Bob Crockett Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Bill Hamblim is hardly an anomynous poster. His reporting on the Maxwell institute was based on his own knowledge he learned from first hand sources. And do not let it pass you that I phrased my comment conditionally. I said, "if it turns out that Bradford...". I'm quite open to the possibility that Bradford did not listen to apostates in deciding to unethically fire Dan Peterson.Interesting how you could read my post to say that I think Hamblin is anonymous. I am on record as saying that anonymous letter-writers, internet posters and bank robbers are cowards thru and thru. There simply is no justification for a disciple of Jesus to make anonymous posts, much less swipes at people or even conditional swipes. I'm not perfect. Some claim I've made anonymous posts here. I don't recall it but something about the claim suggests I might have done so years ago. But I don't need to be be perfect to condemn anonymous conditional attacks on Bradford.
ERayR Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 As an apostate myself, I believe that anonymously contacting someone's employer, colleagues, ecclesiastical leader, or other associates to level complaints is generally a cowardly action. This is not a standard operating procedure of apostates as far as I'm aware. I don't personally know of any apostates in my circle of acquaintance that would do something like that. I think it would be wrongheaded to defame apostates in general, by implying that that this is their standard operating procedure.You must admit that is not uncommon from some segments of the population of apostates.
Bill Hamblin Posted July 14, 2012 Author Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Bill Hamblim is hardly an anomynous poster. His reporting on the Maxwell institute was based on his own knowledge he learned from first hand sources. And do not let it pass you that I phrased my comment conditionally. I said, "if it turns out that Bradford...". I'm quite open to the possibility that Bradford did not listen to apostates in deciding to unethically fire Dan Peterson.As I've made clear before, Bradford sacking Dan was done for Bradford's own reasons, to change the direction of the Maxwell Institute from classic-FARMS to his vision of Mormon studies. It had nothing to do with the apostate rantings. That does not, however, mean that the apostates have not attempted to defame Dan with their slander and secret letters, or that they believe their slander and defamation is effective. (The cases of Will Schryver and Greg Smith may be different.) They think it is effect. That's why they keep doing it. Edited July 14, 2012 by Bill Hamblin
treehugger Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Have you heard Bradford/BYU's side of the story? How could you? They can't comment on personnel issues except to issue vague press releases.I'd say anonymous posters on all sides look pretty foolish in this controversy.The following, from Fairblog seems appropriate:"Very soon these events at the Maxwell Institute will be spoken of in the past tense. The Institute and the Mormon Studies Review will go forward in their new direction. Daniel Peterson and others who agree with his editorial style will possibly (perhaps likely) create a new organization and publication through which they can disseminate their views. ...Until the whole story can be told — and I’m sure it will — it would be best not to believe a narrative that is told by self-interested parties, without evidence and in denial of the facts which are known." Edited July 14, 2012 by treehugger
Bob Crockett Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) I don't blame all apostates. I'm sure only a few are involved. On the other hand, the madness at the Bedlam Board reacting to this issue would indicate that most of the apostates there support the practice and think it not only justified, but a moral imperative. From their perspective, I am a "pathetic coward" for merely pointing out what is really going on. It is simply astonishing that they seem to believe that this behavior by apostates is somehow caused by some moral failure on my part. It is unmitigated nincompoopery.I'm not an apostate. I agree that the other board is a vile place filled with terrible people. But what you've done is not judicious. Airing dirty laundry against my beloved alma mater which by law cannot respond. Edited July 14, 2012 by Bob Crockett
Bill Hamblin Posted July 14, 2012 Author Posted July 14, 2012 IIRC, many people vowed to pen letters or contacted the powers that be, to state that they will now withhold monies from MI because of DCP removal and the nature of the removal. And many here called into question Bradfords character.Did your Department Chair state whether the letters chuckled at where letters were in favor of the decision or letters claiming that the faithful member who penned the letter will now be withholding funds from MI.My Chair has nothing to do with MI. He said the letters were criticizing me. If people wish to support or withhold support from MI or any other institution, that is entirely their right. Some people may well like the new direction Bradford wishes to take the Institute, and they can financially support it if they wish. This has absolutely nothing to do with people writing anonymous and/or secret letters to defame someone. When I had criticisms about Bradford, I made them publicly and in my own name. I sent no secret or anonymous letters to any general authority or university administrator. I would never think of doing so.
