why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Why do you believe that Elder Jensen and others have not read the article?How would he get it? This had to happen weeks ago since information about the piece being published has been on the boards for quite some time. And to my knowledge at that time, the piece was not widely circulated. To my knowledge, John went on a rumor and not facts. Thus, the problem. Those who have read the article such as Will do not see a personal attack against John.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Why do you believe that Elder Jensen and others have not read the article?Who is your source that they have? If you are not willing to share that information, can you tell us how highly placed the source is and why you are so confident about its accuracy? (Just trying to sift fact from rumor here.)
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 No, that's most definitely not why I'm interested. I couldn't care less about the behavior of he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-this-here-board. I think it's the dynamics that interest me most.That said, I think folks are missing a step here. But I might not know what I'm talking about.Like that's ever happened, right?But you have read many of those threads. I always thought that the OP there made up his informant. But now I realize that I may have been wrong. Someone leaked the email to the antimormons. It was discussed on that board.
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I also know that Dr. Peterson has repeatedly asserted over the years that the alleged insider-information was made-up fantasy.And I agreed. But now I do think that he may be changing his mind as I have.
Jersey Girl Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 But you have read many of those threads. I always thought that the OP there made up his informant. But now I realize that I may have been wrong. Someone leaked the email to the antimormons. It was discussed on that board.Do you think the informant and the leak are one person?
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Do you think the informant and the leak are one person?I don't know. But if I read the other boards thread correctly, you know who almost hit the nail on the head with his informant's information. But hey, I could be wrong. I am not james bond or don adams. But it certainly is interesting. I think that within a month's time, we will all know more. When Dan returns he will fill us all in I am sure. Edited June 23, 2012 by why me
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I also know that Dr. Peterson has repeatedly asserted over the years that the alleged insider-information was made-up fantasy.Some of it quite clearly was. One rumor indirectly involved me. Allegedly, the Deseret News was being told to curtail its coverage of the FAIR Conference because Dan et al were being mean to so-called "chapel Mormons." Never happened. Dan himself has said he believes there has been more than one informant. Edited June 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Who is your source that they have?If you are not willing to share that information, can you tell us how highly placed the source is and why you are so confident about its accuracy?(Just trying to sift fact from rumor here.)I have multiple sources, all of which are in positions to be aware of what occurred. None of them would be pleased that I shared this so I won't name them and I have probably said more than is appropriate since this drama is none of my business.I will say that my sources have no dog in this fight, are not invested in any of this, and have never followed it closely until hearing about the uproar yesterday, and that they are independent and corroborate one another. So I am pretty confident in what they have told me. But obviously that is hearsay to anyone else.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I have multiple sources, all of which are in positions to be aware of what occurred. None of them would be pleased that I shared this so I won't name them and I have probably said more than is appropriate since this drama is none of my business.I will say that my sources have no dog in this fight, are not invested in any of this, and have never followed it closely until hearing about the uproar yesterday, and that they are independent and corroborate one another. So I am pretty confident in what they have told me. But obviously that is hearsay to anyone else.Could it be that they themselves are going on hearsay? This kerfuffle is several weeks old now, and you know how gossip grows with time and re-telling. Edited June 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I will say that my sources have no dog in this fight, are not invested in any of this, and have never followed it closely until hearing about the uproar yesterday, and that they are independent and corroborate one another. So I am pretty confident in what they have told me. But obviously that is hearsay to anyone else.If I remember correctly John wanted the piece squashed before actually reading it. And it was squashed with no one reading it outside a select few. Now what happened later..well...I don't know. But if I remember correctly, john has never read the paper when he asked to have it squashed. And this is also the time that he went to a GA.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Dan himself has said he believes there has been more than one informant.I think this is certainly true. I do not think there is a specific "mole" at the Maxwell Institute. That was also part of Scratch's fantasy. But no doubt everyone talks and things leak out, especially if they're interesting and worth talking about. I've often heard too much personal info about professors and researchers while down there, and I know other students have too. It doesn't take much to be an "informant" -- they aren't exactly closed-mouth when it comes to "secrets" down there.(Full disclosure: I have never "leaked" or intentionally spread anything that I thought was supposed to be "secret" from the Maxwell Institute. Although I haven't had much contact with anyone down there in about a year. I get the feeling some of them don't like me very much.)But again, this idea that a research arm of BYU has to worry about things like "moles" and "informants" seems so silly to me. Is there any other research arm that would ever have to worry about that problem?
