I am sure that he is known in other circles too where he may be involved in. I think that the problem is not so much the removal but how it was done. Editors lose their positions for many reasons and one of those is a change of direction in the editorial board. No problem there and i think that Dan could have handled that. But how this dismissal was done was harsh and cruel and unbecoming of an lds publication when we consider love of neighbor.

[The Nehor]

I can't decide whether to call my friends and family who currently contribute, tell them what happened, and ask them to stop or not. The indignant part of me wants to but the pragmatic part wants to see what happens first.

[why me]

I can't decide whether to call my friends and family who currently contribute, tell them what happened, and ask them to stop or not. The indignant part of me wants to but the pragmatic part wants to see what happens first.

The other problem outside of how Dan was dismissed is the mole who leaked the emails. I think that this in itself constitutes a breach in trust that members should have in such a publication. There is obviously someone in that organization that wanted to harm Dan as much as possible. And this should cause someone to be indignant. I don't know where pragmatism comes in in this kind of situation.

[Libs]

I'm not calling for John's excommunication either. But to call what he does "LDS apologetics" I think tortures the meaning of the term.

No, John doesn't do apologetics. His group is mainly a support group for disaffected LDS, but he does participate in apologetics, in a round about way, in that he has interviewed many apologists and brings those kinds of subjects to the discussion table.

[Freedom]

No, I'm serious here. Is Daniel Peterson a recognized figure in the Church or in the leadership of BYU academics. Is this Maxwell Institute a recognized academic institution outside of BYU and Utah. I am being serious, what is the significance here and to the future of the Church? I was just assuming, based on the emotions of this thread, that this was some huge happening within the Church. Will it be something we read in the Ensign or in the press somewhere?

Am I missing something here??

From my perspective, nobody in the general population of the church knows who Mr Peterson is, and few are aware of MI, FAIR or the many other sources of apologetics and mormon research. MI is irrelevant to the functioning of the church in my opinion. Of course, I could pose the question: who is the surgeon general in the U.S., who appointed him/her, and what qualifications are needed to get this position. This person is infinitely more important that FAIR or MI, but I suspect everybody reading my post has to do a google search to find the answer. I also wonder if anybody knows who is responsible for the school curriculum in the school district where their children are enrolled. Again, lots of frantic google searches or lots of 'who cares'. 99% of people just don't care and are too busy to care or do not understand the ramifications of not caring. Those interested in the esoteric issues discussed here are involved in a hobby that interests very few people. And this hobby waists a lot of time and accomplishes very little compared to gardening or rugby.