Aliwe Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 BYU is an interesting place, in a lot of ways.I have seen BYU North in Rexville, with the lovely white temple on the hill, and the whole town is Mormon paradise, and the Applebees has missionaries getting their pep talks before being sent out. Without words, I get it. I know what makes you folks tick. It's all about the community.
JackNimble Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I agree completely with this statement by Brant:"If the Maxwell Institute is moving away from apologetics--yes, please bring back classic FARMS. That kind of apologetics is incredibly important."
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I'm told that Elder Jensen was indeed involved, that he did indeed read at least part of the paper, that he strongly disapproved of it, that he shared it with others, that he received similar disapproval from them, that he expressed this concern with President Samuelson, and that that was what led to it being pulled. I am confident that this is what actually occurred, and therefore confident that there must have been something of concern in the paper that was being published.If this is so, it is a shame that no one in authority actually talked to the people involved directly in the paper, the author or the editor and informed them of this. Seems a very inefficient way of addressing a problem. 2
Duncan Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I have seen BYU North in Rexville, with the lovely white temple on the hill, and the whole town is Mormon paradise, and the Applebees has missionaries getting their pep talks before being sent out. Without words, I get it. I know what makes you folks tick. It's all about the community.It's BYU-Idaho in Rexburg, Idaho
wenglund Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 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.Are you referring to Bradford not going public?Whatever the case, I think the more likely explanation is that the institutions, like private citizens, have information that is not the publics business. Outside the mind of interminable busy-bodies, keeping private such information is quite 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.Which is why FROB has yet to come anywhere close to that--not that you are want to judge.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 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.Do you think that process of termination of employees should be made public?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 If this is so, it is a shame that no one in authority actually talked to the people involved directly in the paper, the author or the editor and informed them of this. Seems a very inefficient way of addressing a problem.Indeed.As a writer myself, I say it would make a much stronger impact on me to have the authority approach me personally than to send a directive down through some middle manager who would not say where it came from, would not give a good reason for killing the piece and would not even read it himself.
BCSpace Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Dehlin has a sympathetic GA and that is probably Oaks (to whom he reported some nefarious goings on in his mission years ago) or Jensen. The Church is trying to take a low low profile on these issues, at least until the Romney campaign/presidency is over so, as I've said before, the order of the day is wheat with the tares. The best way to combat Dehlin is to not attack him personally but match him point by point with some of the good work FAIR et. al. has done and will continue to do, as well as with LDS doctrine which is often the best apologetic, while those of use who can quietly move cards in a direction that will marginalize and eventually oust him from the Church. Being an apostate, as most in leadership (and anyone else with half a brain) know he is, he may hang himself.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.Well, let's get the dang thing published. The sooner it is and as long as it is not an ad hominem attack piece, the better positive effect it will have on yours and Hamblin's side in this debate. Could be good to use to combat Dehlin's attack from within. Edited June 24, 2012 by BCSpace
why me 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.But it does make him a human being with an opinion. Mormons are not morgbots. If Dr. Hamblin has an a opinion about BYU and business and the Maxwell Institute and shares it with us for comment...I see nothing wrong with that at all.
why me Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Do you think that process of termination of employees should be made public?I think that some people don't understand that the problem was in the way the termination was done. This is the 'how' problem. It was a terrible way to terminate Dan and extremely insulting also. Putting myself in his shoes, I would have felt terrible and my trip overseas would be emotionally disrupted, if not ruined. It came across as a corporate termination, one devoid of God's love.
Somebodyz Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) In my humble opinion this is the reason that the higher ups, whomever that might be, is squelching the Petersons and the Hamblins. They don't want members losing their testimonies after reading apologetics for it. Like myself, I learned so much more history by reading apologetics and very disturbing things to boot. I feel one day Fairlds will be a thing of the past because it deals with all the issues upfront. With a click of the mouse. Things no one would be privvy too had they not went to Fair.Funny I found it a relief after reading anti articles (and know of others who feel the same), to go to MI and Fair and read a response. There needs to be a response to the liars and truth twisters.Nor do I believe higher ups have anything to do with G. Bradfords choices.I hope a new group is set up to continue the work, that the new MI would censor. Edited June 24, 2012 by Somebodyz 2
why me Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Nor do I believe higher ups have anything to do with G. Bradfords choices.Or if someone was behind it, they would not condone such a firing by email of a worthy member of the church who happened to out of the country, by another worthy member of the church in the way that it was done. This firing was uncaring, unloving, and smells of a corporate business.
rpn Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Termination is termination whether "faithful" member or not. It ought not to be done by email when someone is on vacation (and clearly there was no urgency as Mr. Bradford has decided he won't be picking a new board for several months). 2
Analytics Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Or if someone was behind it, they would not condone such a firing by email of a worthy member of the church who happened to out of the country, by another worthy member of the church in the way that it was done. This firing was uncaring, unloving, and smells of a corporate business.Something in the Mormon church smelling like corporate business? How weird!What's ironic is the story of the alleged firing of the associate editors. They think they are fired, although nobody has told them they are. And they complain that they haven't had email communication about it. And of course they've complained about leaks. Maybe Bradford learned his lesson and doesn't want to fire anybody until he has them in a one-on-one conversation in the bug-proof bubble room he is now building at the MI headquarters?
ERayR Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Something in the Mormon church smelling like corporate business? How weird!What's ironic is the story of the alleged firing of the associate editors. They think they are fired, although nobody has told them they are. And they complain that they haven't had email communication about it. And of course they've complained about leaks. Maybe Bradford learned his lesson and doesn't want to fire anybody until he has them in a one-on-one conversation in the bug-proof bubble room he is now building at the MI headquarters?Aw yes revert to sarcasm and innuendo to get in your little digs no matter how inane. Keep up the good work.
