What The Maxwell Institute Controversy Is Really About

[mapman]

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.

If that is supposed to be describing me, it is in no way accurate. I believe that the Book of Mormon is ancient book translated by Joseph Smith through the gifts of God.

The Book of Mormon is relevant to our day. That doesn't mean that every passage is applicable to every event that happens.

[why me]

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.

I think that bradford is wagging his own tail. He has his own vision for the institute and for its publications. Now if the academic community supports his vision and the way he has handled it...well....so be it.

I don't think that he went to the GAs and said: "hey guys, by the way, Dan is leaving the country soon to give tours and lectures and it is now summer, a somewhat quiet time and so I am going to can him by email and dismiss the Peterson board...okay?"

And I don't think that the GAs said: "yea, can his butt while he is away...send him an email in a day or two and then fire the board too. Hopefully, those stupid suckers will not leave the church because of this so make it out as being your decision.

[jwhitlock]

If that is supposed to be describing me, it is in no way accurate. I believe that the Book of Mormon is ancient book translated by Joseph Smith through the gifts of God.

The Book of Mormon is relevant to our day. That doesn't mean that every passage is applicable to every event that happens.

I wasn't particularly aware that it was directed at you, or that anyone claimed that every passage is applicable to every event.

[mapman]

OK, I thought that you might have made that post due to my response to Will. I just want to make sure that I'm not perceived to be part of a group that I'm not in.

[David T]

I'm going to open my earlier post up to anyone who views this change as The Great Apostate Win, hoping someone, anyone, will explain this to me:

There are 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

[Joseph Antley]

BYU isn't the LDS Church just like LeBron James isn't the Miami Heat.

[DBMormon]

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

Dehlin started a thread here about how he was mistreated.... I din't like Dehlin using this a his forum to air dirty laundry

[John Ping Pong]

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.

You are adept at constructing straw men, I give you that.

I said nothing about the First Presidency choosing tile colors in men's rooms.

What I have said is that BYU is owned, operated and managed by the LDS Church.

MI is part of BYU.

It appears a 100-page article by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin and his Mormon Stories was slated for publication in the pages of the Mormon Studies Review.

Dehlin approached editor Peterson about it and was rebuffed with no information supplied.

Dehlin then contacted general authorities who agreed with Dehlin that such a piece should not appear in a Church sponsored publication.

This was likely the breaking point in a relationship vexed by differing visions for the Review.

The word went down the line for Bradford to sack Peterson.

Bradford accordingly sacked Peterson.

This seems the most reasonable explanation.

Edited June 23, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[jwhitlock]

Dehlin started a thread here about how he was mistreated.... I din't like Dehlin using this a his forum to air dirty laundry

So nothing was really published; Dehlin was just blowing smoke.

[wenglund]

Yes critics are using it to send kudos to Dr. Bradford. I wonder how he feels knowing who his real supporters are. Nemesis

This, to me, is also what this is all about. From all that I have read from certain critics posting on a certain board, I have been given the impression that the critics wish to control their side as well as our side of the discussion, and to a minor extent, amd with certain parties, they have been successful. They wish to improve their chances for succcess by playing both sides of the apologetic chess board. What they can't surmount with their own attacks, they have now, in several cases, prevailed through getting some our own to silence us--or so they may suppose.

To my mind, even with half our brains and our arms tied behind our backs, we still have the upper hand and it still isn't a fair fight. This is why we will continue to see them propping up the proverbial stram men.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

You are adept at constructing straw men, I give you that.

I said nothing about the First Presidency choosing tile colors in men's rooms.

What I have said is that BYU is owned, operated and managed by the LDS Church.

MI is part of BYU.

It appears a 100-page article by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin and his Mormon Stories was slated for publication in the pages of the Mormon Studies Review.

Dehlin approached editor Peterson about it and was rebuffed with no information supplied.

