Bill Hamblin Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 The idea that anyone other than Jerry Bradford was behind the decision to dismiss Dan (or that anyone above Samuelson approved the decision) is a slander concocted by apostates and anti-Mormons in an their ongoing attempt to defame and marginalize Dan Peterson (and other LDS apologists). The claims are entirely baseless lies and paranoid fantasy. If they have any evidence to support these claims, they must present it.
Mark Beesley Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Any record of the debate online, that would be interesting reading material.Speaking of debates, Jon Stewart is going to debate Bill O'Reilly in TheRumble2012.com. THAT will be fun to watch!(Yes, this is a blatant solicitation. )
Bill Hamblin Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 And it does not seem unlikely that President Samuelson, who was not involved in the original move of FARMS to the NAMI I believe, would not have had the personal experience to understand what the implications of moving in a new direction would mean to the promises given at that former time, especially if Dr. Bradford did not include details.Samuelson knew only what Bradford wanted him to know. Dan was never consulted by Samuelson or anyone else in the administration to discuss the situation, to be allowed to present his side of the story, or to offer an alternative perspective. No one above Samuelson was consulted or even informed about the dismissal. And there is no reason they should have been. Such assignments to committees, administrative duties, editorial duties, etc. are routine in the university, and rarely if ever get any input or pre-approval from the General Authorities or the Board of Trustees. It would be temporally impossible for the Board of Trustees to micromanage the operations of the university. That's why they appoint presidents, and vice-presidents, and deans and chairs, and administrators.
Analytics Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that it happened before.It is really a simple thing.Bradford says: "Dan has served as editor for 25 years. We propose to move the institute in a new direction and appoint a new editor. Is that alright?"Samuelson says: "Sure."There is absolutely no need to propose some cabal or conspiracy. This is Bradford's idea plain and simple.I have a really tough time imagining Samuelson would just say “sure.” He would have at least asked, “why?” or “what does Peterson think about this?” If there is at least a smidgen of actual leadership at BYU, the conversation would have gone more like this:Bradford: "In following the strategic direction that has come down from BYU’s board, we propose to move the Institute in the following direction…As you know, Peterson has a different, incompatible vision, so we are proposing that a new editor be appointed. Is that all right?”Samuelson: “Have a talk with Peterson and feel out whether or not he could thrive in this new direction. If you don’t think he can, it’s only fair to let him pursue other things.”
Bob Crockett Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) If, by ratified, you mean that they haven't overturned it, then I'm inclined to agree. Thus far, at least, they haven't overturned it, and I don't particularly expect that they will.But there is nothing to suggest that this came at the initiative of the Board of Trustees, and I have direct personal knowledge that it wasn't initiated by the presiding quorums of the Church.True. But we have precedent, as I have mentioned in the lives of Drs. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies, among others, where the Board of Trustees has taken action to right a termination wrong. I happen to know the intimate details of that event, having contemplated a paper on it but having thought the better of it.This is preposterous. You have absolutely NO evidence that anyone outside the university order or approved Dan's dismissaObjective facts are such nagging annoyances.And so, the practical effect is that the Board of Trustee, by acquiesencing in some fashion or another to the press contact, and by taking no action to reverse Dr. Bradford's action, and by the further fact that you lost your office at the Institute, this all signifies and constitutes evidence of ratification. So, short of the Board of Trustees putting it on its agenda and voting for it, the objective evidence we have is far and away evidence of ratification.And, as lawyers and MMM scholars will tell you, ratification is as every bit as meaningful and effective as having ordered it in the first place.Again, let me qualify all this by saying that this is a terrible thing to have happened, as I supported and fully endorsed the MI's mission. I always have. I almost always supported its tone,*** and always supported the things you said in your introductions. I will miss the Review. But, I have to be objective and say that BYU's and Dr. Bradford's story hasn't been told and thus we should suspend judgment to some degree.*** I.e., some of the language in the reviews of non-Mesoamerican theorists and some of the language about Palmer, were about my only concerns. But I think that speaks to the argument that I am a discerning fan of the Review. Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I wonder how that part of the discussion regarding making the decision while he was out of town and leaking the news to an anti-Mormon website went down?The assumption that this was a well planned decision done in proper order and with all concerned parties having input is unlikely. That doesn't mean the board or anyone else in the chain of command approves of the way it was handled or will override the decisions of their managers no matter how poorly implemented.
