Defamation: The Apostate Grand Strategy?

[treehugger]

My Chair has nothing to do with MI. He said the letters were criticizing me....

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.

So what is the connection of authors letters which criticize you and apostacy? Are you suggesting that only an apostate would send a letter which criticized you?

[robuchan]

I see no evidence at all that Bill Hamblin and his close friends are "losing this fight," but perhaps you could specify how you see them as losing, and what they are losing.

I would call it losing when you start with a job and end up with no job.

[robuchan]

And yet, those critics, who are often the loudest in this fight, are the ones crying foul because they are getting their nose bloodied.

Is it ironic that when the apostate cries foul, a general authority steps in to have his back. And when you guys cry foul, you end up getting fired. Is something wrong with this picture. There seems to be some assumptions going on that you don't have right. Let me help you with them. This is not a case of MI defending the church against brutal apostates. This is a case of Mormons attacking other Mormons in a way that the church is not pleased with, and has stepped in and intervened.

[Rich Hansen]

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.

I agree. Based on what has been revealed, it appears to have been handled poorly. AFAIK, Dr. Bradford has not publicly told his side. I got the impression the termination was a process, not an event. Is there a scenario whereby Dr. Bradford, out of necessity, was forced to communicate the termination the way he did? What if all other forms of communication had fallen apart?

I understand the loyalty to Dr. Peterson. However, It may be prudent to withhold judgment against Dr. Bradford until the full story comes out, if it ever does.

[Bill Hamblin]

So what is the connection of authors letters which criticize you and apostacy? Are you suggesting that only an apostate would send a letter which criticized you?

No. Don't be a nincompoop.

I suppose it might be that the letters might be from the Queen of England, or another complete stranger. It is possible that my friends might be writing them. But the probability is that it is the same people who are relentlessly ranting bout us on the apostate board.

[Bill Hamblin]

I would call it losing when you start with a job and end up with no job.

No one has lost their job. Dan was fired as an editor of a journal.

[Bill Hamblin]

Is it ironic that when the apostate cries foul, a general authority steps in to have his back. And when you guys cry foul, you end up getting fired. Is something wrong with this picture. There seems to be some assumptions going on that you don't have right. Let me help you with them. This is not a case of MI defending the church against brutal apostates. This is a case of Mormons attacking other Mormons in a way that the church is not pleased with, and has stepped in and intervened.

A fantasy that bears no relationship to reality.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This thread is rather ironic.

[wenglund]

Yes, as indicated in my first post, I do see the irony. However, I think that it is funny that you assign so much value to posting under your real name.

But, I didn't assign any value to posting under one' real name. You invented that out of whole cloth.

Does posting under your real name somehow make your comments more right?

No....which is why I didn't and wouldn't suggest it.

There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the kindness of posts and the use of real names (unless it is a negative correlation -- some of the most mean-spirited posts are posted without psuedonym).

I haevn't taken a survey, so I am not in a position to agree or disagree.

I

believe that I understand the difference between an investigatory question and an attack.

Evidently, in this case, you got them confused.

I will take your word that you meant it otherwise, it just didn't read that way to me. Personally, I think that robuchan's post was very thoughtful.

I thought it was thoughtful, too. I just found it tagntial (like the exchance between you and I) and blaming the victim.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 15, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Are you disagreeing with me that emotion is playing a role in peoples speech and reactions.

I wasn't disagreeing or agreeing. I was simply pointing out the irony.

Are you also saying that a private, anonymous individual has no right to request public disclosure of a public entities request for a public response to a private affair?

No. I was simply pointing out the irony.

Was Bill's public call for response only for IRL individuals.

No. Obviously.

Would he turn down anonymous supporters to his cause?

I can't read Bill's mind, but were I to guess, I would say no.

If this is the case, perhaps he should have clarified.

It wasn't the case, nor did I even remotely suggest that it was, nor can I figure out what reason you would think to raise these entirely tangential questions.

Regardless, your response to mine is a classic example of killing the messenger, without addressing the message!

That is a very odd and dramatic (emotive) way of describing my simply pointing out your layers of unwitting irony. I would do so again here, but what would be the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Darren10]

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.

You aksed if I heard the Maxwell Institute side of the story and than proceeded to say how anomynous posters. not letter-writters, damage ther respective sides of an issue. Well, i learend about the Maxwell Institute throug reading Bill Hamblin's post on the matter of firing Dan Petersen and thus the connection.

[Darren10]

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.

Thank you for that clarification. I must have missed that post.

[Darren10]

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.

Brigham Young University is my alma matter as well yet I have no quarrells criticizing the Maxwell Institute's handling of firing Dan Peterson nor of its new outlook.

[Darren10]

This is a case of Mormons attacking other Mormons in a way that the church is not pleased with, and has stepped in and intervened.

Oh, please!!!

[Robert F. Smith]

After all, it was the church that fired these men.

CFR that it was the church that fired these men.

[Hawkmoon]

Some day, if not already, I think you and Dr. Peterson will come to regret the way this was handled.

