A Warning About A New Beginning Unheeded For Five Years?

[ANACO]

While searching on another topic, I came across this article at NAMI. I found this particular paragraph from it interesting:

"It is too early to tell what impact, if any, the study of Mormonism at other universities will have on comparable work done at BYU. One thing, however, seems certain. Scholars at BYU who in the past have geared their writings about the tradition mainly toward an LDS audience and who want to contribute to the kind of scholarship relied upon by those working in broader religious studies programs will need to write for a wider academic audience if their work is to be published by recognized scholarly presses."

In light of recent events at NAMI, it appears the author of this article had given clear indication of what was expected before using email to dismiss certain individuals, which out of respect, need not be named.

This article was written in 2007. Is not five years a generous amount of time allowed for any 'employee' to act, when asked to do something, but doesn't?

​What do you think? I think in light of the unkind words/expressions directed toward the author over said incident, many recorded here at MDD, this five year window indicates such language was never justified.

I do not know personally any of the individuals involved, only know of them, due to MDD. I have no dog in this fight, as it were. I just found it surprising the uncharitable words used over the incident-when expectations and goals were outlined some five years earlier - per this article.

Respectfully,

ANACO

[Pahoran]

While searching on another topic, I came across this article at NAMI. I found this particular paragraph from it interesting:

"It is too early to tell what impact, if any, the study of Mormonism at other universities will have on comparable work done at BYU. One thing, however, seems certain. Scholars at BYU who in the past have geared their writings about the tradition mainly toward an LDS audience and who want to contribute to the kind of scholarship relied upon by those working in broader religious studies programs will need to write for a wider academic audience if their work is to be published by recognized scholarly presses."

In light of recent events at NAMI, it appears the author of this article had given clear indication of what was expected before using email to dismiss certain individuals, which out of respect, need not be named.

This article was written in 2007. Is not five years a generous amount of time allowed for any 'employee' to act, when asked to do something, but doesn't?

​What do you think? I think in light of the unkind words/expressions directed toward the author over said incident, many recorded here at MDD, this five year window indicates such language was never justified.

I do not know personally any of the individuals involved, only know of them, due to MDD. I have no dog in this fight, as it were. I just found it surprising the uncharitable words used over the incident-when expectations and goals were outlined some five years earlier - per this article.

Respectfully,

ANACO

So what you are saying is that, since the author, who at that time had no authority to issue warnings to anyone, expressed an opinion in 2007; and since that opinion addressed, not the field of Mormon apologetics, but the only incidentally related field of "Mormon studies," then all NAMI contributors/editors should have taken warning that the NAMI was going to be made over into a "Mormon studies" vehicle?

Umm, okay.

Incidentally, since Bradford evidently disapproves of "apologetics," he probably wouldn't approve of you acting as an apologist for him.

Even if it were possible to make a plausible argument to the effect that dismissal by email when an employee is safely overseas (for one) and by a general public announcement, with no personal notification at all (for others) was an acceptable management practice.

Which it is not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

No. This is not how you give instructions to people and in any case the brouhaha was substantially related to how the sacking was done. Of course some people object that it was done at all -- that the direction is poor. But far more than that the manner was poor.

We have been over this already so much....

[zerinus]

While searching on another topic, I came across this article at NAMI. I found this particular paragraph from it interesting:

"It is too early to tell what impact, if any, the study of Mormonism at other universities will have on comparable work done at BYU. One thing, however, seems certain. Scholars at BYU who in the past have geared their writings about the tradition mainly toward an LDS audience and who want to contribute to the kind of scholarship relied upon by those working in broader religious studies programs will need to write for a wider academic audience if their work is to be published by recognized scholarly presses."

In light of recent events at NAMI, it appears the author of this article had given clear indication of what was expected before using email to dismiss certain individuals, which out of respect, need not be named.

This article was written in 2007. Is not five years a generous amount of time allowed for any 'employee' to act, when asked to do something, but doesn't?

​What do you think? I think in light of the unkind words/expressions directed toward the author over said incident, many recorded here at MDD, this five year window indicates such language was never justified.

I do not know personally any of the individuals involved, only know of them, due to MDD. I have no dog in this fight, as it were. I just found it surprising the uncharitable words used over the incident-when expectations and goals were outlined some five years earlier - per this article.

Respectfully,

ANACO

I think that that is a valid observation on the face of it, without knowing the details of what took place behind the scene during the intervening "five years" mentioned. How much was the change of direction explained to the staff, and opportunities given them to adjust and adapt to the new situation etc. If reasonable efforts were made to help the staff see through and adjust to the new situation, but they failed to do so, then their dismissal was an inevitable and necessary consequence.

As far as the "manner" in which it was done is concerned, that is a secondary issue. If it had to be done then it had to be done. Whether there were better ways of doing it or not, I wouldn't know, without knowing all the facts about what had taken place behind the scene in the intervening period. Perhaps Bradford felt that he had no other options left, we do not know.

Edited August 23, 2012 by zerinus

[Scott Lloyd]

ANACO, if you think uncharitable things were said, why are you stirring the whole thing up again?

Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Oh no.

Not another one!

When will we be over this?

[zerinus]

No. This is not how you give instructions to people and in any case the brouhaha was substantially related to how the sacking was done. Of course some people object that it was done at all -- that the direction is poor. But far more than that the manner was poor.

Do you have enough information about it to make that judgement? Perhaps you do. I don't.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you have enough information about it to make that judgement? Perhaps you do. I don't.

