Farms/Maxwell Institute Origin And Change

[Bob Oliverio]

Fact of the matter is, the MI is small potatoes within BYU. Why wouldn't Bradford be the ultimate decision maker for all things related to it?

Admittedly I knew nothing of the Maxwell institute prior to coming to this board, never heard of it before or knew others in the Church that had.  

But when I came here, I got a much different impression from those involved with it and that it had a huge significance within and outside of BYU.  Seems many here touted it's significance  by President Hinckley's vision of its importance and contributions to BYU and the Church.  I don't know where you stood at that time or up to the transition it went through last year,  but,  to now conclude it really is just "small potatoes" could appear as timely and  convenient rationalization on one hand, and/or a  bit of a dis to those who have been touting it's significance to BYU over the years.

But if it was such small potatoes w/in BYU (or the Church) why didn't this Bradford fellow just move on? Why, as some here have claimed, have such a negative impact on financial donors?  If it's  such small potatoes then I suspect the loss of these donor funds (if that in fact happened)  would have a significant impact on something so small and insignificant to BYU that Bradford, or those who sign his paycheck, would surely be concerned about it's continued financial support or viability. If not, than these financial donors were probably even smaller potatoes.  And if Bradford could not have moved on, because he needs this job, I have to believe he was smart enough not to act alone and made some sort of compelling case to those above that change was needed and it would be in the best interest of the School/Church.

Doesn't make sense that he would dare act on his own.  He needed the support from above.

Nobody has denied that the BYU administration, for whatever reasons, has supported the decision.  That they initiated it, however, or "ultimately" made the decision, is quite a different claim, though, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence to support it.

But do you believe Bradford would have received the support from above if those "powers to be" at BYU believed such change was not in the best interest of this Maxwell institute/BYU/Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

As William S. seems to allude Bradford took upon himself to crown himself, thus Bradford had no real authority to make any "executive" decisions; at least based on the allusion William S. put forth.

Thing about imagery is it need not nor should it be taken literally in every respect.

Whether Dr. Bradford made himself executive director or enthusiastically accepted the post when it came to him (and perhaps aspired to it) I think Will's allegory fits quite well.

[Scott Lloyd]

Admittedly I knew nothing of the Maxwell institute prior to coming to this board, never heard of it before or knew others in the Church that had.  

But when I came here, I got a much different impression from those involved with it and that it had a huge significance within and outside of BYU.  Seems many here touted it's significance  by President Hinckley's vision of its importance and contributions to BYU and the Church.  I don't know where you stood at that time or up to the transition it went through last year,  but,  to now conclude it really is just "small potatoes" could appear as timely and  convenient rationalization on one hand, and/or a  bit of a dis to those who have been touting it's significance to BYU over the years.

But if it was such small potatoes w/in BYU (or the Church) why didn't this Bradford fellow just move on? Why, as some here have claimed, have such a negative impact on financial donors?  If it's  such small potatoes then I suspect the loss of these donor funds (if that in fact happened)  would have a significant impact on something so small and insignificant to BYU that Bradford, or those who sign his paycheck, would surely be concerned about it's continued financial support or viability. If not, than these financial donors were probably even smaller potatoes.  And if Bradford could not have moved on, because he needs this job, I have to believe he was smart enough not to act alone and made some sort of compelling case to those above that change was needed and it would be in the best interest of the School/Church.

Doesn't make sense that he would dare act on his own.  He needed the support from above.

But do you believe Bradford would have received the support from above if those "powers to be" at BYU believed such change was not in the best interest of this Maxwell institute/BYU/Church?

I think this post violates the board's asked-and-answered policy. I would report it quietly (not trying to be a board nanny) but I'm posting from a mobile device and I don't know how to use the report function on the mobile version of the website.

[Daniel Peterson]

Admittedly I knew nothing of the Maxwell institute prior to coming to this board, never heard of it before or knew others in the Church that had.

It's roughly thirty-five years old, and has published scores of books and tens of thousands of pages of other materials.

You would be wise to be cautious, if you know nothing about any of that and hadn't even heard of it, in forming conclusions about the nature of the Institute.

