Collateral Damage To Prophet'S Vision?

[Bob Oliverio]

I thought from statements here and research that President Hinckley was instrumental in merging this FARMS into the Church vision of the MI. And it seemed to have been touted before that this was Prophetic inspiration and guidance. I thought those involved at the time seemed to revel in this spiritual significance and guidance. Never seemed it was ever thought as, promoted or described as "small potatoes" when it originated. Has this prophetic vision and spiritual guidance now been damaged, lost or withdrawn from the MI?

Has the past several days here resulted in collateral damage to the Prophet's vision for either the Maxwell Institute or the new group that is apparently forming from some the MI's old guard? My observation is that many bonds of friendship, character, trust, MATURITY, and perhaps even perceived integrity have been, if not broken, put into doubt by those on each side of the aisle and left a much damaged image as perceived by those at BYU/The Church or their supporters.

One might conclude that the recent demonstration of name calling and testimony challenges out of personal emotions and hard feelings reflects that the MI has really always just been about personal egos and never guided by the Prophet's vision as originally touted. And that seems unfortunate for many. Is it just NOW small potatoes for those who once touted such vision but no longer have the control or influence they once enjoyed?

Given the recent demonstration of complete lack of maturity and reciprocal respect between the comers and goers of the "new" and "old" organizations, who would want to be associated with either?

If this was, as has been portrayed, an important part of BYU and the Church as those originally promoting the vision and significance of President Hinckley's vision, including the powers to be at BYU/The Church, will the display of this past few days change the minds of the powers to be at either level?

Who would invest money, interest or respect the credibility of either group given what has been displayed by those supposedly declaring themselves founders or leaders of either organization over the past few days here? And perhaps even more important to those involved: "Who now wants to be associated with them going forward"? While this Bradford guy never showed on this board (?) seems his reputation and character has been trampled. And for those who want to start this new thing - what will be their calling card for respect, maturity and investment outside of the small circle that left with them? I don't know for sure. But I think by recent actions here there is real need of an image makeover expert! Maybe for both groups.

And it's too bad really. The "small potatoes" image of both organizations could have grown to be something of significance I suppose. But it's looking more and more like small potatoes may be reduce to hash browns.

Worse yet, what should be said of President Hinckley's vision and significance of spiritual guidance originally celebrated for FARMS/MI?

There is an open thread on this topic.

[volgadon]

Bob, you seem to spend a lot of time on stuff you deride as irrelevent.