What The Maxwell Institute Controversy Is Really About

[DBMormon]

Peppermint Patty to kind of ring along with your comment

Am I the only one who finds it odd that there are a group of well thought of individuals who seem to enjoy playing out their professional lives on the stage of the Mormon Discussion Board. I can't imagine the drama that goes on at my work place and then my sitting down on this board and letting the world know what a bad boss I have/had. I felt this way about the Dehlin thread and his mistreatment by Farms and Mr. Peterson and I feel this same thought coming on with these FARMS threads. I realize it is in an effort to stem false rumors going around but dirty laundry is still being aired... right?

Also if the Church owns farms and this direction is likely coming from Salt Lake or with their approval, then how is complaining about this change of direction any different then complaining about the brethren in other matters?

This seems like the wrong forum for this. Which is why I have said little on these 3-4 threads. Any other line of work or people you weren't so familiar with and many of you would not be in favor of this kind of method.

FWIW

For the record, I too sent a email to MI expressing dissapointment so know my opinion is not due to being against the cause.

Edited June 23, 2012 by DBMormon

[John Ping Pong]

That the enemies of the Church are pleased with the changes at the MI should be a real warning flag as to how valid the new direction is.

Will your attitude remain the same should you discover Church leaders are also pleased with the changes at the MI?

This did not happen in a vacuum.

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the change is likely a direct result of the correlated control of MI imposed by the Church.

[David T]

Will, (and Bill, and Dan, if you're there) some questions that I think need clarification, especially due to how you see this has having Epic, Church-rending, scripturally prophesied ramifications.

Is your view that the role and right and mission and authority of the NAMI is to call out and label and expose and 'take aim at' Church members as Apostates (using the editorial staff's interpretation of the definition), even though their designated local leaders have chosen not to pursue disciplinary measures?

What are key new 'uncontested slam dunks' that have not been contested, that are still being perpetuated that require and are worth devoting a degree of Scholarship to defeat and 'contest' that is not currently already available or possible at FAIR (or already published in past FARMS publications!), that non-polemical historical research and presentation (such as the Massacre at Mountain Meadows book by Turley et al and Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling) is unable to address?

Without waxing epic or parabolic or in broad general terms, please give specifics, giving topics, names, and examples of how this change will cause the Church to go fundamentally and substantially undefended in the way you have been suggesting, and why you view this as such a huge ginormous victory for Enemies of the Church.

I'm sure you consider us blind who don't see it, but for the sake of helping the blind to see, I beg of you to condescend to spell it out for us in specifics.

Edited June 23, 2012 by David T

[mapman]

Therefore, those who were desirous that the course of the Maxwell Institute should be altered were angry with Professor Peterson, and desired that he should no longer be editor of the Mormon Studies Review; therefore there arose a dispute concerning the matter.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should be dethroned from the editorship were called "learned scholars," for they were desirous that the agenda of the Maxwell Institute should be altered in a manner to overthrow those dedicated to defending the Church against the attacks of its enemies, and to establish the rule of the "learned scholars" over the Maxwell Institute.

And those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should remain editor of the Mormon Studies Review took upon them the name of apologists of Sergeant Nibley's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and thus was the division among them, for the apologists had sworn or covenanted to defend the Church against the attacks of its enemies.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the apologists, but the voice of the people was ignored, and Professor Peterson and his band of apologists were silenced by the learned scholars.

Now those who were in favor of the learned scholars were those of higher education, and they sought also to be learned scholars; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

And behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of the Church, for behold, Dehlin stirred up the hearts of the people of the apostates against the people of the Church, and he was gathering together supporters from all parts of the land, and arming them with talking points, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Professor Peterson and all his band of apologists. And it came to pass that he did fill his cup to overflowing.

I hope that you are just being hyperbolic. Not that this event has no significance, but it is way out there to think that this is of cosmic importance or that it will result in the Church going through a crisis because of John Dehlin and his supposed army of wolves in sheep's clothing.