Bill Hamblin Posted June 24, 2012 Author Posted June 24, 2012 Something in the Mormon church smelling like corporate business? How weird!What's ironic is the story of the alleged firing of the associate editors. They think they are fired, although nobody has told them they are. And they complain that they haven't had email communication about it. And of course they've complained about leaks. Maybe Bradford learned his lesson and doesn't want to fire anybody until he has them in a one-on-one conversation in the bug-proof bubble room he is now building at the MI headquarters?Bradford told them by making a public announcement of their dismissal on the FARMS web page. He didn't even bother to send them a personal email. 4
Bob Crockett Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Bradford told them by making a public announcement of their dismissal on the FARMS web page. He didn't even bother to send them a personal email.I think it is time to bring public Bradford bashing to an end. Neither Bradford nor BYU can respond to your charges, as it is a personnel matter. We can't know BYU's side of the story as to Dr. Peterson's change of position, nor of the termination of his assistants. Nor it is it very likely that Bradford was an independent actor. BYU is a very deliberative body. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) I think it is time to bring public Bradford bashing to an end. Neither Bradford nor BYU can respond to your charges, as it is a personnel matter. We can't know BYU's side of the story as to Dr. Peterson's change of position, nor of the termination of his assistants. Nor it is it very likely that Bradford was an independent actor. BYU is a very deliberative body.Bill Hamblin's quoted statement in this post is factual; yours are speculative. Edited June 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 3
jwhitlock Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 I think it is time to bring public Bradford bashing to an end. Neither Bradford nor BYU can respond to your charges, as it is a personnel matter. We can't know BYU's side of the story as to Dr. Peterson's change of position, nor of the termination of his assistants. Nor it is it very likely that Bradford was an independent actor. BYU is a very deliberative body.BYU published a "personnel matter" on its web page. That makes it fair game. We can look at Bradford's writings and draw some conclusions about him there, so we do have some of the other side of the story.Since this affects more than just a "personnel matter", Bradford's motivations are fair game for discussion. Whether Bradford or BYU chooses to respond in more detail is up to them; however, given the public nature of this debacle, leaving a vacuum to be filled with something else would not be a wise move on their part.If you have more information on who, other than Bradford, may have been involved, please feel free to share it. If not, then it is also a real possibility that Bradford did this on his own. The e-mail firing was simply a cowardly way to do things, and I don't find it likely that such a methodology was condoned officially by BYU.
blackstrap Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Sorry,but if one accidently or on purpose starts a fire in the house,one can't then complain much about the water damage that comes from the effort to put the fire out. Once this tempest hit the public airwaves,it was fair game.It could easily have been kept as a "personnel matter".It wasn't. 2
William Schryver Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) I think it is time to bring public Bradford bashing to an end. Neither Bradford nor BYU can respond to your charges, as it is a personnel matter. Seeing as how Bradford et al. were the ones who first brought this issue to the attention of the general public (via transparently intentional leaks of internal MI memos concerning a "personnel matter"), I can't see that it would be so difficult to respond to Bill via the same route. I have no doubt that Kevin Graham, Trevor Luke (and his doppelgänger "Doctor Scratch") would excitedly welcome another installment in "How the Maxwell Institute Turns".We can't know BYU's side of the story as to Dr. Peterson's change of position, nor of the termination of his assistants.Why not? All Bradford needs to do is make another post under the "News" link at the Maxwell Institute's website.Nor it is it very likely that Bradford was an independent actor.Certainly not. No coup can be effected by a single individual.BYU is a very deliberative body.I'm sure the conference room at the MI can be converted to a star-chamber at moment's notice. I wouldn't be surprised to eventually learn that such deliberations took place during last summer's Gold Plates Seminar. (The Gold Plates as Cultural Artifact) Edited June 24, 2012 by William Schryver
why me Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Termination is termination whether "faithful" member or not. It ought not to be done by email when someone is on vacation (and clearly there was no urgency as Mr. Bradford has decided he won't be picking a new board for several months).Exactly. And this is why the sending of the email while someone is away from the country giving lectures and guided tours was evil. And it was unbecoming of a man with a temple recommend. Think of Dan getting this email while away...and still having to give his lectures and tours knowing what happened back home. Not good.
why me Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Maybe Bradford learned his lesson and doesn't want to fire anybody until he has them in a one-on-one conversation in the bug-proof bubble room he is now building at the MI headquarters?Maybe. But a nice big apology to Dan would be nice. Bradford screwed up big time. And he knows it. Also, all the kudos that he has gotten from exmembers must be telling him something. He also needs to find the mole by interviewing everyone who had access to the emails.
Bob Crockett Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 Your (hamblin's) posts on this are becoming irresponsible. Many of you know me to be a conservative fellow, a First Amendment lawyer for several different religious faiths. I am days away from a Prop 8 related First Amendment piece in an Eastern law journal. BYU has not aired a personnel matter. It has only announced a personnel change. It cannot refute Hamblin's attacks. I'm frankly surprised at all this. People I respect and admire acting like churlish thugs. Gerry Bradford does not deserve your wrath. BYU does not deserve your insults. Why is it so hard to see that apologetics can be a nasty business? BYU has simply pulled the plug.
Calm Posted June 24, 2012 Posted June 24, 2012 BYU is a very deliberative body.I am curious as to why you think this. Myself, I have heard enough personal anecdotes that I view BYU pretty much like any other university when it comes to politics, some actions are done as a "deliberative body" but much more are done as independent individuals with their own interpretations on what is best for the university (too often interpreted as "what is best for me" unfortunately).
Recommended Posts