why me Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 But again, this idea that a research arm of BYU has to worry about things like "moles" and "informants" seems so silly to me. Is there any other research arm that would ever have to worry about that problem?It needs to be stressed that the mole seemed to have a vendetta against Dan. Certainly the recent leaked emails are a case in point. Someone leaked this information and sent it to the antimormons. Who?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 But again, this idea that a research arm of BYU has to worry about things like "moles" and "informants" seems so silly to me. Is there any other research arm that would ever have to worry about that problem?There are some unique dynamics at play here. A comparison to a generic "research arm" does not help us arrive at the truth.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Posted in error. Edited June 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Could it be that they themselves are going on hearsay? This kerfuffle is several weeks old now, and you know how gossip grows with time and re-telling.No, I am certain that at least one is not going on hearsay and has more direct access to knowing about Elder Jensen's part in this than anyone else I've heard or read from, and their story corroborates the others' I have heard. All I can say is that I trust them and can't offer more verification than that. I'm sure more information about this will come to light shortly.But again this is not my business and I don't feel especially comfortable commenting on the private business of any General Authorities of the Church, especially without having talked to them. But since the rumor mill has already exploded and since I am confident that the most popular rumors aren't true, I guess I couldn't help myself.For what it's worth, with all the demonizing of Bradford, I respect him for not commenting on this publicly. I think that must be difficult for him since he is being lambasted so.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 There are some unique dynamics at play here. A comparison to a generic "research arm" does not help us arrive at the truth.I agree. Perhaps the fact that the Maxwell Institute had those "unique dynamics" which invited supposed "moles" and "informants" was not a good thing.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 It needs to be stressed that the mole seemed to have a vendetta against Dan. Certainly the recent leaked emails are a case in point. Someone leaked this information and sent it to the antimormons. Who?I'm not convinced that there is any Maxwell Institute "mole" who has been out to get Daniel Peterson. An e-mail was leaked, but no one knows how, or that it is in any way connected to Scratch's "informant" fantasies of the past.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 For what it's worth, with all the demonizing of Bradford, I respect him for not commenting on this publicly. I think that must be difficult for him since he is being lambasted so.I think he needs to come clean about the shoddy way the dismissal was handled, deal with the leak of sensitive information and explain publicly how it was dealt with. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I agree. Perhaps the fact that the Maxwell Institute had those "unique dynamics" which invited supposed "moles" and "informants" was not a good thing.Attackers don't like apologists, because the apologists contradict them. Wherever there is conflict, there is likelihood of informants. Desire to avoid conflict is not a good enough reason to refrain from vigorous defense of a position. 1
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I think he needs to come clean about the shoddy way the dismissal was handled, deal with the leak of sensitive information and explain publicly how it was dealt with.I agree that since Dr. Peterson decided to go so scorched-earth public about his dismissal that another side of the story is certainly required. Until then I'll try to refrain from too many judgments.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I agree that since Dr. Peterson decided to go so scorched-earth public about his dismissal that another side of the story is certainly required. Until then I'll try to refrain from too many judgments.It was not his choice. The matter was already public before Bradford's email reached him. And the antagonists got the email roughly the same time he did, if not before. And he did not make his response email public; somebody else did that. Edited June 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 1
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Attackers don't like apologists, because the apologists contradict them. Wherever there is conflict, there is likelihood of informants. Desire to avoid conflict is not a good enough reason to refrain from vigorous defense of a position.The problem is that if there are informants, that suggests that there is information that the institution doesn't want people to be informed about. I question whether that is appropriate. I also question whether researching and publishing apologetics requires polemics or personal critiques or that it requires an "us vs. them" mentality that might breed this type of drama. At least at a university like BYU.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 It was not his choice. The matter was already public before Bradford's email reached him. And the antagonists got the email roughly the same time he did, if not before.And he did not make his response email public; somebody else did that.I was referring more to the language in his blog post, which he publicized himself.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) The problem is that if there are informants, that suggests that there is information that the institution doesn't want people to be informed about. I question whether that is appropriate. I also question whether researching and publishing apologetics requires polemics or personal critiques or that it requires an "us vs. them" mentality that might breed this type of drama. At least at a university like BYU.Most any institution has a legitimate right to keep certain information confidential. Under the Utah open meetings law, even public bodies may close a meeting for discussion of certain sensitive information.As for "us vs. them," apologetics means defense. The defender is not the one who picks the fight, although I would agree the defender can take the high road. That doesn't preclude being circumspect, though. Edited June 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts