Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I was referring more to the language in his blog post, which he publicized himself.Given the public defamation he has endured and what has already come to light, I think he has been admirably restrained in his blog. 1
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Thanks for answering Calmoriah. I have a hunch that the person at MI who tipped off Dehlin's friend is also the 'leak' of Bradford's email and very well may be scratch's informant on behind the scene goings on at MI.There appeared to be a clue in Dehlin's e-mail; apparently (if I read it right) the mole in MI is a friend of Dehlin's on Facebook.
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I am relatively certain that Elder Oaks is not complicit with John Dehlin in any of this matter.Elder Jensen, however, I am not so sure about. Even so, as it was told to me, Elder "X" did not order Smith's paper censored, but only expressed concern to Dr. Bradford about what was reported to him: that an "ad hominem attack piece" on John Dehlin was about to be published in the Review. That, of course, was not true. I know. I have read it.Which Elder Jensen?
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Unbelievable. Talk about twisting things around.Let's make it very clear what you're really doing. You're trying to redefine Dan's canning by Bradford, and Bradford's myopic vision of what the MI should be as an official change of direction by the Church - something that's been based on the most tenuous of assumptions - that panders to our enemies. You're then placing yourself in the role of the now-redefined-church defender.This simply doesn't bear any relationship to reality whatsoever.You really don't see the irony here? What you belittle as "Bardford's myopic vision" is in fact the vision of the Maxwell Institute, which has the complete support of BYU.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.I am not arguing that they don't have the right. I'll just go ahead and state my opinion bluntly: I think some of the behavior and actions at the Maxwell Institute breeds this sort of drama and that it can be easily avoided.Given the public defamation he has endured and what has already come to light, I think he has been admirably restrained in his blog. I'm sure he could have been worse had he wanted to be, but it still doesn't strike me as very appropriate, despite how badly he seems to have been treated. But I am young and naive and have never been in that sort of situation. I have no doubt it must be very difficult.
William Schryver Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) You've been applying a fairly strict definition of ad hominem in these conversations.I was not aware of that. I was under the impression that I have been employing the standard definition of the term. Please provide your definition of the term and we shall see if we can ascertain to what degree my definition has been "fairly strict" by comparison.Were your recent thoughts about wolves in sheep's clothing inspired by Dehlin and the censored piece?To which of my "recent thoughts" do you refer?I do believe that John Dehlin is an enemy to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that the ideology of which he is the most prominent spokesman, if embraced, will eventuate in alienation from the Church, and from God, our heavenly Father.Did the piece in question warn of wolves?I assume you mean Greg Smith's examination of Mormon Stories. Neither the words "wolf" nor "wolves" appear in my copy of the article. Edited June 23, 2012 by William Schryver 1
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You really don't see the irony here? What you belittle as "Bardford's myopic vision" is in fact the vision of the Maxwell Institute, which has the complete support of BYU."Complete support of BYU."There you go again, making things up.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Back to the original post of this thread, I'm also extremely surprised to see Dr. Hamblin writing a public critique of BYU and business and the Maxwell Institute. As exciting as it makes for gossip, that also does not strike me as especially professional. 1
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Back to the original post of this thread, I'm also extremely surprised to see Dr. Hamblin writing a public critique of BYU and business and the Maxwell Institute. As exciting as it makes for gossip, that also does not strike me as especially professional.The politics of higher institutions of learning are serious business. And a lot of it is done in writing. This is rather benign compared to some of the attack pieces by professional scholars I've seen at other places. 1
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 The politics of higher institutions of learning are serious business. And a lot of it is done in writing. This is rather benign compared to some of the attack pieces by professional scholars I've seen at other places.Apparently I've been living in a fantasy world of expected standards and behavior for the university sponsored by the Church.
gtaggart Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 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.(emphasis supplied) Except the bolded one, of course, other than that one, not too many judgments.
Joseph Antley Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Except the bolded one, of course, other than that one, not too many judgments."Too many" might have been the appropriately bolded part.
jwhitlock Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Apparently I've been living in a fantasy world of expected standards and behavior for the university sponsored by the Church.BYU is an interesting place, in a lot of ways.
gtaggart Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I am not arguing that they don't have the right. I'll just go ahead and state my opinion bluntly: I think some of the behavior and actions at the Maxwell Institute breeds this sort of drama and that it can be easily avoided.Joseph, please be even more blunt; your argument will be strengthened thereby. For example, instead of throwing out an abstract "some of the behavior and actions," state explicitly what behaviors and actions you're talking about. Mere innuendo won't do.
