Dan'S Dismissal Is Official

[Calm]

Surely, I would think, someone with some level of authority read the article and pronounced it unworthy for publication.

That would be the rational thing to do.

Have you read Dr. Hamblin's blog? If not see: http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/

Start reading down on June 21 and proceed upwards.

PS: just saw this added...

Anyway, with one additional brief notice I’ll post in a moment, I’m done commenting on this controversy. It’s over, and there is nothing that can be done to ameliorate the situation. I’ve done the best I could to stand by my friend Dan. But now I’m going back to occasional musings on what’s really important.

PPS: if anyone wants a peaceful rest from all of this, the pictures of Switzerland on Dan's blog are absolutely stunning.

Edited June 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

The circumstances between Joseph Smith's jovial attitude, the period in which he lived, and the audience he reached and was accountable to are so radically different from those which Professor Peterson dealt with as to make your supposition silly.

However, Joseph was often criticized for his behavior. He showed anger and joviality. Both traits went against him as a prophet. And as you claimed, Dan was sarcastic. However, both showed human traits. Why fire someone for being human? My point was simple: At MI joseph would have been canned for his problems with anger and he may also have been canned for his joviality, if we place behavior as a central reason for firing someone.

[Mark Beesley]

However, Joseph was often criticized for his behavior. He showed anger and joviality. Both traits went against him as a prophet. And as you claimed, Dan was sarcastic. However, both showed human traits. Why fire someone for being human? My point was simple: At MI joseph would have been canned for his problems with anger and he may also have been canned for his joviality, if we place behavior as a central reason for firing someone.

Being a prophet is not a vocation.

That being said, I suppose you are right. If Joseph Smith had lived in a worlld with mass communication's potential of reaching millions, had been employed by an institution where he was expected to display the highest level of discipline and respect for others, and demonstrated an ongoing inability to curb his anger and other emotions in a way that his employer found to be unprofessional and harmful to the institution, then I guess I would understand his being fired. But he would have still been the prophet. Only God can fire you from being that.

Now then, I am not suggesting that Professor Peterson was dismissed from his position because of any such factors. I don't know. I am simply saying that based on what I have seen over the years, I understand such a move. He made himself a target by frequenting responding to the disgusting material posted by his critics. How large an audience did he really think they had that it required his ongoing monitoring and responses? And having read what purports to be the email notifying him of the Institute's aciton, and his response thereto, (which appears to be classic DCP)I have no reason to question Bradford's decision.

If, as some have said it was a good week for apostates, or if they have been able to relish in the event, it is, in no small part, because of the way Professor Peterson reacted, if the email I read is legitimate.

And let me say this as well. Does anyone else find it disturbing that "leaks" are somehow seen as part of the problem? I'm sorry, but in my view, the Chuch and BYU should be operating in the light of day without fear of anything being "leaked." There has been too much obfuscation in the past, and we need to get beyond that.

[Brant Gardner]

I'm sorry, but in my view, the Chuch and BYU should be operating in the light of day without fear of anything being "leaked." There has been too much obfuscation in the past, and we need to get beyond that.

Those are completely different issues. Appropriate openness never requires absolute openness. There should always be things that are intended to remain internal, and one who makes public that which was intended to be private has broken a trust equally as important as perceived openness.

[gtaggart]

Those are completely different issues. Appropriate openness never requires absolute openness. There should always be things that are intended to remain internal, and one who makes public that which was intended to be private has broken a trust equally as important as perceived openness.

What Brant said.

[why me]

Those are completely different issues. Appropriate openness never requires absolute openness. There should always be things that are intended to remain internal, and one who makes public that which was intended to be private has broken a trust equally as important as perceived openness.

And that has been my point throughout my posts. This should have never happened and an internal investigation needs to be launched and I hope that Dan takes care of it when he returns. And that his defenders will be right behind him giving him support.

[Mark Beesley]

Those are completely different issues. Appropriate openness never requires absolute openness. There should always be things that are intended to remain internal . . .