USU78 Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 And, as lawyers and MMM scholars will tell you, ratification is as every bit as meaningful and effective as having ordered it in the first place.Nonsense.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Any record of the debate online, that would be interesting reading material.McMurrin & Nibley had several debates, a couple of them in 1955 (Great Issues Forum at the UofU) and 1963 (at BYU), but I cannot locate the one in particular I was referring to. Back in the old days we had a Nibley Archive at FARMS, but that has disappeared. So much of what Nibley did or said is not always easily accessible. You might try the Hugh Nibley & Associates at http://hughnibley.net/contact-us/ . Edited September 19, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Calm Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Samuelson knew only what Bradford wanted him to know. Dan was never consulted by Samuelson or anyone else in the administration to discuss the situation, to be allowed to present his side of the story, or to offer an alternative perspective.No one above Samuelson was consulted or even informed about the dismissal. And there is no reason they should have been. Such assignments to committees, administrative duties, editorial duties, etc. are routine in the university, and rarely if ever get any input or pre-approval from the General Authorities or the Board of Trustees. It would be temporally impossible for the Board of Trustees to micromanage the operations of the university. That's why they appoint presidents, and vice-presidents, and deans and chairs, and administrators.People seem to assume the NAMI is a special case for some reason, perhaps because of the religious topics they explore. But that would be like the General Authorities or Board of Trustees making decisions for the Religion Dept on who to hire, fire, what classes to teach and when, etc. Just don't see it as happening myself. The NAMI is a university institution, why wouldn't it be treated like any other university institution/dept.
Mark Beesley Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 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.Sometimes it is wiser to simply let falsehoods die of natural causes. Trying to hurry their death long can have unintended and uncomfortable consequences.Nevertheless, I commend you for not being more vocal here and/or on your blog as I suppose you feel you could justifiably have been.
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 True. But we have precedent, as I have mentioned in the lives of Drs. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies, among others, where the Board of Trustees has taken action to right a termination wrong. I happen to know the intimate details of that event, having contemplated a paper on it but having thought the better of it.Objective facts are such nagging annoyances.And so, the practical effect is that the Board of Trustee, by acquiesencing in some fashion or another to the press contact, and by taking no action to reverse Dr. Bradford's action, and by the further fact that you lost your office at the Institute, this all signifies and constitutes evidence of ratification. So, short of the Board of Trustees putting it on its agenda and voting for it, the objective evidence we have is far and away evidence of ratification.And, as lawyers and MMM scholars will tell you, ratification is as every bit as meaningful and effective as having ordered it in the first place.Again, let me qualify all this by saying that this is a terrible thing to have happened, as I supported and fully endorsed the MI's mission. I always have. I almost always supported its tone,*** and always supported the things you said in your introductions. I will miss the Review. But, I have to be objective and say that BYU's and Dr. Bradford's story hasn't been told and thus we should suspend judgment to some degree.*** I.e., some of the language in the reviews of non-Mesoamerican theorists and some of the language about Palmer, were about my only concerns. But I think that speaks to the argument that I am a discerning fan of the Review.Nonsense.I was about to congratulate him on a uniquely Mormon Godwin violation.
Bill Hamblin Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 True. But we have precedent, as I have mentioned in the lives of Drs. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies, among others, where the Board of Trustees has taken action to right a termination wrong. I happen to know the intimate details of that event, having contemplated a paper on it but having thought the better of it.Objective facts are such nagging annoyances.And so, the practical effect is that the Board of Trustee, by acquiesencing in some fashion or another to the press contact, and by taking no action to reverse Dr. Bradford's action, and by the further fact that you lost your office at the Institute, this all signifies and constitutes evidence of ratification. So, short of the Board of Trustees putting it on its agenda and voting for it, the objective evidence we have is far and away evidence of ratification.And, as lawyers and MMM scholars will tell you, ratification is as every bit as meaningful and effective as having ordered it in the first place.Again, let me qualify all this by saying that this is a terrible thing to have happened, as I supported and fully endorsed the MI's mission. I always have. I almost always supported its tone,*** and always supported the things you said in your introductions. I will miss the Review. But, I have to be objective and say that BYU's and Dr. Bradford's story hasn't been told and thus we should suspend judgment to some degree.*** I.e., some of the language in the reviews of non-Mesoamerican theorists and some of the language about Palmer, were about my only concerns. But I think that speaks to the argument that I am a discerning fan of the Review.You are simply fantasizing. CFR. Present some evidence instead of speculation.