Analytics Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I was not aware of that. I was under the impression that I have been employing the standard definition of the term. Please provide your definition of the term and we shall see if we can ascertain to what degree my definition has been "fairly strict" by comparison.I respectfully decline to argue about semantics.To which of my "recent thoughts" do you refer?The ones about wolves in sheep's clothing which you shared in your Sunday School class that made their way into Peterson's Deseret News article.I do believe that John Dehlin is an enemy to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and that the ideology of which he is the most prominent spokesman, if embraced, will eventuate in alienation from the Church, and from God, our heavenly Father.Thanks, I appreciate the candor.I assume you mean Greg Smith's examination of Mormon Stories. Neither the words "wolf" nor "wolves" appear in my copy of the article.But am I correct in inferring from your position on Dehlin and the importance you see in Greg's article that he makes the case that Dehlin is an enemy?
rameumptom Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Given none of us has seen what the "future scholarship" will look like, I highly doubt any of us can say we will be proud of it. It seems to me to be like what happened to the Palmyra Pageant. It was on the edge, using the best Broadway stuff, etc. In 1998, they had 100,000 people attend. Then the Church Missionary Dept took over, made it focused on the members (rather than non-LDS), made it safe, etc. In 2005, they had 20,000 people attend it. I'm guessing the the future scholarship of safety didn't work very well there, and I have my doubts here, too.I would tend to agree, Mr. Crockett. It's obvious that feelings have been hurt and that emotions are running high. I just wish that Hamblin, Schriver and Peterson would take some time and cool off. It's always better to assess the situation in a calm and collective manner.In the long run, I hope that Hamblin, Schriver and Peterson will support and embrace the new direction BYU and the Maxwell Institute are heading. I tend to think everyone will be proud of the future scholarship and efforts from the Maxwell institue.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Back to the original post of this thread, I'm also extremely surprised to see Dr. Hamblin writing a public critique of BYU and business and the Maxwell Institute. As exciting as it makes for gossip, that also does not strike me as especially professional.Perhaps, just like you felt obliged on this thread to state what you knew about the Dehlin affair, Dr. Hamblin felt obliged to draw on his inside knowledge to quell some false impressions that are going around and have even entered the mainstream media. And I don't see what he wrote as being abusive or egregious. I don't see that he defamed anyone. 2
ERayR Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Perhaps, just like you felt obliged on this thread to state what you knew about the Dehlin affair, Dr. Hamblin felt obliged to draw on his inside knowledge to quell some false impressions that are going around and have even entered the mainstream media.And I don't see what he wrote as being abusive or egregious. I don't see that he defamed anyone.Scott you are quite right. The truth is not defamation. Edited June 24, 2012 by ERayR
Popular Post Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 24, 2012 Popular Post Posted June 24, 2012 I would tend to agree, Mr. Crockett. It's obvious that feelings have been hurt and that emotions are running high. I just wish that Hamblin, Schriver and Peterson would take some time and cool off. It's always better to assess the situation in a calm and collective manner.In the long run, I hope that Hamblin, Schriver and Peterson will support and embrace the new direction BYU and the Maxwell Institute are heading. I tend to think everyone will be proud of the future scholarship and efforts from the Maxwell institue.In the long run, if Bradford really does wish to take the Institute toward the more academic and secular side of things he had dang well better be THOROUGHLY PREPARED to do it RIGHT, not the Mormon testimony way. No offense to anyone's testimony, but SECULAR will not and cannot be fooled into stupid Mormonizing of everything in the Bible as our LDS Church Education system is so wont to so. In all seriousness, I have been reading the Biblical scholarship for years and years, and the LDS view, interpretation, and assumptions of the Bible just do not in ANY way match what the secular Biblical scholarship has shown. If you're going to go secular, then you dang well HAVE to lay aside anything smacking of Mormon thinking on the Bible........cause it WON'T wash. And so help me, if the MI begins Mormonizing the Bible pretending it is up to date scholarship as Thomas Wayment did in his new book on the Apostle Paul, I am going to absolutely do everything in my power to show them how utterly and insipidly stupid they are being. FARMS has been incredibly wonderful and rather astonishing enlightening on things up to now......but if it now goes secular, then it has to go ALL THE WAY and come to the conclusions the evidence shows, not what their testimonies wish for. It will NOT do to start with the conclusion, and then amass all the evidence ONLY that comes to that conclusion based on an internal feeling, or a testimony inspired truth. The secular will completely decimate that kind of myopic non-scholarly Mormon kind of research........ If Bradford really thinks he knows what he's doing, then he can no longer follow the brethren and their views of the Bible or the church's, because the secular does not come to the same conclusions, nor use the same evidence. I'm just sayin........ If Bradford thought he was inspired before to make this move, he dang sure better know more than his testimony of the truth of the church of what he is about to do secularizing things....... 5
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Perhaps, just like you felt obliged on this thread to state what you knew about the Dehlin affair, Dr. Hamblin felt obliged to draw on his inside knowledge to quell some false impressions that are going around and have even entered the mainstream media.And I don't see what he wrote as being abusive or egregious. I don't see that he defamed anyone.Hamblin has been absolutely nothing but enlightening and helpful in showing us a lot more about what is really going on. The man is pure gold. 2
gtaggart Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I respectfully decline to argue about semantics.But you're the one who began the argument.
David T Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 In the long run, if Bradford really does wish to take the Institute toward the more academic and secular side of things he had dang well better be THOROUGHLY PREPARED to do it RIGHT, not the Mormon testimony way. No offense to anyone's testimony, but SECULAR will not and cannot be fooled into stupid Mormonizing of everything in the Bible as our LDS Church Education system is so wont to so. In all seriousness, I have been reading the Biblical scholarship for years and years, and the LDS view, interpretation, and assumptions of the Bible just do not in ANY way match what the secular Biblical scholarship has shown. If you're going to go secular, then you dang well HAVE to lay aside anything smacking of Mormon thinking on the Bible........cause it WON'T wash. And so help me, if the MI begins Mormonizing the Bible pretending it is up to date scholarship as Thomas Wayment did in his new book on the Apostle Paul, I am going to absolutely do everything in my power to show them how utterly and insipidly stupid they are being. FARMS has been incredibly wonderful and rather astonishing enlightening on things up to now......but if it now goes secular, then it has to go ALL THE WAY and come to the conclusions the evidence shows, not what their testimonies wish for. It will NOT do to start with the conclusion, and then amass all the evidence ONLY that comes to that conclusion based on an internal feeling, or a testimony inspired truth. The secular will completely decimate that kind of myopic non-scholarly Mormon kind of research........ If Bradford really thinks he knows what he's doing, then he can no longer follow the brethren and their views of the Bible or the church's, because the secular does not come to the same conclusions, nor use the same evidence. I'm just sayin........ If Bradford thought he was inspired before to make this move, he dang sure better know more than his testimony of the truth of the church of what he is about to do secularizing things.......I certainly agree with this. 1
ttribe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Back to the original post of this thread, I'm also extremely surprised to see Dr. Hamblin writing a public critique of BYU and business and the Maxwell Institute. As exciting as it makes for gossip, that also does not strike me as especially professional.Your intuition was correct; the public airing of this dirty laundry is completely unprofessional. That being said, so was the dismissal of a 23-year veteran of the editorial board via e-mail. There are no "clean hands" here.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Your intuition was correct; the public airing of this dirty laundry is completely unprofessional. That being said, so was the dismissal of a 23-year veteran of the editorial board via e-mail. There are no "clean hands" here.I don't see Hamblin as airing out dirty laundry at all, but of keeping the record straight so the ridiculous speculation does not run rampant. Hamblin has not been unprofessional in anything he has written about this that I can see. 2
ttribe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) I don't see Hamblin as airing out dirty laundry at all, but of keeping the record straight so the ridiculous speculation does not run rampant. Hamblin has not been unprofessional in anything he has written about this that I can see.That's nice. Clearly, I do not agree and arguing about subjective opinions is about as useful as counting the lint between one's toes. Edited June 24, 2012 by ttribe
Recommended Posts