Without belaboring the point, can you give me a "for instance" excluding, of course, temple content?

[Brant Gardner]

Without belaboring the point, can you give me a "for instance" excluding, of course, temple content?

Let's say that history should be open, and the church ought to publish all of the Joseph Smith papers. I think that is good. I don't think that if I work in the Church Office building, and somehow I get access to a private email my boss has sent to another person wondering if he and his wife were coping well with an issue, that I should publish the fact that the person and his wife were having issues. I particularly don't think I should publish the private email in such a way that the issues are assumed and trumpeted without actual understanding of what the issues might have been.

I would have committed two breaches of trust. First, that I hacked/stole my bosses email. Second, that I made public something that was not intended to be made public. It would be even worse if by making it public, others made assumptions that the the husband or wife were having an affair, even though that wasn't in the email or the intent of it.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Pahoran]

Without belaboring the point, can you give me a "for instance" excluding, of course, temple content?

Brant's reply shows just one example. The fact is that in any organisation there are all manner of things that are just routinely kept confidential. Some are about people: salaries, performance reviews and so forth. Others might be "commercially sensitive," i.e. things a business or academic organisation might not want their competitors to know were in the works. A lot of the stuff around academic peer review (such as the identities of reviewers) are routinely confidential, as are most internal communications within an organisation; people make such communications on the rather explicit understanding that they will be confined to the named recipients. And it doesn't really matter if that group numbers one, eighteen or 800; only they are supposed to receive them.

The notion that all leaks are benign because no-one should ever have anything to hide is at best hopelessly naive. The leaking of internal MI communications was grossly disloyal and clearly malicious. To the malice clique, who largely have no moral compass at all, that is a good thing; but one would hope that Dr Bradford, an alleged Latter-day Saint and colleague of Dr Peterson, would have the decency to do the right thing about the leaks.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mark Beesley]

Let's say that history should be open, and the church ought to publish all of the Joseph Smith papers. I think that is good. I don't think that if I work in the Church Office building, and somehow I get access to a private email my boss has sent to another person wondering if he and his wife were coping well with an issue, that I should publish the fact that the person and his wife were having issues. I particularly don't think I should publish the private email in such a way that the issues are assumed and trumpeted without actual understanding of what the issues might have been.

I would have committed two breaches of trust. First, that I hacked/stole my bosses email. Second, that I made public something that was not intended to be made public. It would be even worse if by making it public, others made assumptions that the the husband or wife were having an affair, even though that wasn't in the email or the intent of it.

I agree with you in principle; however, we all know that private email sent from a company computer is . . . um, not private. So anyone who would risk sharing information in such a way is taking a risk.

Maybe I'm not informed of the MI leaks that seem to be bothering some.

Was there a leak about the article that may or may not have been planned about Dehlin? If so, and if it was a piece that was not worthy of publication in a MI journal, then thankfully someone had the guts to blow the whistle before it happened.

If there is a complaint about the personnel change at the MI being leaked too early, well, that is more a matter of timing rather than substance, and really not worthy of that much concern. Everyone wants the scoop, right Scott?

With regards to Pahoran's reply, well, since I never suggested that "all leaks are benign because no-one should ever have anything to hide," I don't know that anything else he raised needs a response. My reference point with regard to the problem of leaks is the Church and BYU, not some high tech firm or private law office. And having worked in a public law office for years where my salary was public, I'm not too sympathetic to some of his assertions.

[rodheadlee]

No he did not. Ever. He said that the intellectual history behind a person's writings is of fundamental importance to understand the writing. Books don't occur in a vacuum. They are part of a broader social context and a personal intellectual and spiritual context. You cannot engage a book, except at the most vacuous level, without understanding an author and his times. Why else do people write intellectual biographies of the great writers and intellectuals? It is a standard part of intellectual history.

This is true even if you are going to read a novel. It's important to understand the author's background and point of view.

