What Has The New Farms Produced?

[Daniel Peterson]

The Church tries very hard to avoid accepting any Federal type handouts ,because, I'm reasonably sure, it does not want the Feds to dictate policy. Perhaps ,in view of the recent past events, FARMs should have remained at arms length to BYU. Marched to its own drum so to speak.

The Interpreter Foundation has learned this lesson.

[Aminadab]

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

You know, Kerry. I find this latest turn of yours to atheism really confusing. I have to agree with Dr. Peterson when he takes issue with your arguments regarding the failures of religion. The metaphor of medicine is a good one. I would also add that what you seem to want to attribute to the flaws of religion might be better credited to the limitations of humanity. Since when has humankind been able to get anything perfect? Why does religion, in your view, deserve special condemnation?

I have always been a big fan of yours, Kerry. I like your openness about things, your enthusiasm, and your willingness to dive in to learn things. This foray into naturalism fits with your other intellectual adventures, true, but you are being somewhat irrational in the unusual demands you place on religion, in my view.

[mfbukowski]

This foray into naturalism fits with your other intellectual adventures, true, but you are being somewhat irrational in the unusual demands you place on religion, in my view.

He has been uncharacteristically totally inflexible in his dogmatism.

[nealr]

Has anyone of consequence made these allegations?

There is a certain, prominent newspaper in the Salt Lake area that tends to pick up these stories, and tends to favor the narrative promoted by more critical voices. And they DID do a story on this, and they DID allude to the allegations. The was also a very garbled version of this story told in the Student Review, an independent paper at BYU.

So yes, people on consequence have made, or at least alluded to, these allegations.

[MichelleD]

There is a certain, prominent newspaper in the Salt Lake area that tends to pick up these stories, and tends to favor the narrative promoted by more critical voices. And they DID do a story on this, and they DID allude to the allegations. The was also a very garbled version of this story told in the Student Review, an independent paper at BYU.

So yes, people on consequence have made, or at least alluded to, these allegations.

I agree since most members that I associate with believe the removal of these apologists did not originate with Jerry Bradford. I am a member of a large Facebook Mormon group and this whole incident is upsetting to many. But, the majority believe that the orders came from church leaders in Salt Lake. I'm just relaying what I have seen within my own circle of acquaintances. I'm just sorry that feelings seem to have been really hurt and friendships lost over this whole thing.

[ERayR]

I agree since most members that I associate with believe the removal of these apologists did not originate with Jerry Bradford. I am a member of a large Facebook Mormon group and this whole incident is upsetting to many. But, the majority believe that the orders came from church leaders in Salt Lake. I'm just relaying what I have seen within my own circle of acquaintances. I'm just sorry that feelings seem to have been really hurt and friendships lost over this whole thing.

If you have read through this thread you could assure your Facebook Mormon group that such was not the case.

[volgadon]

It's not academic arrogance, it's religious intolerance and silliness. Like I have said for a while now, religion ALWAYS causes problems, hate, envy, and divides people. It always has, it always will.

Nonsense, Kerry, nonsense. I'm not saying that you should embrace religion, you choose as you will, but I really am a little surprised at the frequent dogmatic, black-and-white, unbending, absolutist declarations.

Here right within our own backyard of Mormonism we see it beautifully, spectacularly clear. You blame it on academia?! REALLY? Who here doesn't recognize it is ENTIRELY *RELIGIOUS* in nature?!?

We see lamenting and breast beating over HOW the Book of Mormon defense is going to occur now. Come on man, put the blame where it belongs already. Religion is the culprit. And the way people want to share that religion. It truly, without question really *IS* that simple to see.

Have you ever been on yahoo discussion groups about 8 or 9 years ago? I was on quite a few, mainly military history, wargaming, writing, those kinds of thing, and so many vicious, acrimonious arguments would break out, some even as trivial as the colour of buttons and lapels on 18th c. Hannoverian uniforms, for instance. Hard to blame that on religion.

Only the biased BLIND would see it any other way.

So, in other words, if one disagrees with you, one is a blind bigot. Are you sure that religion is the problem?

[volgadon]

I didn't realise Kerry had been removed from the thread, didn't get that far before posting. Sorry.

[Daniel Peterson]

I agree since most members that I associate with believe the removal of these apologists did not originate with Jerry Bradford. I am a member of a large Facebook Mormon group and this whole incident is upsetting to many. But, the majority believe that the orders came from church leaders in Salt Lake. I'm just relaying what I have seen within my own circle of acquaintances. I'm just sorry that feelings seem to have been really hurt and friendships lost over this whole thing.

I'm sorry, too.

But I can promise you that I know for a fact -- no speculation -- that the purge was not ordered by the Brethren.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree since most members that I associate with believe the removal of these apologists did not originate with Jerry Bradford. I am a member of a large Facebook Mormon group and this whole incident is upsetting to many. But, the majority believe that the orders came from church leaders in Salt Lake. I'm just relaying what I have seen within my own circle of acquaintances. I'm just sorry that feelings seem to have been really hurt and friendships lost over this whole thing.