[ERayR]

Yeah, when I was a teenager, I was fired from Lagoon. I felt that they had no basis for firing me and it hurt. I was confused and my pride was hurt. I think I learned some valuable lessons from that experience.

Getting fired, unfortunately, can happen to the best of us. It can happen even when it's not your fault. There could be a personality conflict between yourself and your supervisor. Management might want to go in another direction. You could have simply screwed up. It happens. You're not alone.

First, do not insult your former boss or employer. It almost always never changes the situation and tends to reflect badly on the fired employee. No future employer likes to wonder if you will talking about them that way in the future.

Second, don't be angry. Feeling angry after being fired is normal. As hard as it may be, and it is hard, you need to get over getting fired and move on. There are always better opportunities out there.

I have learned that how one reacts when being fired speaks volumes of that individual's character.

i hate to break the news to you but getting fired as a teenager from Lagoon is not quite the same as this. An incident such as this can leave a lasting blemish on ones career. That is why it is usually handled behind closed doors and the public announcement is worded very carefully. That Dr. Bradford allowed this to be leaked and publicized in the manner it was requires Dr. Peterson to respond so as to protect his career. Fortunately Dr. Peterson is well known and and respected by those who count but if this were to happen to lesser known people it could be harmful to their future.

[ERayR]

Peppermint Patty to kind of ring along with your comment

Am I the only one who finds it odd that there are a group of well thought of individuals who seem to enjoy playing out their professional lives on the stage of the Mormon Discussion Board. I can't imagine the drama that goes on at my work place and then my sitting down on this board and letting the world know what a bad boss I have/had. I felt this way about the Dehlin thread and his mistreatment by Farms and Mr. Peterson and I feel this same thought coming on with these FARMS threads. I realize it is in an effort to stem false rumors going around but dirty laundry is still being aired... right?

Also if the Church owns farms and this direction is likely coming from Salt Lake or with their approval, then how is complaining about this change of direction any different then complaining about the brethren in other matters?

This seems like the wrong forum for this. Which is why I have said little on these 3-4 threads. Any other line of work or people you weren't so familiar with and many of you would not be in favor of this kind of method.

FWIW

For the record, I too sent a email to MI expressing dissapointment so know my opinion is not due to being against the cause.

As stated above but they may not have much choice. Don't denigrate internet discussion boards role. What you don't seem to realize is that these boards are the news papers of times past. If this had been twenty years ago there would have been news releases flying back and forth.

As I stated above and what many do not understand is that there is more at stake than egos.

[ERayR]

Will your attitude remain the same should you discover Church leaders are also pleased with the changes at the MI?

This did not happen in a vacuum.

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the change is likely a direct result of the correlated control of MI imposed by the Church.

Yes

[jwhitlock]

Yeah, when I was a teenager, I was fired from Lagoon. I felt that they had no basis for firing me and it hurt. I was confused and my pride was hurt. I think I learned some valuable lessons from that experience.

Getting fired, unfortunately, can happen to the best of us. It can happen even when it's not your fault. There could be a personality conflict between yourself and your supervisor. Management might want to go in another direction. You could have simply screwed up. It happens. You're not alone.

First, do not insult your former boss or employer. It almost always never changes the situation and tends to reflect badly on the fired employee. No future employer likes to wonder if you will talking about them that way in the future.

Second, don't be angry. Feeling angry after being fired is normal. As hard as it may be, and it is hard, you need to get over getting fired and move on. There are always better opportunities out there.

I have learned that how one reacts when being fired speaks volumes of that individual's character.

You didn't address my point about being fired in a sleazy manner, basically as a slap across your face. That makes it very different. I would feel an obligation to warn others of the dangers of working for that particular employer, and how they're going to be treated.

However, in this case, it's even a bit more different. We're not talking just about employment; we're talking about the struggle between the Church and those who would destroy the Church.