I am not quite following you... why is it you blame them for the way it was handled? Are you saying Dan fired himself while he was away? Are you suggesting that Bill was the leaker? Did they conspire with the Bedlam Board to create this debacle? While I understand your defense of BYU in general, your seemingly cavalier stance to how utterly incompetent (or possible vindictive?) Bradford handled this, and, therefore by extension BYU, is odd at best. There was an appropriate way to handle this, and this was was most defintely not it. To be frank, if this would have been a company I owned-- Bradford would have fired for it.

[Hawkmoon]

Is it ironic that when the apostate cries foul, a general authority steps in to have his back. And when you guys cry foul, you end up getting fired. Is something wrong with this picture. There seems to be some assumptions going on that you don't have right. Let me help you with them. This is not a case of MI defending the church against brutal apostates. This is a case of Mormons attacking other Mormons in a way that the church is not pleased with, and has stepped in and intervened.

I think you are starting to fantasize far too much... this is not what has happened whatsoever. Wake up man.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert please stop making sense. Don't you see that you are talking to the wind? These people are not interested in common sense. They are interested in criticizing the lds church. Imagine the outcry if lds bookstores would have hit pieces on the catholic and protestant churches? The outcry from both groups would be harsh as it would be from the critics.

O.K. I'll try to repent, but it won't be easy.

[Bob Crockett]

You aksed if I heard the Maxwell Institute side of the story and than proceeded to say how anomynous posters. not letter-writters, damage ther respective sides of an issue. Well, i learend about the Maxwell Institute throug reading Bill Hamblin's post on the matter of firing Dan Petersen and thus the connection.

Sure thing. I'm amazed, really, how easily Dr. Bradford and BYU can be traduced on this this board with nothing more than the say so of two disgruntled ex-employees (or whatever their relationship is to MI). Granted, I admire and respect Drs. Hamblin and Peterson and all they've done over the years. But I also respect the religion department and BYU's administration. Can the latter err and do wrong? Of course. I grant that possibility. But you, Darren, are really willing to accept as BYU's side of the story what Dr. Hamblin says it is? Why?

[Bob Crockett]

While I understand your defense of BYU in general, your seemingly cavalier stance to how utterly incompetent (or possible vindictive?) Bradford handled this, and, therefore by extension BYU, is odd at best. There was an appropriate way to handle this, and this was was most defintely not it. To be frank, if this would have been a company I owned-- Bradford would have fired for it.

Snip all that stuff out. You fellows carry on. I'll stick with my support for BYU.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[CASteinman]

To be frank, if this would have been a company I owned-- Bradford would have fired for it.

I don't know that I would have fired him. I would need more information before I could make that call. But I would have definitely called him up and said some thing to the effect that "I thought that I could trust you to handle this in a reasonable manner. You have disappointed me in this. I do not hire people at your level to make this kind of mistake".

[Storm Rider]

Snip all that stuff out. You fellows carry on. I'll stick with my support for BYU.

How noble of you. May this noble disposition be displayed in all facets of your life....along with honesty and integrity.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Robert F. Smith]

I would call it losing when you start with a job and end up with no job.

Once again, you failed to respond to my queries.

Indeed, you addressed your original remark to Bill Hamblin who did not lose his job, and now you have changed that to fit someone else losing his job as editor of a publication after 23 years at the helm. Is that the measure of failure for you? Or would a disinterested third party think that a successful run?

[Robert F. Smith]

Is it ironic that when the apostate cries foul, a general authority steps in to have his back. And when you guys cry foul, you end up getting fired. Is something wrong with this picture. There seems to be some assumptions going on that you don't have right. Let me help you with them. This is not a case of MI defending the church against brutal apostates. This is a case of Mormons attacking other Mormons in a way that the church is not pleased with, and has stepped in and intervened.

There is no evidence that a general authority stepped in to have anybody's back. As for some "guys" getting fired, who are the "you guys" who got fired here? Who on this Board are you speaking to?

CFR that this is a case of the church not being pleased with Mormons attacking Mormons, and that the church stepped in and intervened. I know of no evidence to support your wild and irresponsible statements herewith.

[jwhitlock]

The silence from BYU on this has been deafening. We have one statement from the MI on their website, and that's it. No one, including Bradford, seems to be responding to any inquiries at all. I sent a note in, under my name, to the MI and got absolutely no response.

This goes far beyond just some kind of "personnel" issue. They're trying to ignore it in hopes it will go away. As many of us have had to deal (in frustration) with the BYU bureaucracy from time to time, this is SOP for them.

The facts, as we know them, even without any input from Bradford at this point do not reflect well upon either Bradford or, increasingly, BYU. There is plenty more that could have been said about what direction Bradford wants to take the MI and other things aside from any so-called personnel issues, but there has been nothing. That in itself reflects badly on them; the continued leaks from the MI without any attempt to address them is another thing. The most charitable thing you can say about Bradford at this point is that he doesn't know what he's doing; it goes downhill from there.

In regards to "personnel issues", the e-mail firing was just wrong. Period. That's a fact. Many of us have been around incompetent management enough that we recognize it when we see it. Whether Bradford chooses to respond or not is NOT something related to "legal" issues, but is a choice on his part. And that's a bad choice in this case; people don't like to be ignored, and nature abhors a vacuum.