The ill-founded ruminations of your Facebook circle strike me as old fashioned gossip propagated through a cyber-age medium.

Beware the sin of bearing false witness.

[ALarson]

The ill-founded ruminations of your Facebook circle strike me as old fashioned gossip propagated through a cyber-age medium.

You just don't get it do you? Your response to what MichelleD posted (where she stated what her experience has been) turns into an insult. That's the style of responding to members that is hopefully on its way out.

By the way, my experience is pretty identical to Michelle's in hearing discussions about this. After reading through this thread again, I can see that there is some doubt about the changes coming down from higher up. But, people have a right to collect the information and form an opinion.

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

So far, I can see no GAs or leaders stepping in and "correcting" what's been done. So this evidence tends to sway people to believe they approve.

[William Schryver]

I'm sorry, too.

But I can promise you that I know for a fact -- no speculation -- that the purge was not ordered by the Brethren.

But you see, Dan, this is an essential component of the narrative currently being constructed by the apostate mob. Their narrative absolutely depends on the notion that "The Brethren" are displeased with apologetics as it was being practiced by you and your colleagues, and that the sacking of the MI apologetics team was ordered from 47 E. South Temple.

The fundamental premise (myth) of their narrative is that the MI apologetics team has, for many years now, engaged in a systematic campaign of character assassination and other ad hominem outrages, mostly perpetrated against unsuspecting faithful Saints whose "excellent scholarship" was tainted by your unwarranted personal attacks. Of course "The Brethren" are upset with you! How could they not be? At any rate, to the extent this fundamental premise (myth) is true, it logically follows that "The Brethren" ordered your removal, for the good of LDS scholarship -- not to mention the welfare of mankind.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I have ever seen our apostate friends more intoxicated with glee -- yea, even rapturous, as it were -- than they have been in the past couple days. The stunning revelation that the Maxwell Institute is now under the direction of people whose ideology they share, coupled with the continuing satisfaction of your public humiliation has elevated their spirits to a rhapsodic "11" on their ecstasy scale.

They simply never could have imagined, not that long ago, that anything could be better than having helped effect the censorship of an article authored by someone they disliked. To have now helped effect the censorship of an entire group of authors whose writing they despised ... well, it just doesn't get any better than this for them. Where do they go from here? Perhaps if all the copies of every volume of the FARMS Review ever printed, along with every single copy of anything ever published by Hugh Nibley, and every copy of Greg Smith's "hit piece" on John Dehlin were stacked upon a tower constructed from every extant copy of the Book of Mormon in the whole world, the pile drenched in jet fuel, and then set ablaze ........ but short of that, I suspect their serotonin stocks will be depleted for a good long time.

Edited February 13, 2013 by William Schryver

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The ill-founded ruminations of your Facebook circle strike me as old fashioned gossip propagated through a cyber-age medium.

Beware the sin of bearing false witness.

I find this ironic in light of the ruminations on this thread about the testimonies of certain individuals at the Maxwell institute.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You just don't get it do you? Your response to what MichelleD posted (where she stated what her experience has been) turns into an insult. That's the style of responding to members that is hopefully on its way out.

By the way, my experience is pretty identical to Michelle's in hearing discussions about this. After reading through this thread again, I can see that there is some doubt about the changes coming down from higher up. But, people have a right to collect the information and form an opinion.

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

So far, I can see no GAs or leaders stepping in and "correcting" what's been done. So this evidence tends to sway people to believe they approve.

I take Dan et al at face value here. The brethren are likely not involved in the day to day running of various departments at BYU. It would be extremely disruptive and likely embarrassing if they publically reversed Jerry Bradford's decision regardless of how they felt about the matter. The church puts high value on not having public discord.

Edited February 13, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

But you see, Dan, this is an essential component of the narrative currently being constructed by the apostate mob. Their narrative absolutely depends on the notion that "The Brethren" are displeased with apologetics as it was being practiced by you and your colleagues, and that the sacking of the MI apologetics team was ordered from 47 E. South Temple.

You guys need to accept that this is the view of many active members of the church too (not just the "apostate mob".)

For me, the jury is still out on this and I wish all parties well from here on out.

You need to try and step back and look at things from the view of most members. They believe nothing happens of this magnitude without the sanction of the prophet or at least the GAs. BYU is the Lord's university and if there had been an underhanded coup by men who the leaders (of the church AND BYU) didn't want leading the Maxwell Institute, it would have been corrected and made right immediately.

Can you see why people believe it came from the top (or at least was approved from the top after it occurred)?

