Bernard Gui Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Here is an essential exposition of Gerald Bradford's position.http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=19&num=1&id=640Bernard 3
Jersey Girl Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) The person has lost his/her belief in the LDS Church since joining MI- and is now serving as a mole for the anti-Mormon crowd, instead of doing the honorable thing and resigning his/her position.That's what makes the most sense. Given that possibility, and the incredibly poor way the decision was facilitated, I'd say Dr. Peterson probably already knows he's better off not working with people who are unprofessional and not at all trustworthy.I do wish him well. Edited June 23, 2012 by Jersey Girl
Robert F. Smith Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 This is just getting worse. People I have admired for years could seriously use some PR help right now.d'accord, mon ami.
zerinus Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 This was not in church, but in a university setting.But the basic principle of it is the same. Nobody has a job for life, especially this kind of job. When the time comes for us to be "honourably released," we should accept it gracefully, or end up making ourselves "dishonourably dismissed".Dan's public response to his dismissal.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/06/of-gratitude-and-its-expression.htmlI don't understand why he is calling it a "dismissal" either. It seems to me that they are doing their best to give him an "honourable release," but he insists on turning it into a "dishonourable dismiss". 1
smac97 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Tim Berman at the Examiner is weighing in: http://www.examiner.com/article/professor-daniel-c-peterson-is-dismissed-as-editor-of-mormon-studies-reviewHe describes long-brewing "internal conflicts" between MI and FAIR. That's news to me.He also critiques Peggy Fletcher Stack's Trib article, stating that "there is no substantial evidence to support Fletcher's assertion that Dehlin had exerted any type of influence to have an article removed from publication, nor any evidence that the article actually made any personal attacks against Dehlin."-Smac
Calm Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 As an amateur apologist, and having engaged in discussions over at the former FARMS Discussion forum (now known asMormon Discussions and Dialogue), the past several years there has been a concerted effort against Professor Daniel C. Peterson and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. One such place is the Mormon Discussion forum operated by detractors and critics of the Mormon Faith. During this time, there arose some form of a conspiracy theory about some internal conflicts between FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic and Information Research that was initially founded by members of the Church who had engaged in online discussions on the old AOL discussion forums about the Church) and the Institute. The main conspiracy theory revolved around Professor Daniel Peterson.News to FAIR too.
smac97 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I've taken a rather extended hiatus from apologetics during the past few years. I used to be an avid and daily participant here, but I've had other demands on my time for quite a while (professional, home and church stuff).Anyhoo, having followed this story for the last few days, I am more eager than ever to read Greg Smith's article about John Dehlin. While I have some doubts about whether this article played a role in DCP's dismissal as editor, I think Mr. Dehlin will come to regret his continued attempts to censor this article, as those attempts have only brought more attention to the article.Is someone at FAIR going to approach Mr. Smith about publishing his article? Thanks,-Smac
Nemesis Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I've taken a rather extended hiatus from apologetics during the past few years. I used to be an avid and daily participant here, but I've had other demands on my time for quite a while (professional, home and church stuff).Anyhoo, having followed this story for the last few days, I am more eager than ever to read Greg Smith's article about John Dehlin. While I have some doubts about whether this article played a role in DCP's dismissal as editor, I think Mr. Dehlin will come to regret his continued attempts to censor this article, as those attempts have only brought more attention to the article.Is someone at FAIR going to approach Mr. Smith about publishing his article?Thanks,-SmacI'm sure there are a few offers on the table for different venues. However I am of the opinion the longer it stays unpublished when the public finally gets to read it, they will accuse it of being a sanitized version.Nemesis
zerinus Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 NONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THE PUBLICATION HAD ACTUALLY READ THE PAPER!!!!Let me repeat this for clarification purposes:NONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED THE PUBLICATION HAD ACTUALLY READ THE PAPER!!!! Not a single one. And, indeed, not a single one has read it to this day. Bradford expressly told Dan he did not want to read the article.Is this article available on the Internet somewhere so the rest of us can read it?
Duncan Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Is this article available on the Internet somewhere so the rest of us can read it?rumour has it that it's in the First Presidency Vault 2
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 rumour has it that it's in the First Presidency Vault
zerinus Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 In the long run I'd be willing to put it on my blog, when and if Greg Smith gives me permission. It is a great article, articulate and professional, without a whiff of ad hominem. I'm sure it will get out eventually.I look forward to reading it.
smac97 Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 At this point I am more interested in Greg Smith's article than the goings-on inside of MI. I think the powers-that-be will sort out the mess Mr. Bradford appears to have made, but the article which precipitated the mess sounds like it's worth a read.-Smac
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Keep in mind that we don't know how much of Bradford's action was influenced by those above him, so this could very well have been a decision made by the Church's authorities. This is a Church owned institution, after all. And we know some General Authorities have been involved in this.I will certainly hope that the no GA was behind an email firing and an ousting of the board. The way it was done was awful. I would have hoped for a more christian approach to such things from the GAs. I am afraid that the firing was basically 'psychopathic', without empathy or human emotional understanding.
