Dan Peterson Booted From His Meti Office

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I can't find where the board rules say our discussions are limited to theological discussions, but I did find something on board nannying. I'll modify my "outrage" comment but the "selective" part has been confirmed.

My Nanny used to spoil me by putting food coloring in my oatmeal...I like Nannies.

[Bob Crockett]

I have in mind those who are absolutely sure -- and continue to say so publicly -- that the thing wouldn't have happened without the institutional imprimatur of the Church and the Brethren.

Evidently Dan knows. I'm confident he wouldn't lie about it.

I'd like to know who is so sure that the Church institution is behind it all and who is so sure it isn't. So for now, based upon your response, there are no names available for either answer.

I will wager that at the very least the Board of Trustees has ratified the action. But I'm not them.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

So I guess Hugh Nibley is burning in Hell right now then, because he was one of the harshest critics of BYU. During a debate he had long ago with Sterling McMurrin of the UofU, Sterling even had to defend BYU against Hugh's attacks. On the other hand, Hugh was told by the Brethren to keep doing it.

Any record of the debate online, that would be interesting reading material.

most of it is a pity party where facts and evidence are often trumped by emotional outbursts and outrage. I just assumed this board was run differently, that's all, and in fact, it is one of the reasons that I keep coming back, because it is run differently than those other chaotic boards.

Even if one assumes that this thread is a pity party (note that it wasn't started by Dan though but someone else and Dan only posted to correct some false information), having a rare pity party as opposed to "most of it" would still make this board run differently.

I generally commend the mods here for the extensive work that they put in to ensure that topics stay on point, personal and/or frivolous topics are moved or shut down, etc., but this topic just appears that it is not suited for LDS theological discussion, that's all.

There have been a number of discussions totally unrelated to theological issues, such as the modesty one that was started yesterday and is all about church culture, not theology. There have even been politically related threads though they like personal topics are limited in how far one can go off on how it generally relates to LDS. If you aren't aware of these threads, it would seem you don't hang out here all that much.

This is not just a sympathy thread as should be obvious from the inclusion of negative comments being allowed by the moderators. Dan's firing became a public event due to the leaking of correspondence and the posting of it on anti-mormon websites. Eventually it made its way onto news pages even. That there are those who are curious about the progress of this unfortunately public incident and therefore want updates on what the current status is should be hardly surprising.

Dan's firing not only was the occasion of one very long thread, but there were a number of spinoff threads that resulted including one about the topic of the direction of the NAMI. This thread contributes, in my opinion, to that topic by providing further information on what is being done by the director of the NAMI...as in he is not providing support for the METI project in any visual way at this time. Hopefully this will be the only obstacle he places in the path of its publication as this attitude toward METI is very disappointing.

And last, there have been quite a few threads in my memory in the past where individuals discuss (without names since those individuals were not public figures as Dan is) work relationships including not being hired because they were or weren't LDS and how someone has been treated inappropriately by LDS neighbours and/or coworkers. They were not posted in Social Hall either.

[Calm]

I'd like to know who is so sure that the Church institution is behind it all and who is so sure it isn't. So for now, based upon your response, there are no names available for either answer.

I remember you posting in at least one currently active thread where one of the individuals who has made this claim posted his support of Brother Bradford's decision along with, IIRC, his certainty about it involving church leadership. I even cut and pasted some of his comments about it all in one spot for easy reading for those with limited time.

If you want to spend time on anti-mormon sites, you can find quite a few who gleefully hold this position. The other central character who is pushing this claim had comments that were printed in the news alongside the announcement the dismissal of the editors claiming, again IIRC, that a general authority was directly involved.

I see no reason to give them even more attention that they do not deserve, publicity hounds that they are in my opinion, for this behaviour by posting their names. I don't know if that is Scott's reason for not providing the details as well.

As far as those who are so sure that the Church isn't, in this very thread Dan has stated positively that he knows there is no church involvement so I am not sure why you claim there are no names for either answer.

Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I will wager that at the very least the Board of Trustees has ratified the action. But I'm not them.

I don't understand why you are so willing to add to the gossip with unfounded, unnecessary comments like these. Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

No just spell check run amuck. With an IPad just touching a button it can happen quickly.

I can relate. Much of the time, I use an iPod Touch in my posting here.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't understand why you are so willing to add to the gossip with unfounded, unnecessary comments like these.

Because I don't share the generally held view here that BYU harbors cretins as administrators. So you are going to hear from me that given the press release and total inaction by BYU admins since then, along with the ouster from the office, the action was deliberative.

Keep in mind however that I have noted that I was a Platinum level FARMS supporter, one of Welch's first research assistants and twice published with FARMS and thus more than just an enthusiastic supporter.

I remain astounded by a number of posters here on the subject, including you.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd like to know who is so sure that the Church institution is behind it all and who is so sure it isn't. So for now, based upon your response, there are no names available for either answer.

I will wager that at the very least the Board of Trustees has ratified the action. But I'm not them.

I've quoted Dan's words on the matter. I trust him.

So sue me.

[Bob Crockett]

I've quoted Dan's words on the matter. I trust him.

So sue me.

There is no reason to be hostile with me. I'm not the enemy, really. Why don't we just agree that there appears to be nothing to indicate the BYU admins intend to retract or apologize.

[Scott Lloyd]

There is no reason to be hostile with me.

No reason for you to be so incessantly obnoxious.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm sorry. I just tend to be matter of fact. I don't know who you are and have no problems with you.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

There is no reason to be hostile with me. I'm not the enemy, really. Why don't we just agree that there appears to be nothing to indicate the BYU admins intend to retract or apologize.

Whenever did those miserable so-n-so's ever retract or apologize for any political step or misstep they ever made?