Popular Post Bill Hamblin Posted July 14, 2012 Author Popular Post Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) I'm not an apostate. I agree that the other board is a vile place filled with terrible people. But what you've done is not judicious. Airing dirty laundry against my beloved alma mater which by law cannot respond.Let's be clear. I didn't "air dirty laundry." A leaker within the Maxwell Institute sent letters to the apostates, which they posted on the Bedlam Board. I said nothing about the affair until it was made public by the leaker and the apostates. I only spoke up in order to defend my friend Dan Peterson from slander, and to clarify what was really going on, since the apostates had garbled, fantasized, and falsified the story. Edited July 14, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 5
Bill Hamblin Posted July 14, 2012 Author Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Have you heard Bradford/BYU's side of the story? How could you? They can't comment on personnel issues except to issue vague press releases.I have heard Bradford's story from several different first hand accounts of discussions with Bradford (though not directly from him). All these people agree that Bradford sacked Dan because he wants to take the MI and the Mormon Studies Review in a new direction. That's really all there is to it. He is confident he has made the right decision, and that the Institute needs to move away from apologetics. (He has always opposed apologetics at FARMS, by the way. It is simply that now he is in a position as director of the Institute to enforce his views by fiat.) Edited July 14, 2012 by Bill Hamblin 2
ERayR Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I'm not an apostate. I agree that the other board is a vile place filled with terrible people. But what you've done is not judicious. Airing dirty laundry against my beloved alma mater which by law cannot respond.Your beloved alma mater is not above reproach or criticism. I am saddened that the unprofessional management by one man reflects badly on the whole organization and will continue to do so until university officials correct it. I would have no problem with the firing of Dr. Peterson and the others had been done more professionally. I wouldn't have agreed. At the very least your alma mater owes those men an apology. 2
why me Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I'm not an apostate. I agree that the other board is a vile place filled with terrible people. But what you've done is not judicious. Airing dirty laundry against my beloved alma mater which by law cannot respond.If the cougars are doing poorly in football, would it be possible for me to rail against the coach without you getting bent out of shape about your alma mater? 1
cacheman Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 You must admit that is not uncommon from some segments of the population of apostates.I would guess that it is not uncommon from some segments of many different groups. However, if for example, a few LDS individuals sent anonymous letters to my employer, it would be a little strange for me to ask if there is some 'grand mormon strategy' to do so, or to say that it seems that this is the new standard operating procedure for mormons.
Bob Crockett Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I have heard Bradford's story from several different first hand accounts of discussions with Bradford (though not directly from him). All these people agree that Bradford sacked Dan because he wants to take the MI and the Mormon Studies Review in a new direction. That's really all there is to it. He is confident he has made the right decision, and that the Institute needs to move away from apologetics. (He has always opposed apologetics at FARMS, by the way. It is simply that now he is in a position as director of the Institute to enforce his views by fiat.)Some day, if not already, I think you and Dr. Peterson will come to regret the way this was handled.
ERayR Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I would guess that it is not uncommon from some segments of many different groups. However, if for example, a few LDS individuals sent anonymous letters to my employer, it would be a little strange for me to ask if there is some 'grand mormon strategy' to do so, or to say that it seems that this is the new standard operating procedure for mormons.Yet from complaints about a certain group actually participating in this behavior you have extrapolated a "new standard operating procedure for mormons.".
cacheman Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Yet from complaints about a certain group actually participating in this behavior you have extrapolated a "new standard operating procedure for mormons.".I'm sorry... I don't follow what you're saying here. I'm not extrapolating anything. I was trying to show how it doesn't make sense to extrapolate on a whole population based on the bad actions of a few individuals. Edited July 14, 2012 by cacheman
ERayR Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I'm sorry... I don't follow what you're saying here.I see I may have misunderstood your post so reply is likely nonsense.
cacheman Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I see I may have misunderstood your post so reply is likely nonsense. No worries
Hamilton Porter Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 John Dehlin likes to send his sheep to mob his critics (via email or some other means), like he did with Rosalynn Welch after her article.
why me Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Some day, if not already, I think you and Dr. Peterson will come to regret the way this was handled.I think that they both already regret that it was handled the way it was: firing someone by email. Why can't you see that this is an injustice and not worthy of a church institution?
