Defamation: The Apostate Grand Strategy?

[Storm Rider]

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.

J, I think you are correct in that the silence is deafening. At one point I thought that the situation was reflective of getting caught with your britches around your knees, but that doesn't make sense. Had the decision been a quick one, then I could understand. However, this seems like a thought out, though incredibly stupid, decision of management. I don't think it would have been possible to make an bigger mess of things had one tried mightily to do so.

At this point, I don't really think there is anything they can do. I would be surprised to see Bradford last for very long now. To bungle things this bad is simply not tolerable because it reflects so badly on the institution and the Church. I chalk it up to a very bad episode and hope that we all see a brighter day for MI rather than this dismal performance.

[robuchan]

CFR that it was the church that fired these men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University

Brigham Young University (often referred to as BYU, or sometimes just the Y) is a private university located in Provo, Utah. It is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and is the United States' largest religious university and third-largest private university.

[robuchan]

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?

Bill Hamblin said:

They continue to do this because they believe these tactics have been successful in the past year. They have done it to Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, and are now trying it on me.

I'm taking his word that the bad guys are winning on this. He notes the people that have gone down at the hands of the bad guys and their nasty letter writing tactics. I guess if you're telling me the changes at MI are just a rearranging of assignments after a successful 23 year run with no other meaning, then I guess I misunderstood things. I thought you guys were upset at these changes. But if you're not, then I guess I'm wrong.

[robuchan]

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.

From Peterson's blog, he stated that John Dehlin, a Mormon, called a GA after being concerned about a hit piece by another Mormon. The GA intervened, according to Peterson. In the end, Peterson was fired. You guys are blaming Delhin. I think the phrase "fox in the hen house" was used. You could look at it that way. Someone else might look at it that the church is simply separating out the chaff.

There you go. Mormons attacking other Mormons, church stepping in.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Robuchan writes:

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 its fascinating that you have bought into a narrative about what happened so entirely. The church hasn't intervened. Yet. If it does intervene (which it may not) it will do so by altering the decisions that Bradford made. The amazing thing is that we haven't heard a word about General Authority intervention from any of the major players in this drama other than the critics. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no contact between a GA and any particular author over the substance of their articles.

Publishing material takes a bit of time - particularly in that venue. My first essay for the MI (which did not go into the Review) took more than two years to get published from the time it was submitted to them. I expect that the only thing that John Dehlin has done with his grandstanding is to guarantee the wide distribution of the piece about him (a piece which I have read in draft versions I might add). I am not an employee at BYU. I don't have a vested interest here. And yet, over the years I have interacted with those who do, the politics of that environment have become painfully clear to me - they aren't something new, they have just only recently hit a boiling point perhaps - and the apologetics issue that has come to the forefront is only a part of this larger political battle. It isn't the only issue that some would make it out to be.

The bigger issue isn't over the future of apologetics or even polemical writings on the part of some apologists. That will continue - and there is an almost certainty that if no General Authority intervention occurs, that there will be a new FARMS within a short period of time and the publications will continue. The Mormon Studies aim of Bradford is a doomed endeavor. It is doomed because within the religious studies community, there is ALWAYS (not just sometimes) the acceptance that any piece about a particular religious community which is produced within that religious community is a hidden apologetic. This notion has been discussed openly, it has been written into books on the study of religion - it is a widely accepted premise. This won't affect the other aspects of the MI, of course. The ancient manuscripts group will continue to be held with a great deal of respect, because of course, it isn't Mormons commenting on Mormonism.

Scholarly writings themselves find a much narrower audience and have a much more limited appeal than do the apologetic writings that the Review has published over the years, which are often funny, witty, and as you point out, once in a while a bit aggressive. But, it is the apologetic stuff that draws in the donors, and this is why FARMS will come back (assuming again that there is no General Authority intervention).

But, as this thread points out, it isn't so much about the events as it is about controlling the narrative describing those events. And it seems to me the biggest issue you have here in this thread is that you too have bought into one of those contested narratives. And as it always is with those who have a vested interest in the outcome, we expect that the critics and their fans will work hard to establish an interpretation that furthers their agenda - even if it isn't very accurate.

And let me add a thought .... a brutal attack of members on members is more something like what happened in World War II, when we had members on both sides of the battlefield shooting at each other. When you talk of a brutal attack (and I can only assume that you are referring to the apologists attacking others), you are once again trying to flash that victim card. Should we throw a pity party for these 'members' who are attacking the church and trying to destroy faith rather than engaging them? I don't think so. And I think that despite your assurances, those who are attacking the church, and claiming the support of General Authorities in doing so will find that they are burning bridges far more quickly than those directly affected by the changes at MI.

Ben M.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Benjamin McGuire

[robuchan]

And let me add a thought .... a brutal attack of members on members is more something like what happened in World War II, when we had members on both sides of the battlefield shooting at each other. When you talk of a brutal attack (and I can only assume that you are referring to the apologists attacking others), you are once again trying to flash that victim card. Should we throw a pity party for these 'members' who are attacking the church and trying to destroy faith rather than engaging them? I don't think so. And I think that despite your assurances, those who are attacking the church, and claiming the support of General Authorities in doing so will find that they are burning bridges far more quickly than those directly affected by the changes at MI.

Bill started the thread as a pity party for the vicious letter writing campaign the apostates are apparently undergoing. I agree, in relative terms, none of this is very brutal or vicious. But comparing the tactics of the two sides here, they all seem pretty comparative to me. Two sides lobbing grenades at each other in the form of snarky comments on the internet. Apparently the church doesn't like its employees doing this sort of thing.

[Anijen]

PS, could it be defamation to imply I'm a writer of one of these anonymous letters?

Anonymous letters are read, but any accusations that target another person should not nor do I think are taken seriously in matters like these. The reasoning is because the attacker is in fact anonymous. If you have written to a General Authority or someone inside the church and criticized someone and not signed your name, I believe is an act of cowardice.

Simply put it is cowardice! Anonymous attacks can hurt the reputation and perhaps the livelihood of that person. To lack the courage to sign ones own name in such an attack is sickening.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Hestia]

I believe the point has been made and the conversation is declining. Time to close.