Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I know you're serious. I just think your story isn't getting things straight. And I think there is very little I can say or do to convince you otherwise. And that's OK to me, I just have to accept it and move forward with my new job. I disagree with the story you're trying to advance about juntas and usurpations and conspiracies and underhandedness, and so forth, but arguing with you about it endlessly will do me no good. You're inexhaustible. You'll never quit and you won't be swayed. You have your story, I won't be able to take it from you. I just have to accept that. To be frank, I don't like arguing with you about it on message boards and I feel a little silly about it. You know what, Blair. You weren't there. I was. So the fact that you disagree with my story is rather unimpressive.
rongo Posted February 12, 2013 Author Posted February 12, 2013 At any rate, this discussion is a nice example of how we're ill-served by engaging in online arguments on message boards . . .Is the rapidity with which the "rapid response" team (Blair, Carl, Kristian) jumped on this thread, with talking points, a part of your PR duties?
ERayR Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Not in my experience. ;-) Academia is simply a corporate niche with an air of superiority.-AllenI have a term that seems to fit. It comes from several years of observation. It is academic arrogance. It seems the more alphabet strung out behind the name combined with authority over others with less alphabetic distinction triggers an extreme over rated sense of self importance.
volgadon Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Stunning, isn't it? This explains precisely why none of them are concerned at all that they are being viewed as the "champions du jour" of the anti-Mormon/apostate crowd. Why should they be concerned? عدو عدوي هو صديقيאיזהו חכם? - הלומד מכל אדםאיזהו מכבד? - המכבד את הבריותאיזהו עשיר? - השמח בחלקואל יתהלל חוגר כמפתחאל יתהלל חכם בחכמתו, ואל יתהלל הגבור בגבורתו; אל יתהלל עשיר בעשרואם אין אני לי, מי לי? וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני? ואם לא עכשיו, אימתי?אמר מעט ועשה הרבהאסתרא בלגינא קיש קיש קריא 1
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 One thing may not be clear. The Maxwell Institute still does apologetics. We have three full-time researchers whose primary focus is apologetic research. They receive the full support of the executive director. The Journal is written for a general audience and is filled with apologetic research. We pour hundreds of thousands of dollars each year into supporting apologetic research. Sorry that is not enough for y'all.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I wonder, since Jerry has now apparently lifted the "ban of silence" that he place on MI employees regarding talking about the debacle, if he will now allow all employees of the Institute the opportunity to voice their views and opinions on the coup? Now that would be interesting.
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 1- changed the mission statement2- made all the people who don't like classic FARMS "directors"3- marginalized, ostracized, alienated, and fired those scholars working with classic FARMS4- diverted funding prioritizing non-classic FARMS projects5- cancelled the Review6- alienated donors to classic-FARMSNeed I go on?Can you go on?
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I wonder, since Jerry has now apparently lifted the "ban of silence" that he place on MI employees regarding talking about the debacle, if he will now allow all employees of the Institute the opportunity to voice their views and opinions on the coup? Now that would be interesting.Oh, he's been voicing his opinion - if you have ears to hear.
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) One thing may not be clear. The Maxwell Institute still does apologetics. We have three full-time researchers whose primary focus is apologetic research. They receive the full support of the executive director. The Journal is written for a general audience and is filled with apologetic research. We pour hundreds of thousands of dollars each year into supporting apologetic research. Sorry that is not enough for y'all.Three full-time researchers? Gee, Roper and ...?I should note that Gee has a completely independent endowed chair, which costs the MI precisely nothing, and probably brings them money. I should also note that Gee mainly does straightforward Egyptology. Just look at his vita. He is hardly a full-time apologist researcher, nor is he funded by the MI.The claim that they have "the full support of the executive director" is extremely dubious, based on a wide array of first hand reports. Edited February 12, 2013 by Bill Hamblin
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Oh, he's been voicing his opinion - if you have ears to hear.So you admit that Jerry has attempted to silence him? Interesting.
sethpayne Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 You know what, Blair. You weren't there. I was. So the fact that you disagree with my story is rather unimpressive.But Blair is there now. You are not. Yet, you continue to try and undermine the work of the MI under its current leadership.