For one who admittedly lacks sufficient information, you appear to have plenty to say.

[zerinus]

For one who admittedly lacks sufficient information, you appear to have plenty to say.

LOL! I think there is enough information out ther to justify me in drawing the conclusons I have drawn.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Anaco - just so that you are aware, Bradford wasn't given his current position at the NAMI until 2008 (after this article had been written and published).

If you read through the article however, you might notice that the direction Bradford was looking for was largely a shift towards a secular study of Mormonism - stemming from perhaps his own experience and his own PhD in religious studies at UC Santa Barbara. While this might or might not enhance the regard for Mormon studies produced by the NAMI among non-LDS scholars, it certainly won't do much for the members of the church who have looked forward to FARMS and NAMI publications as resources to reflect on their faith and belief (and for the apologetic defense of that faith and belief).

Ben M.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given that BYU is largely or mostly supported by the tithes of Church members, I'm unpersuaded that a shift away from serving the needs of Latter-day Saints and toward appealing to or seeking prestige from a more secular crowd is being altogether true to the mission of BYU, assuming that the OP is correct in his surmising that Bradford's 2007 piece was a foreshadowing of things to come.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

LOL! I think there is enough information out ther to justify me in drawing the conclusons I have drawn.

Naturally you would think so else you would not have drawn that conclusion. Evidently other reasonable men have drawn a different conclusion.

[zerinus]

Naturally you would think so else you would not have drawn that conclusion. Evidently other reasonable men have drawn a different conclusion.

Okay, that proves what exactly? They may think that my conclusions are wrong, and I think that theirs is wrong. I usually give reasons and explanations for my conclusions, which others are free to disagree with if they wish. I don't think that I am alone in drawing some of the conclusions that I have drawn.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's simply false to claim that five years of instruction were given (and resisted) in an attempt to turn the Maxwell Institute in the direction that it is now evidently going to pursue.

[ERayR]

Okay, that proves what exactly? They may think that my conclusions are wrong, and I think that theirs is wrong. I usually give reasons and explanations for my conclusions, which others are free to disagree with if they wish. I don't think that I am alone in drawing some of the conclusions that I have drawn.

Didn't say you did but to me you tend to have a lack of regard for view points that differ from yours. Hence my little notation to remind you that there other rational views. In truth I usually ignore your posts so don't know why I stopped and read that one. Carry on.

[wenglund]

When will we be over this?

When the fat lady sings?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

In light of recent events, it is an interesting quote to find from five years ago.

[ERayR]

In light of recent events, it is an interesting quote to find from five years ago.

Twilight Zone music begins to play. Either that or conspiracy music.

Edited August 23, 2012 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

In light of recent events, it is an interesting quote to find from five years ago.

Only to the extent that it gives insight into Bradford's mindset -- and suggests that the decision regarding recent changes may well be more localized than some want to believe.

[zerinus]

It's simply false to claim that five years of instruction were given (and resisted) in an attempt to turn the Maxwell Institute in the direction that it is now evidently going to pursue.

In that case the answer is to defeat them at their own game. You have put together a technically excellent and innovative online (and in print) journal; all you need to do now is to polish it a bit more, and change its focus more towards a "Mormon Studies" slant rather than an "apologetics" slant (of the traditional kind). It doesn't mean that you can't publish the kind of things that you have been publishing before. You can still continue to do that, while gradually focusing more in the direction suggestive of "Mormon Studies" rather than the traditional kind of "apologetics". It is going to take some time anyway for LDS scholars to adapt to the new way of thinking, and start producing quality articles of that description. That is the problem that MI will be facing too. So initially you can continue to publish the same kind of material as before, while gradually changing direction along new ways of thinking. You can also solicit such papers from non-LDS academics. They don't all have to be written by LDS. In fact, the best way of getting LDS scholars to think along those lines is to publish good articles of that description by non-LDS authors.

[Glenn101]

In that case the answer is to defeat them at their own game. You have put together a technically excellent and innovative online (and in print) journal; all you need to do now is to polish it a bit more, and change its focus more towards a "Mormon Studies" slant rather than an "apologetics" slant (of the traditional kind). It doesn't mean that you can't publish the kind of things that you have been publishing before. You can still continue to do that, while gradually focusing more in the direction suggestive of "Mormon Studies" rather than the traditional kind of "apologetics". It is going to take some time anyway for LDS scholars to adapt to the new way of thinking, and start producing quality articles of that description. That is the problem that MI will be facing too. So initially you can continue to publish the same kind of material as before, while gradually changing direction along new ways of thinking. You can also solicit such papers from non-LDS academics. They don't all have to be written by LDS. In fact, the best way of getting LDS scholars to think along those lines is to publish good articles of that description by non-LDS authors.

However, it seems to me, that would defeat the purpose of bringing the Intepreter into existence.

Glenn

[livy111us]

I think someone needs to find a hobby...

[zerinus]

However, it seems to me, that would defeat the purpose of bringing the Intepreter into existence.

Glenn

It might do that eventually, or in the long run; but It will also give it a better purpose than the one it started out with.

[Pahoran]

It might do that eventually, or in the long run; but It will also give it a better purpose than the one it started out with.

What, writing for a little club of academic elitists is a "better purpose" than defending the faith of the Latter-day Saints?

Clearly some people think that; but it is not self-evidently true.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Glenn101]

It might do that eventually, or in the long run; but It will also give it a better purpose than the one it started out with.

That, of course, is your opinion. I will agreeably disagree with you.

Glenn