The fact that our enemies applaud both the firing and the change of direction should, again, be disturbing to anyone committed to the mission of the Church.

I applaud Bill, Dan, and others for speaking out on this. It takes a particular amount of courage for Dan to do so.

Trying to get along with wolves only gets you eaten in the end.

[jwhitlock]

Peppermint Patty to kind of ring along with your comment

Am I the only one who finds it odd that there are a group of well thought of individuals who seem to enjoy playing out their professional lives on the stage of the Mormon Discussion Board. I can't imagine the drama that goes on at my work place and then my sitting down on this board and letting the world know what a bad boss I have/had. I felt this way about the Dehlin thread and his mistreatment by Farms and Mr. Peterson and I feel this same thought coming on with these FARMS threads. I realize it is in an effort to stem false rumors going around but dirty laundry is still being aired... right?

Also if the Church owns farms and this direction is likely coming from Salt Lake or with their approval, then how is complaining about this change of direction any different then complaining about the brethren in other matters?

Mistreatment of Dehlin by Farms and Dan?? Can you point to such a thing that was published?

[Tacenda]

From an casual observer, this is back stabbing to the nth degree, from the higher ups.

[jwhitlock]

Will your attitude remain the same should you discover Church leaders are also pleased with the changes at the MI?

This did not happen in a vacuum.

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the change is likely a direct result of the correlated control of MI imposed by the Church.

Really.

Bill Hamblin has pointed out that the change was imposed by the Church? Don't think so. CFR on that one.

As has been noted, Bradford is not the Church, and BYU is not the Church. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

[Scott Lloyd]

This did not happen in a vacuum.

As Bill Hamblin has pointed out, the change is likely a direct result of the correlated control of MI imposed by the Church.

That's not how I read what Bill Hamblin said. Until there are more facts in evidence, I don't think you have solid standing to blame this on the Church leaders or Correlation.

[John Ping Pong]

That's not how I read what Bill Hamblin said. Until there are more facts in evidence, I don't think you have solid standing to blame this on the Church leaders or Correlation.

I have blamed no one; merely pointed out what is likely.

Why are you so threatened by this?

[Joseph Antley]

In middle and high school I would get the Insights newsletter and ask my mom for FARMS books for Christmas. Weird how things change.

[John Ping Pong]

As has been noted, Bradford is not the Church, and BYU is not the Church. The tail doesn't wag the dog.

Let's not be naive.

BYU is the Church. Who owns it, manages it and runs it? Who funds it? Who is its president? Who sits on its board of directors?

And Bradford is an employee of the Church, placed in his position of control over the FARMS Review by the Church, and who must do the Church's bidding or lose his job.

Even when the Church's bidding may be distasteful.

The dog wags the tail.

Edited June 23, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[jwhitlock]

Therefore, those who were desirous that the course of the Maxwell Institute should be altered were angry with Professor Peterson, and desired that he should no longer be editor of the Mormon Studies Review; therefore there arose a dispute concerning the matter.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should be dethroned from the editorship were called "learned scholars," for they were desirous that the agenda of the Maxwell Institute should be altered in a manner to overthrow those dedicated to defending the Church against the attacks of its enemies, and to establish the rule of the "learned scholars" over the Maxwell Institute.

And those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should remain editor of the Mormon Studies Review took upon them the name of apologists of Sergeant Nibley's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and thus was the division among them, for the apologists had sworn or covenanted to defend the Church against the attacks of its enemies.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the apologists, but the voice of the people was ignored, and Professor Peterson and his band of apologists were silenced by the learned scholars.

Now those who were in favor of the learned scholars were those of higher education, and they sought also to be learned scholars; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

And behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of the Church, for behold, Dehlin stirred up the hearts of the people of the apostates against the people of the Church, and he was gathering together supporters from all parts of the land, and arming them with talking points, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Professor Peterson and all his band of apologists. And it came to pass that he did fill his cup to overflowing.