[Brant Gardner]

And having worked in a public law office for years where my salary was public, I'm not too sympathetic to some of his assertions.

And all documents and emails about all cases and clients are open for public scrutiny?

[Scott Lloyd]

If there is a complaint about the personnel change at the MI being leaked too early, well, that is more a matter of timing rather than substance, and really not worthy of that much concern. Everyone wants the scoop, right Scott?

Well, Mark, since you put the question to me, I will respond by saying that even news reporters do not always tell all they know. That the ones with a sense of ethics will, as a matter of decency, routinely weigh an individual's right to privacy against the public's need to know.

With regard to the matter at hand, I notice that the Tribune, to its credit, did not go with a story until the public announcement was posted on the MI website, this despite the fact that the leaked emails and incessant cyber chatter about them had been on the Internet for a solid week before the story appeared.

And having observed Peggy over the years, I would be amazed to learn that she had not heard of this thing until the MI announcement appeared.

[Calm]

And having observed Peggy over the years, I would be amazed to learn that she had not heard of this thing until the MI announcement appeared.

I've gotten the impression over the years from various comments here and there on the internet that it is likely her mailbox is flooded daily with the latest gossip in all things Mormon.

[Mark Beesley]

And all documents and emails about all cases and clients are open for public scrutiny?

Is that what you want to liken a leak about a personnel change at MI to, a possible violation of the attorney-client privilege? Really?

Oh well.

[Mark Beesley]

Well, Mark, since you put the question to me, I will respond by saying that even news reporters do not always tell all they know. That the ones with a sense of ethics will, as a matter of decency, routinely weigh an individual's right to privacy against the public's need to know.

It has been my experience that reporters are concerned about:

1. Getting the scoop; and

2. Protecting their source.

[Brant Gardner]

Is that what you want to liken a leak about a personnel change at MI to, a possible violation of the attorney-client privilege? Really?

Good to know that you draw the ethical line only where the law does. Perhaps business would be a better model? How long should I last if I am snooping in my boss's email, let alone making it public? Edited June 26, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Scott Lloyd]

It has been my experience that reporters are concerned about:

1. Getting the scoop; and

2. Protecting their source.

And all attorneys are shysters -- except for the ones who aren't.

[Mark Beesley]

Good to know that you draw the ethical line only where the law does. Perhaps business would be a better model? How long should I last if I am snooping in my boss's email, let alone making it public?

Right, that's what I said.

[wenglund]

Without belaboring the point, can you give me a "for instance" excluding, of course, temple content?

Do the notions of "privacy" and "nobody else's business" entirely escape you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

Do the notions of "privacy" and "nobody else's business" entirely escape you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, now you've decided to stalk me? Give it a rest Wade. Brant, why me, Pahoran, Scott and now you have all ignored the context of what I wrote for the sake of trying to score cheap points. I guess the apple truly does not fall far from the tree.

Buh Bye.

[Calm]

Brant, why me, Pahoran, Scott and now you have all ignored the context of what I wrote for the sake of trying to score cheap points.

Or they didn't understand your point.....because I'm not getting it either.

I guess the apple truly does not fall far from the tree.

Perhaps a cheap point?

And I don't even know what tree you are referring here to....

Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

So, now you've decided to stalk me? Give it a rest Wade. Brant, why me, Pahoran, Scott and now you have all ignored the context of what I wrote for the sake of trying to score cheap points. I guess the apple truly does not fall far from the tree.

Buh Bye.

That is an interesting brush-stroke you just flippantly painted me and others with. It not only lacks perspective and a fair sense of self-reflection, but it also has projection written all over it. See ya.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

Or they didn't understand your point.....because I'm not getting it either.

Me neither anymore.

[Calm]

Me neither anymore.

It is kinda starting to feel that way.....sigh.

It would be nice to feel like some resolution has occurred instead of being left hanging wondering what has gone on, what is going on and most important what is going to go on.