Dehlin then contacted general authorities who agreed with Dehlin that such a piece should not appear in a Church sponsored publication.

This was likely the breaking point in a relationship vexed by differing visions for the Review.

The word went down the line for Bradford to sack Peterson.

Bradford accordingly sacked Peterson.

This seems the most reasonable explanation.

Absolute hogwash.

[John Ping Pong]

Absolute hogwash.

I am pleased to find rational discourse your specialty.

[wenglund]

I am pleased to find rational discourse your specialty.

To me, wild speculation does not equal rational discourse. your sole source (Dehlin) is an outsider to MI and BYU and the GA's, and at best his information is three degrees separated from the actual decision and decision-makers. But, I see no harm in conjecturing whatever you like.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Ping Pong]

To me, wild speculation does not equal rational discourse. your sole source (Dehlin) is an outsider to MI and BYU and the GA's, and at best his information is three degrees separated from the actual decision and decision-makers. But, I see no harm in conjecturing whatever you like.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Though I do not consider my speculations "wild," I appreciate your civility, Mr. England. Especially since it is likely "speculations" are all we will be left with at the end of the day, as the people making the decision to sack Professor Peterson are probably "three degrees separated" from Gerald Bradford.

[wenglund]

Though I do not consider my speculations "wild," I appreciate your civility, Mr. England. Especially since it is likely "speculations" are all we will be left with at the end of the day, as the people making the decision to sack Professor Peterson are probably "three degrees separated" from Gerald Bradford.

Not exactl;y. If I recall correctly, the very editor of the publication in question (Dr. Peterson) indicated on a thread here that no GA had contacted him, nor to his knowledge had anyone at MI or BYU been contacted by a GA on the matter.

This is not to say that I doubt that critics like Dehlin have had some influence on certain MI matters--at least with several parties in and/or associated with MI. I believe they indirectly and directly have. Greg and Will's articles may be cases in point--though I can't really say since I wasn't involved in the decision-making or the politics that may surrounding them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 23, 2012 by wenglund

[John Ping Pong]

If I recall correctly, the very editor of the publication in question (Dr. Peterson) indicated on a thread here that no GA had contacted him, nor to his knowledge had anyone at MI or BYU been contacted by a GA on the matter.

Therein lie the "three degrees of separation."

It is an unfortunate aspect of large corporations that higher-ups like to have flunkies do their dirty work for them.

Edited June 23, 2012 by John Ping Pong

[wenglund]

It is an unfortunate aspect of large corporations that higher-ups like to have flunkies do their dirty work for them.

Yes...but the so-called flunkies also often do their own "dirty work." From yours and my position of profound ignorance in this case, we have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty either way. Yet, again, though, it is quite harmless to wildly speculate.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Dehlin started a thread here about how he was mistreated.... I din't like Dehlin using this a his forum to air dirty laundry

However, since Dehlin has never even read the paper, then his only possible claim to being mistreated is the emails from Dan. Having read the emails, do you see him as actually being mistreated or only claiming mistreatment.

What I have said is that BYU is owned, operated and managed by the LDS Church.

Or rather the LDS Church has appointed people to manage BYU, direct involvement probably is limited to a great extent due to church leadership's involvement in running the Church.

MI is part of BYU.

So is the baseball program. Do you think the Church leadership have much to say about who gets chosen for scholarships, what type of strategy the team should use? Or even who is hired?

Do you believe every professor or secretary or any other employee is vetted by Church leadership prior to their hiring? Do you believe all employees are supervised by church leaders directly? If not, then at what level do you think the supervision occurs?

It appears a 100-page article by Greg Smith critical of John Dehlin and his Mormon Stories was slated for publication in the pages of the Mormon Studies Review.

And that is all that is known about the article.

Dehlin approached editor Peterson about it and was rebuffed with no information supplied.

Ignoring the timing of the email here. Removing context is not helpful in determining what actually happened. For more context:

Dehlin then contacted general authorities who agreed with Dehlin that such a piece should not appear in a Church sponsored publication.