[William Schryver]

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

Right, because "The Brethren" have been, for years now, diligently monitoring the goings on in a very small building on the perimeter of BYU's campus. And they are known to regularly insert themselves into the decision making processes occurring several layers down the chain of command in order to micromanage everything that happens in the Church. Right?

No matter how many times I see it manifest, I still can't get over the absurdity of the notions some people have about what really goes on in the upper reaches of Church leadership.

At any rate, I have it on good authority that "The Brethren" are now aware and more or less completely apprised of the intrigues that took place last summer within the walls of the Maxwell Institute. They might even get around to rectifying the situation at some point in the future. But it won't be done in order to meet the expectations of the peanut galleries, whether they be on a message board dominated by apostates, or some obscure Facebook group.

So far, I can see no GAs or leaders stepping in and "correcting" what's been done. So this evidence tends to sway people to believe they approve.

I see. So now, for you, the absence of evidence has become .................. evidence? Amazing how that works.

[Senator]

The stunning revelation that the Maxwell Institute is now under the direction of people whose ideology they share

CFR

When will the slander cease?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Senator

[ALarson]

Right, because "The Brethren" have been, for years now, diligently monitoring the goings on in a very small building on the perimeter of BYU's campus. And they are known to regularly insert themselves into the decision making processes occurring several layers down the chain of command in order to micromanage everything that happens in the Church. Right?

Correct. I guess time will tell as to whether or not anymore changes are made.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ALarson

[William Schryver]

I take Dan et al at face value here. The brethren are likely not involved in the day to day running of various departments at BYU. It would be extremely disruptive and likely embarrassing if they publically reversed Jerry Bradford's decision regardless of how they felt about the matter. The church puts high value on not having public discord.

QFT.

And I might also add that, historically, when they are known to have acted in such a way as to reverse a decision that needs reversing, they often do so in conjunction with a number of other changes to the larger organization in question.

That said, it might be instructive to consider the length of service for recent BYU Presidents:

• Dallin H. Oaks 1971-1980
  `
  
• Jeffrey R. Holland 1980 - 1989
  `
  
• Rex E. Lee 1989 - 1995
  `
  
• Merrill J. Bateman 1996 - 2003
  `
  
• Cecil O. Samuelson 2003 - ????
  

Edited February 13, 2013 by William Schryver

[ERayR]

You just don't get it do you? Your response to what MichelleD posted (where she stated what her experience has been) turns into an insult. That's the style of responding to members that is hopefully on its way out.

By the way, my experience is pretty identical to Michelle's in hearing discussions about this. After reading through this thread again, I can see that there is some doubt about the changes coming down from higher up. But, people have a right to collect the information and form an opinion.

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

So far, I can see no GAs or leaders stepping in and "correcting" what's been done. So this evidence tends to sway people to believe they approve.

You are posting, I am posting, others are posting and there is a great deal of disagreement in these postings.

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

[William Schryver]

Can you see why people believe it came from the top (or at least was approved from the top after it occurred)?

What I see is that you are an agent of those who seek the continuance of the mythic narrative to which I have referred above.

[ALarson]

What I see is that you are an agent of those who seek the continuance of the mythic narrative to which I have referred above.

An agent? I don't even know what that means.

Why do you just accuse people and insult them if they disagree with you? I'm only posting what my opinion is and what I've heard from others. I have also posted that after reading through this thread, I am starting to see this might not be the case.

[Peppermint Patty]

I have great respect for the Maxwell Institute and for the new Mormon Interpreter. One of my husband's former missionary companions and best friends is Daniel Oswald, who is on the Board of Directors at the Interpreter. He is a great man.

I know Mr. Bradford. He is a great man.

These two institutes are filled with great people who are doing good things for the Kingdom. The Church is at a point in its history that there is plenty of room for both to flourish.

I guess it saddens me a little to see some people here disparage either institute.

[Scott Lloyd]

You just don't get it do you? Your response to what MichelleD posted (where she stated what her experience has been) turns into an insult. That's the style of responding to members that is hopefully on its way out.

I "get it" well enough to identify ill-founded rumor and gossip when I see it.

And some actions just cry out for a candid response.

By the way, my experience is pretty identical to Michelle's in hearing discussions about this. After reading through this thread again, I can see that there is some doubt about the changes coming down from higher up. But, people have a right to collect the information and form an opinion.

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

So far, I can see no GAs or leaders stepping in and "correcting" what's been done. So this evidence tends to sway people to believe they approve.

They don't have the right to spread gossip that impacts people's reputations. Shame on you, if you have been taking part in such a thing and are disposed to continue it.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

I "get it" well enough to identify ill-founded rumor and gossip when I see it.

And some actions just cry out for a direct response.

They don't have the right to spread gossip that impacts people's reputations. Shame on you, if you have been taking part in such a thing and are disposed to continue it.

You have no right to judge me. This information is in the news regarding the church. I have every right to read up on it and form an opinion. When you stop discussing it, maybe others will too.