C'mon, Will. Don't you know that what's contained in the Book of Mormon is not really a guide for our times, and that all that prose concocted by Joseph Smith isn't really relevant to our day? This according to educated people who know about these things far better than we do, to hear them describe it.

Per Brother Robinson's observation, not only is Korihor back, but so are Sherem, Nehor, Gadianton, Amalakiah and a host of others, and now they have not only printing presses, but computers and the Internet and publicists and institutions of higher learning to back them up.

What did all of these Book of Mormon personalities have in common? They wanted to destroy the Church and have the Nephites join them in their wickedness. The gleeful cheers and mocking in the Great and Spacious Building over the changes at MI are something that can't be ignored - because we know what their agenda is.

I don't see anyone on here who is calling for some kind of "moderation" in our response addressing that particular point. Does anyone who understands the Restored Gospel really think we can form some kind of benign cooperation or rapport with our enemies? Do they really think that by "reaching out" to them, they won't continue to try to destroy us?

[Somebodyz]

Therefore, those who were desirous that the course of the Maxwell Institute should be altered were angry with Professor Peterson, and desired that he should no longer be editor of the Mormon Studies Review; therefore there arose a dispute concerning the matter.

And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should be dethroned from the editorship were called "learned scholars," for they were desirous that the agenda of the Maxwell Institute should be altered in a manner to overthrow those dedicated to defending the Church against the attacks of its enemies, and to establish the rule of the "learned scholars" over the Maxwell Institute.

And those who were desirous that Professor Peterson should remain editor of the Mormon Studies Review took upon them the name of apologists of Sergeant Nibley's Lonely Hearts Club Band; and thus was the division among them, for the apologists had sworn or covenanted to defend the Church against the attacks of its enemies.

And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the apologists, but the voice of the people was ignored, and Professor Peterson and his band of apologists were silenced by the learned scholars.

Now those who were in favor of the learned scholars were those of higher education, and they sought also to be learned scholars; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.

And behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of the Church, for behold, Dehlin stirred up the hearts of the people of the apostates against the people of the Church, and he was gathering together supporters from all parts of the land, and arming them with talking points, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Professor Peterson and all his band of apologists. And it came to pass that he did fill his cup to overflowing.

Not silenced. Lets hope a new group is started. A group without a leash and with teeth.

[jwhitlock]

Let's not be naive.

BYU is the Church. Who owns it, manages it and runs it? Who funds it? Who is its president? Who sits on its board of directors?

And Bradford is an employee of the Church, placed in his position of control over the FARMS Review by the Church, and who must do the Church's bidding or lose his job.

Even when the Church's bidding may be distasteful.

The dog wags the tail.

Absolute hogwash.

[John Ping Pong]

Absolute hogwash.

A well reasoned response.

[jwhitlock]

A well reasoned response.

Tenuous speculation presented as fact is not worthy of any other.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have blamed no one; merely pointed out what is likely.

Why are you so threatened by this?

I don't feel threatened by you or your pet conjecture. I'm only trying to sort it out from what can be known at this point.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[John Ping Pong]

Tenuous speculation presented as fact is not worthy of any other.

Then perhaps you could respond to my questions one at a time.

First--Who owns BYU?

[Scott Lloyd]

Then perhaps you could respond to my questions one at a time.

First--Who owns BYU?

Don't play games with us. We get your meaning. Lrt's move on.

[Somebodyz]

Then perhaps you could respond to my questions one at a time.

First--Who owns BYU?

The Church owns BYU, but BYU is still not the Church. The Mall isn't the Church either.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Somebodyz

[jwhitlock]

Then perhaps you could respond to my questions one at a time.

First--Who owns BYU?

Oh, please. Let's not play this silly little game of yours.

You ask six questions, and then in the next line you draw an entirely disconnected conclusion that conveniently makes the inferred assumption that the First Presidency micromanages everything right down to the decision of the color of tile in the men's rooms at the Kimball building.

That's what I mean by tenuous speculation.