Not accurate, IIRC. Dehlin cced Dan at the same time he wrote a general authority, he didn't write Dan first though he did ask him the first question before turning to address the Elder to whom he had written the email. Since Dehlin did not show any email or other response from that GA, then all one has is his interpretation of any interchange between him and the GA.

This was likely the breaking point in a relationship vexed by differing visions for the Review.

The word went down the line for Bradford to sack Peterson.

Pure speculation.

This seems the most reasonable explanation.

Perhaps to you. Don't really see it myself considering Dan's history with working with General Authorities on other projects. Edited June 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Therein lie the "three degrees of separation."

It is an unfortunate aspect of large corporations that higher-ups like to have flunkies do their dirty work for them.

Also, in case you missed this subsequent edit to my previous post: "This is not to say that I doubt that critics like Dehlin have had some influence on certain MI matters--at least with several parties in and/or associated with MI. I believe they indirectly and directly have. Greg and Will's articles may be cases in point--though I can't really say since I wasn't involved in the decision-making or the politics that may surrounding them."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

Yes critics are using it to send kudos to Dr. Bradford. I wonder how he feels knowing who his real supporters are.

Nemesis

Which is a point that I made on a different thread. The critics love it that dan got fired in the way that he did. Many believe that Dan got what he deserved. But the critics also love the fact that the Review will change direction away from apologetics. I do believe that they are hoping for a dry whitewashing journal that they can claim a milk before meat scenario.

[Analytics]

On my blog

http://mormonscriptu...s-really-about/

Hi Dr. Hamblin,

You repeatedly asked,

If the University did not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University?

You then said paranthetically,

I believe I actually know why they did it, and their motives had absolutely nothing to do with FARMS or its scholarship; but that is another story.

It isn't another story; it's the answer to your question which is the crux of the issue.

BYU deliberately chose their directors for the Institute. You think Bradford really took it upon himself to radically change the direction of the Institute? The directors report to the leaders of BYU who appointed them. How do you know that in these various decisions, Bradford wasn’t merely following orders? There is no indication that BYU was surprised by this. They didn’t hesitate to stick by Bradford and confirm that these changes were happening.

I'm not defending Bradford's administration skills and the way the change in direction has taken place. Obviously he could have better handled how this happened. But Bradford's responsibilities are to the people he reports to--not the classic-FARMS board and donors.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Analytics

[Calm]

But Bradford's responsibilities are to the people he reports to--not the classic-FARMS board and donors.

Perhaps. But are you suggesting that no one is accountable to the classic FARMS board and donors considering how FARMS was added to the BYU family?

[jwhitlock]

Perhaps. But are you suggesting that no one is accountable to the classic FARMS board and donors considering how FARMS was added to the BYU family?

Not to mention the absurdity that any university is going to ignore what donors want.

[why me]

It isn't another story; it's the answer to your question which is the crux of the issue.

. You think Bradford really took it upon himself to radically change the direction of the Institute? The directors report to the leaders of BYU who appointed them. How do you know that in these various decisions, Bradford wasn’t merely following orders?

I think that you are missin the boat here. It is not that dan was fired. It was how it was done. If Bradford would have called him in for a chat and told him the story: change of direction, thank you for your service, hope to keep you on on an advisory post etc etc. alll would have been well. Journals change editors all the time and a change in direction is a good reason to change the editor.

But to do it by email when dan was away from the country...in a place thousands of miles away, in such a callous way and then, have the emails leaked to the antimormons...well....something went wrong here. And that is the problem.

[Calm]

Not to mention the absurdity that any university is going to ignore what donors want.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I've heard donations being taken away from what the donor specified and used for something else, but if it happens too often, it does tend to dry up donations or donors start to dictate terms through legal means...which can also cause problems due to limiting options of using donations even for the stuff the donors support.