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 For what reason would an employee of the MI leak the emails? Doesn't Bradford know who's working for him?I think it was you know who's informant. But I could be wrong. It seems that Dan had an enemy at MI who would feed someone the goings on of Dan at MI. Dan called it stalking. But like I said, I could be wrong about it all.
Storm Rider Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Is there a way to get the article published where Dehlin doesn't have the ability to have GA's intervene? I mean what's to stop G. Smith from posting it on a message board if size wasn't an issue? It seems like this paper has turned into the boogey man.NemesisIs it possible to obtain a copy of this article for my own pleasure and edification? I know this is a dumb question, but I just want you guys to know that when you do decide to release it, please remember my request.
PacMan Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 IMPORTANT NOTE: Bradford did not leak the emails. One of the employees of the Maxwell Institute, which he heads, leaked them.And where's the buck stop? He's responsible for it. Time for Bradford to go.
Ron Beron Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Thanks Cal and Ray.......... I am really just making enemies on Facebook these days, so I thought I'd come back and see if I can add to the total - LOL! Hey how do I add those cool little face thingy's?Enemies?? Really?? Not me! I enjoy the give and take. Besides I know that you like to roil the pot to see what you can dredge up.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 23, 2012 Author Posted June 23, 2012 And where's the buck stop? He's responsible for it. Time for Bradford to go.Be that as it may, he did not personally leak it.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Enemies?? Really?? Not me! I enjoy the give and take. Besides I know that you like to roil the pot to see what you can dredge up. No, of course not you! You are one of the dearest of my friends......... always will be....... I LUV YA MAN!
Storm Rider Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I will certainly hope that the no GA was behind an email firing and an ousting of the board. The way it was done was awful. I would have hoped for a more christian approach to such things from the GAs. I am afraid that the firing was basically 'psychopathic', without empathy or human emotional understanding.I agree; it would be terrible form and stupid beyond all possible thought. It is one of the weaknesses of mortal organizations; they are filled with mortal men with personal egos, limited intelligence, opinions, and a host of shortcomings. If anything, this whole episode demonstrates that their feet are made of a very sandy clay. The one thing that was said earlier that resonates with me is that it is just awfully embarrasing. I wish that those people in authority were not so...mortal, so carnal and devilish and more capable of making better decisions of how to do things. To stop printing in mid-stride? This is the stuff that will become legend on how not to be so pitifully stupid (I know I am using the word too much, but I cannot find another word that expresses my feelings as well; it is just such an overwhelming degree of utter stupidity). 1
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) IMPORTANT NOTE: Bradford did not leak the emails. One of the employees of the Maxwell Institute, which he heads, leaked them.And if this information made it to the other board? It is beginning to feel like a Get Smart episode without the humor. Edited June 23, 2012 by why me
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I agree; it would be terrible form and stupid beyond all possible thought. It is one of the weaknesses of mortal organizations; they are filled with mortal men with personal egos, limited intelligence, opinions, and a host of shortcomings. If anything, this whole episode demonstrates that their feet are made of a very sandy clay.The one thing that was said earlier that resonates with me is that it is just awfully embarrasing. I wish that those people in authority were not so...mortal, so carnal and devilish and more capable of making better decisions of how to do things. To stop printing in mid-stride? This is the stuff that will become legend on how not to be so pitifully stupid (I know I am using the word too much, but I cannot find another word that expresses my feelings as well; it is just such an overwhelming degree of utter stupidity).This is true. But lets hope that it wasn't with a GA and just Bradford or some other person at BYU above him. However, I can see a GA in on the firing. But not in the way that it was done. There had to be a better way than an email while the person was away. A polite call in would have done the trick and a general meeting of the board. Edited June 23, 2012 by why me
Nemesis Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Not sure how big of a paper the new section I set up can hold but feel free to submit rejected papers here. This site is impervious to outside influence.Nemesis
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Heh......... I think that ALL ppers that have been rejected ought to be published around here for us all to read.......now wouldn't THAT rock?!
Recommended Posts