Analytics Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Every time I read about these events, I think to myself that this is the way the church operates. This is informed from the following memory:In the Spring of 1987, the young men of the Cottonwood Creek Stake were invited to sing in the tabernacle at the annual restoration of the priesthood commemoration. The director of the stake choir had once sung in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir itself. The director told us the following story about what happened on the day he joined the mo-tab:My final audition for the choir was with the famous choir director himself: Jerod Ottley. After the audition when he invited me to join the choir and I said yes, he lovingly put his hands on my shoulders and told me, “Brother xxx, if there ever comes a time that you and I don’t see eye-to-eye, please come let me know and I’ll release you.The reason that stuck with me was because of the irony: he didn’t say come talk to me and we’ll work it out. He clearly indicated that if you weren’t 100% on board with doing it exactly his way, you were to be summarily dismissed. Edited September 19, 2012 by Analytics
Robert F. Smith Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 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.You are assuming what has to be proved, Bob. QEDThere is no evidence to indicate that anyone other than the boss (the equivalent of a Dean) at NAMIRS decided to fire someone (plus a few more) and that he did it via email. This is fully within his authority, as it would be on any college campus, and he has done it before. I see nothing extraordinary about that and I am quite surprised that you do.It is irresponsible of you to try to pull other administrators into the matter. It is early yet in any case, and the reverberations of such decisions can take time to have a blowback effect, if any. I counsel patience.
Calm Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) by the further fact that you lost your office at the Institute, this all signifies and constitutes evidence of ratification.You are willing to take into account the loss of an office as contributing evidence to ratification by the BoT while being so dismissive of Dan's statement there was no ratification.Wow. Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) The reason that stuck with me was because of the irony: he didn’t say come talk to me and we’ll work it out. He clearly indicated that if you weren’t 100% on board with doing it exactly his way, you were to be summarily dismissed.Everyone knows choral conductors are dictators. I'm sure the Mo Tab director is given some leeway for that. Is it just me or is there a lot of conflating the Mo Tab, BYU, Church Headquarters, The BYU board of trustees with "THE CHURCH" going on in this thread?Large complex enterprises are not as monolithic and executive dictated as most outsiders and some insiders think they are. Edited September 19, 2012 by KevinG 3
Calm Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 McMurrin & Nibley had several debates, a couple of them in 1955 (Great Issues Forum at the UofU) and 1963 (at BYU), but I cannot locate the one in particular I was referring to. Back in the old days we had a Nibley Archive at FARMS, but that has disappeared. So much of what Nibley did or said is not always easily accessible. You might try the Hugh Nibley & Associates at http://hughnibley.net/contact-us/ .Thanks.
Calm Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 I wonder how that part of the discussion regarding making the decision while he was out of town and leaking the news to an anti-Mormon website went down?The assumption that this was a well planned decision done in proper order and with all concerned parties having input is unlikely. That doesn't mean the board or anyone else in the chain of command approves of the way it was handled or will override the decisions of their managers no matter how poorly implemented.Silence does not always indicate approval. God is silent on many of the actions of his children, doesn't mean he approves (just to throw in some theological discussion for Walden's sake).
Calm Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Sometimes it is wiser to simply let falsehoods die of natural causes. Trying to hurry their death long can have unintended and uncomfortable consequences.Nevertheless, I commend you for not being more vocal here and/or on your blog as I suppose you feel you could justifiably have been.I think it has been demonstrated in Dan's case that no falsehood will die a natural death due to being lovingly nurtured by his more rabid critics. 1
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Silence does not always indicate approval. God is silent on many of the actions of his children, doesn't mean he approves (just to throw in some theological discussion for Walden's sake).Even on a more temporal level I wonder how many times a week (or day) General Authority palm meets forehead when informed of what some Church Office manager or local authority did or said. Of course the brethren are very good about keeping discipline and correction private so we will never know. Edited September 19, 2012 by KevinG 1
Calm Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Large complex enterprises are not as monolithic and executive dictated as most outsiders and some insiders think they are.We are the Morg. 1
KevinG Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 We are the Morg. Of course we are dear. Have you downloaded your instructions from the mother tabernacle yet today?
Bob Crockett Posted September 19, 2012 Posted September 19, 2012 Nonsense.I guess I could cite law on that. Ordering it in the first place and ratification leads to the same outcome. The institution endorses it affirmatively. Or I guess I could cite a number of historical works where the argument is made that ratification is the same as, or as bad as, the original action. (MMM; Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, the U.S. Mexican War provocation, and so forth and so on.) Not to equate BYU to those bad things, but ratification is what it is.
Recommended Posts