But when I came here, I got a much different impression from those involved with it and that it had a huge significance within and outside of BYU. Seems many here touted it's significance by President Hinckley's vision of its importance and contributions to BYU and the Church. I don't know where you stood at that time or up to the transition it went through last year, but, to now conclude it really is just "small potatoes" could appear as timely and convenient rationalization on one hand, and/or a bit of a dis to those who have been touting it's significance to BYU over the years.

I think it's been quite significant, as do many others. That doesn't mean that it looms large in the minds of all BYU administrators, who also have to pay attention to the College of Humanities, student employees, the law school, the Fulton College of Engineering, athletics, groundskeeping, the Marriott School of Management, faculty rank advancement, the Museum of Art and several other museums, admissions policy, the School of Nursing, employee pensions, the College of Physical and Mathematical sciences, and a host of other very pressing matters.

But if it was such small potatoes w/in BYU (or the Church) why didn't this Bradford fellow just move on? Why, as some here have claimed, have such a negative impact on financial donors? If it's such small potatoes then I suspect the loss of these donor funds (if that in fact happened) would have a significant impact on something so small and insignificant to BYU that Bradford, or those who sign his paycheck, would surely be concerned about it's continued financial support or viability.

You'll need to ask those who made the decision, I find essentially inexplicable.

If not, than these financial donors were probably even smaller potatoes.

I know for a fact that that's how Dr. Bradford regards them.

And if Bradford could not have moved on, because he needs this job, I have to believe he was smart enough not to act alone and made some sort of compelling case to those above that change was needed and it would be in the best interest of the School/Church.

I'm confident that he made precisely such a case to certain University leaders.

Doesn't make sense that he would dare act on his own. He needed the support from above.

Quite so. I've said the same thing on numerous occasions.

But do you believe Bradford would have received the support from above if those "powers to be" at BYU believed such change was not in the best interest of this Maxwell institute/BYU/Church?

I doubt it.

But, needless to say, I don't think that the change was wise or justified.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think this post violates the board's asked-and-answered policy. I would report it quietly (not trying to be a board nanny) but I'm posting from a mobile device and I don't know how to use the report function on the mobile version of the website.

I agree with Scott Lloyd. I think two or three hundred times answering these questions ought to be roughly enough.

But, since it would be so plainly in my selfish interest to report this, I'm not going to do so.

[Bob Oliverio]

I agree with Scott Lloyd. I think two or three hundred times answering these questions ought to be roughly enough.

But, since it would be so plainly in my selfish interest to report this, I'm not going to do so.

I appreciate your response.  And, for the record, I did not find these answers previously provided in this thread as they were specific to you and another individual.  But I certainly don't want to be a board nanny to others!

[Scott Lloyd]

I appreciate your response.  And, for the record, I did not find these answers previously provided in this thread as they were specific to you and another individual.  But I certainly don't want to be a board nanny to others!

I made my post because, from my perspective, you were continuing to pester Dr. Peterson with questions he had already answered.

But perhaps he is more longsuffering than I.

[Bob Oliverio]

And Mr Perterson.....

You would be wise to be cautious, if you know nothing about any of that and hadn't even heard of it, in forming conclusions about the nature of the Institute.

I was not the one making conclusions.  Frankly, after already  admitting I'd never heard of it, I thought (in the full context of my response to Mr Aywatt) I was actually defending you and others who don't believe it was/is small potatoes.  I suspect the only disagreement or counsel to being "cautious" may be between he and you.

I merely noted that you and others have never left the impression it was small potatoes.  Why do you counsel "being cautious" to those siding with you?

[Daniel Peterson]

And Mr Perterson.....

I assume that you're addressing me?

Why do you counsel "being cautious" to those siding with you?

I've never seen you as "siding with me."

In any event, it's wise -- or do you disagree? -- not to draw large conclusions when one knows little or nothing.

[Bob Oliverio]

I assume that you're addressing me?

I've never seen you as "siding with me."

In any event, it's wise -- or do you disagree? -- not to draw large conclusions when one knows little or nothing.

What "conclusions about the nature of the Institute" (your post 54 above) are you specifically saying I have made and now need to be cautious of making?