CASteinman Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Some day, if not already, I think you and Dr. Peterson will come to regret the way this was handled.I think that they have expressed very strongly their unhappiness and dismay at how it was handled. No need to wait for "some day". And it was handled horribly. It is a textbook case about how not to do this. 1
Libs Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 There is nothing wrong with critiquing or giving an opinion (in reference to the above comment about Dehlin), but I do agree that what has been done by some, to these church apologists...the anonymous attempts at defamation of character is very cowardly. Going behind someone's back (and over their head), rather than facing them openly with reasonable criticism, is just very low, IMO. 1
morgan.deane Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 A while back I met a professor of religion who was acting very badly and unprofessionally. Using my own name and personal email address I forwarded his behavior to his HR department for review. Nothing came of it, but this professor later resigned in a storm of controversy when his anctics upset several Muslim students. I only mentioned this because the other board considered my action one of the most innappropriate things ever. They thought it was horrible bullying and I was villified. Of course, now we have anonymous posters trying to wreck somebody's career when he really hasn't acted inappriotately or uprofessionally. They seem to think it is not only acceptable, but great. Their double standard and total hypocrisy astounds me. 2
Bob Crockett Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I think that they have expressed very strongly their unhappiness and dismay at how it was handled. No need to wait for "some day". And it was handled horribly. It is a textbook case about how not to do this.I hate to be critical but that is a disingenuous way to characterize what I've said. I am sorry that I am one of the very few here to protest the vilification of Dr Bradford and the BYU admin. Lots of good people in the mix. Continued pot shots without hearing the other side is poor judgment. Dr. Hamblin says he has heard BYU's side from first hand accounts. I presume that is Dr Peterson. That's like relying on an ex husband for an opinion of his former spouse. No. The separation was handled immensely poorly. And I mean by FARMS scholars I have long admired. I don't hold it against them. I hold it against anonymous posters who trash Bradford.
CASteinman Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I hate to be critical but that is a disingenuous way to characterize what I've said. That's ok. I don't mind. I was certainly being critical. But not disingenuous. I am sorry that I am one of the very few here to protest the vilification of Dr Bradford and the BYU admin. Lots of good people in the mix. Continued pot shots without hearing the other side is poor judgment.When you hear only one side of a story... you only hear one side. BUT.. that is irrelevant to my criticisms. I have not said whether WHAT he did was right or wrong. I said HOW he did it was a textbook case of how not to do it. It was an egregious example of poor managerial practice. That is all I have said on the matter. I do not know if it is all that DCP has said on the matter, but it is the first thing I read that he said and the only thing that I recall, so I agree with him in that regard.No. The separation was handled immensely poorly. And I mean by FARMS scholars I have long admired. I don't hold it against them. I hold it against anonymous posters who trash Bradford.I am not anonymous. I would, if he wanted to talk to me, say what I have said here, right to his face. And, incidentally, I have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for my advice on such things.
Bob Crockett Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I am not anonymous. I would, if he wanted to talk to me, say what I have said here, right to his face. And, incidentally, I have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for my advice on such things.Well then. Go out and sock Bradford in the face, figuratively, on the say so of a disgruntled ex-employee.
CASteinman Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 Well then. Go out and sock Bradford in the face, figuratively, on the say so of a disgruntled ex-employee.Thanks for agreeing with me then. Glad to see I have made a convert out of you.However, you misunderstand. It has nothing to do with the say so of a disgruntled employee, as I have explained, but which you are ignoring.
Recommended Posts