ERayR Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 CPART projects (Dead Sea Scrolls, Herculaneum, Vatican Syriac project) have consistently been used to raise money for apologetics and general LDS scholarship. I have no complaints. In fact I have done it myself.If I understood what you wrote correctly I would consider that less than honest. Raising money for one thing and using it for something else. Are your donors apprised that their donations might be used for something other than(Dead Sea Scrolls, Herculaneum, Vatican Syriac project)?
Bill Hamblin Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 But Blair is there now. You are not. Yet, you continue to try and undermine the work of the MI under its current leadership.Yup, Blair has worked there for an entire day and a half. I'm sure he's figured it all out by now. The MI Junta has undermined the Institute. I'm simply observing and reporting on the amazing phenomena. How my observations posted on a web page could possibly undermined an institute with millions of dollars in endowments and a dozen employees is not at all clear.
sethpayne Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I'd be perfectly willing to let MI do whatever they want if they hadn't usurped millions of dollars in donations, university funding, land, resources, personnel, etc. to fund Jerry's pet vision. The problem isn't that MI doesn't do good things. It does. The problem is that Bradford and his Junta systematically set out to dismantle classic FARMS and usurp the endowment raised for classic FARMS, and divert it to do their pet projects.I'm not showboating. I'm perfectly serious.And this bit is why your actions are so bizarre and disturbing. You are now claiming that the MI has dishonestly taken money from donors. All I have to say is that the endowment policies must be pretty lax. Endowments I have worked with before earmark funds for VERY specific purposes and money simply can't be "usurped" for other purposes.Again, you are accusing the MI and BYU of dishonesty and duplicity. Must be nice to be tenured so you don't have to worry about getting fired for being a catty, immature, and disruptive employee of an institution you supposedly "love."
The Nehor Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 But Blair is there now. You are not. Yet, you continue to try and undermine the work of the MI under its current leadership.No one has ever explained why he should cease to undermine it. Are you asking for loyalty?
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 You know what, Blair. You weren't there. I was. So the fact that you disagree with my story is rather unimpressive.Actually Bill, you haven't been "there" for over a decade, so all of your information is way out of date. You're living in the past mate, pining for glorious days that bask in the golden light of your own selective memory.
ERayR Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I know you're serious. I just think your story isn't getting things straight. And I think there is very little I can say or do to convince you otherwise. And that's OK to me, I just have to accept it and move forward with my new job. I disagree with the story you're trying to advance about juntas and usurpations and conspiracies and underhandedness, and so forth, but arguing with you about it endlessly will do me no good. You don't take me seriously anyway, and besides that you're inexhaustible. You'll never quit and you won't be swayed. You have your story, I won't be able to take it from you. I just have to accept that. To be frank, I don't like arguing with you about it on message boards and I feel a little silly about it. Instead, I have faith in the present direction of the Institute and hope we can show that faith by our works. (So far this message board conversation must seem meager fare, like those little plastic containers of dried up jelly you get at Denny's.) The fruit can be judged as it emerges in mason jars from our Mormony canning facility in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, I have no interest in measuring the size of jars with those of the Interpreter or any other organization. We're the Maxwell Institute, and we're going to do our best with the resources we've been blessed with.Well have millions in funds raised for one project been diverted to another project?
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 If I understood what you wrote correctly I would consider that less than honest. Raising money for one thing and using it for something else. Are your donors apprised that their donations might be used for something other than(Dead Sea Scrolls, Herculaneum, Vatican Syriac project)?To be precise, funds for the MI endowment were raised on the basis of all the work we do - CPART, METI, FARMS etc. Most of that went to support FARMS/LDS scholarship as that always has been the main thing we have done.