The Ghost of Ernie Wilkinson continues to haunt us all, feeding the boobirds and giving them hope.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't see it that way. I think that without BYU's statement on the issue of a personnel matter we should assume the separation was either institutionally deliberative or was ratified. Sure, people make mistakes. But there is no cause to traduce the reputations of those who were involved on BYU's side.

[KevinG]

I find it offensive that you would believe the board of trustees at BYU would be so sloppy as to allow private personnel decisions to be leaked to anti-Mormon websites.

(See how the offensisensitivity game is played?)

[Daniel Peterson]

I will wager that at the very least the Board of Trustees has ratified the action. But I'm not them.

I know for a fact that they didn't ratify the action. If you want to know how I know that, feel free to drop me a private note.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Bob Crockett]

I find it offensive that you would believe the board of trustees at BYU would be so sloppy as to allow private personnel decisions to be leaked to anti-Mormon websites.

(See how the offensisensitivity game is played?)

I have never so believed that. Just because I believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God does not mean I believe the Devil to be a good guy because he happens to be mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

[KevinG]

I have never so believed that. Just because I believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God does not mean I believe the Devil to be a good guy because he happens to be mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Right and your supposition that anyone who agrees with Dan that he was treated badly is tarnishing the reputation of BYUs faculty and administration is an overstep also. Hopefully you now understand my illustration.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm trying to ratchet back my public comments on this topic (which have never been as extensive as they could have been; oh my, the things I could say!), but I'm disinclined to allow falsehoods to go uncorrected.

Lately, I've been seeing, again, claims that I refused to meet with the director of the Maxwell Institute, would not accept his phone calls, etc., and that, thus, he had no choice in the end but to dismiss me, and to do it by email.

These claims are flatly false. I met with him for fully four hours just a few days prior to my departure for six weeks overseas (during which I was dismissed). I met with him and with others innumerable times in the days and weeks before that, and never failed to take a phone call.

It has also been claimed that the question of my dismissal had been raised with me for weeks, if not months, if I didn't comply with his directives.

This, too, is flatly false. My dismissal had never been mentioned as a possibility. Nor had I failed to comply with any directives.

I'm not willing, if I can avoid it, to let such things become unchallenged parts of the public record. They are not true.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Bob Crockett]

I know for a fact that they didn't ratify the action. If you want to know how I know that, feel free to drop me a private note.

Well, I have only the greatest admiration and respect for you. The only stumble I've had with you has been the public way you've let all this thing happen. It was terrible that the confidential emails were leaked, but it doesn't seem that tearing into Dr. Bradford (your friends did that, not so much you) was the right response.

And to prolong the agony just doesn't make sense to me. You have your friends. You have your enemies. Your enemies want to see the agony prolonged.

But, at least from a purely legalistic point of view, ratification occurs when an institution (1) issues a press release [well, an answer to a press inquiry] confirming the actions you criticize and (2) nothing is done to right a perceived wrong. That is what I mean by ratification. I don't suggest that the Board of Trustees put your severance on agenda after the fact and voted on it.

But, when Ernie Wilkenson fired those BYU professors, including Davies, Midgley and Wirthlin (all of whom I've interviewed, either in person or by email, on the subject), for being suspected communist sympathizers, BYU righted that wrong. I haven't seen that happen here.

For what it is worth. I am not an insider.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[USU78]

I don't see it that way. I think that without BYU's statement on the issue of a personnel matter we should assume the separation was either institutionally deliberative or was ratified. Sure, people make mistakes. But there is no cause to traduce the reputations of those who were involved on BYU's side.

Since when does a Board of Directors have much, if any, involvement with personnel decisions?

This is just silly. The Twelve and the First Presidency just wouldn't get involved other than in overall policy decisions involving yBu.

[Bob Crockett]

Right and your supposition that anyone who agrees with Dan that he was treated badly is tarnishing the reputation of BYUs faculty and administration is an overstep also. Hopefully you now understand my illustration.

No I don't because that is not my position. I think that anybody who condemns BYU's Dr. Bradford for being unChristian and not a good representative of the Lord's university -- particularly when done anonymously -- is no better than the snail in my garden I accidentally squashed.

[Bob Crockett]

Since when does a Board of Directors have much, if any, involvement with personnel decisions?

This is just silly. The Twelve and the First Presidency just wouldn't get involved other than in overall policy decisions involving yBu.

It isn't silly. It is reasonable to suppose. It is a more reasonable supposition than to suppose that Dr. Bradford acted on a lark.

The Twelve and the FP are not the BoT.

The BoT would likely have some involvement in a decision to suspend a publication or make radical changes to a pet project of a recently deceased member of the Twelve.

[USU78]

It isn't silly. It is reasonable to suppose. It is a more reasonable supposition than to suppose that Dr. Bradford acted on a lark.

The Twelve and the FP are not the BoT.

The BoT would likely have some involvement in a decision to suspend a publication or make radical changes to a pet project of a recently deceased member of the Twelve.

From yBu's website:

Church Board of Education and BYU Board of Trustees

Thomas S. Monson, Chairman

Henry B. Eyring, First Vice Chairman

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Vice Chairman Russell M. Nelson Julie B. Beck M. Russell Ballard Elaine S. Dalton David A. Bednar Roger G. Christensen, Secretary Steven E. Snow

You quibble . . . why?

[Calm]

It isn't silly. It is reasonable to suppose. It is a more reasonable supposition than to suppose that Dr. Bradford acted on a lark.

If someone has suggested that Brother Bradford acted on a lark, they have ignored the evidence that Dan and others have given that this was a long time in development such as Dr. Bradford's article as well as the various delays in publications and outright rejections of articles. What was shocking to those involved, it appears to me, was the extreme he took it to.

[Bob Crockett]

Because I know how the BoT operates, having dealt with it.