ERayR Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 To be precise, funds for the MI endowment were raised on the basis of all the work we do - CPART, METI, FARMS etc. Most of that went to support FARMS/LDS scholarship as that always has been the main thing we have done.That doesn't answer the question I posed. Are your donors who donate to a specific program apprised that their donations might not be used for the program they think they are donating to?
LifeOnaPlate Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) You know what, Blair. You weren't there. I was. So the fact that you disagree with my story is rather unimpressive.You don't know what I know, Bill. And I suffer no delusions about my ability to impress you, I know you don't like me but I also know that you never knew me. Feel free to send me an email, pm, or if you'd like to talk by phone or skype. Like I said, we're getting very little done here. I'm not interested in advancing a contest between the Maxwell Institute and the Interpreter.Is the rapidity with which the "rapid response" team (Blair, Carl, Kristian) jumped on this thread, with talking points, a part of your PR duties? For whatever it's worth coming from me, I can tell you there wasn't any coordinated talking points, response effort, or anything else in regards to this message board discussion. I don't really follow this or any other message boards closely, and haven't for several years. I took notice of this discussion because a friend sent me a link, knowing I might have something to contribute. We've briefly talked about message board discussions here and there, but I was actually surprised to see Carl weigh in (he's wisely departed now, though he left his number for people interested in talking) and more surprised to see Kristian join. I don't view any of my comments here as official, just trying to lend my opinion for the benefit of people who know me and who might value my perspective here from when I participated several years ago. News, PR announcements, blog posts, etc. will be posted on our forthcoming website. Again, for whatever that's worth to you. Edited February 12, 2013 by LifeOnaPlate
Calm Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) Thanks Bill, that's exactly my point. I have often spoken about the BYUing of FARMS/NAMIRS. I see the move away from commercial apologetics as part of that process. We take our name seriously. I work at an Institute for Religious Scholarship. If the University wanted an Institute of Apologetics or an endowed chair in apologetics it would have one. Just to put all my card on the table, I think it was a very good thing that FARMS came into BYU and agree with all the decisions that have brought the organization more in line with University policies and approaches.If it hasn't been already asked, would you share with us your view of how the original contract/agreement that brought FARMS under the wing of BYU with, as I understand it, a commitment to support them in their mission has been modified and the justification for doing so....apparently without regard to the original participants' input.And what was the purpose of bringing FARMS into the fold if BYU didnt want what amounted to an institute of apologetics? Edited February 12, 2013 by calmoriah 4
William Schryver Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I wonder, since Jerry has now apparently lifted the "ban of silence" that he place on MI employees regarding talking about the debacle, if he will now allow all employees of the Institute the opportunity to voice their views and opinions on the coup? Now that would be interesting.I guarantee that won't be happening.There is a very good reason Matt and John have assumed the aspect and countenances of two men who woke up one morning to find themselves in an old Star Trek episode.
Kristian Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 That doesn't answer the question I posed. Are your donors who donate to a specific program apprised that their donations might not be used for the program they think they are donating to?As far as I understand it, with the exception of the Gay Chair and the Willes Center, all large donations have gone to support the Institute in general. That means, those funds are used at the discretion of the Executive Director.
sethpayne Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 No one has ever explained why he should cease to undermine it. Are you asking for loyalty?You can't be serious. Are you really asking why a person should not try to undermine the activities of their current employer? Is the MI planning a terrorist attack? Are they trying to attempt a coup at 50 S Temple? No. They are going to publish scholarly articles regarding Mormon Studies and other things -- OH THE HORROR!!!I don't think loyalty to an employer (BYU) that has provided you the ability to provide for the health and well-being of your family is too much to ask. I'm not saying BYU is beyond criticism. However, in an employee/employer relationship it is never wise accuse your employer of dishonesty and duplicity. I suppose that is the benefit of being tenured. You get to be a complete *** to BYU and its leadership and still keep your job.
Recommended Posts