Teaser From The Maxwell Institute

[Daniel Peterson]

Or, you could just choose a more accurate example.

What's inaccurate about the example I used?

Dan, an honest question: why did you choose the Stalin example?

Because it occurred to me almost instantly, and because it made the point that I wanted to make with absolute and unmistakable clarity.

And please note, I don't think you believe that the MI leadership is responsible for the Gulag, etc.

Are you sure? Is that your final answer?

There is, I'm told, virtually no limit to my depravity and intellectual dishonesty.

.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Bernard Gui]

Perhaps because they were eager to assure a skeptical public that they are not abandoning the apologetics aspects of the mission and they don't intend to brush aside the interests and needs of the Relief Society president in Parowan in favor of an exclusive focus on ivory-tower academics.

FARMS, FAIR, and the organization formerly known as MI now known as the new MI, provided invaluable information

for those of us out in the Parowans of the church who aren't savvy to the stuff that goes on in the ivory towers.

There are a lot of us and it would be a shame if our boat is just cast adrift without an anchor or tiller.

[Robert F. Smith]

How dare you judge Mark like that. Lol.

Mark, like all good liberals, only have the best inentions. After all the intent justifies the ends.

Wait a minute! I thought these guys were all ultra-conservatives and in league with the BYU Religious Studies Center. I thought that birds of a feather . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

Bumping, because so many of the questions and assumptions presented in this thread about the course of the new NAMI are addressed in the above linked blog post. Wouldn't want those who have been posing those questions to miss this.

Unfortunately, NAMI has long been the National Alliance on Mental Illness. (http://www.nami.org/) That's why I prefer NAMIRS, but there's no accounting for taste.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or, you could just choose a more accurate example.

For the very clearly defined point that Dan was making -- that institutions don't always fulfill their stated intent -- I can't think of a more apt or accurate example.

Why do you say it is inaccurate? Because the Stalin regime is infamous? Dan stated clearly in his post that he was not comparing the Maxwell Institute with Stalinism in that respect. You can choose to take him at his word or try to make him an offender for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, in your opinion, why didn't the MI simply not adopt Dan's parts?

I'm curious, diahman, about how you would respond to that question.

[diahman]

What's inaccurate about the example I used?

Perhaps I should have said "less loaded."

Any comparison or analogy is going to bring with it unintended baggage. Some comparisons have more baggage than others. We should try to unload this unintentional baggage.

I imagine you agree with this so far. But I don't understand why you would choose a comparison that has so much unintended baggage in a context that has been quite ugly (the context I'm referring to is the shift in administration in MI). Surely you know that some will take your comparison has having more similarities than 'saying one thing, but doing another.' Some will take it as evidence of your "deprativty," some will take it as evidence of the MI having much more in common with Stalin than falling short in practice. You've been discussing religion with people for quite some time; surely you know that despite your attempts to qualify your comparisons there are people on both sides of the issue that are going to take your comparisons too far. If you know these things, then why choose the example of Stalin?

For the very clearly defined point that Dan was making -- that institutions don't always fulfill their stated intent -- I can't think of a more apt or accurate example.

Why do you say it is inaccurate? Because the Stalin regime is infamous? Dan stated clearly in his post that he was not comparing the Maxwell Institute with Stalinism in that respect. You can choose to take him at his word or try to make him an offender for it.

See my comment above. Even if we take Dan at his word, this is a case of poor judgment or lack of awareness of the context. It's these repeated cases of poor judgment, in my opinion, that made it so hard to keep him involved in the transition at MI.

I'm curious, diahman, about how you would respond to that question.

I would say, "I don't know"; and if compelled I would agree with the answer you've given. But here's what the larger question is: What kind of intentions do we ascribe to others? What I've seen some people doing here is ascribing nothing but the best of intentions to Dan when he does things such as compare the MI to Stalin; but ascribing the worst of intentions to the MI when they do things such as claim that they will continue to defend the faith. If we're going to take Dan at face value, then it seems we should do the same with MI. If we're going to ascribe the worst of intentions to the MI, then why shouldn't we do something similar for Dan?

[jwhitlock]

What I've seen some people doing here is ascribing nothing but the best of intentions to Dan when he does things such as compare the MI to Stalin;

You seem to have this bizarre fixation on misrepresenting things, even when it's perfectly clear for all to read that this is not the case. Perhaps you subscribe to the principle that if you bleat something long and loud enough, some people will start to believe it.

But that doesn't make it true - as I suspect you well know.

[diahman]

You seem to have this bizarre fixation on misrepresenting things, even when it's perfectly clear for all to read that this is not the case. Perhaps you subscribe to the principle that if you bleat something long and loud enough, some people will start to believe it.

But that doesn't make it true - as I suspect you well know.

I don't get it. Where did I misrepresent things?

[wenglund]

Perhaps I should have said "less loaded."

Perhaps you should just grow up, admit you way over-reacted, and move on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

I don't get it. Where did I misrepresent things?

It would probably be more accurate to say that you don't want to get it.

[diahman]

It would probably be more accurate to say that you don't want to get it.

I'm open to seeing things differently, if you can show me what I've missed.

[diahman]

Perhaps you should just grow up, admit you way over-reacted, and move on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Care to actually engage the argument?

[Mark Beesley]

Perhaps I should have said "less loaded."

Any comparison or analogy is going to bring with it unintended baggage. Some comparisons have more baggage than others. We should try to unload this unintentional baggage.

I imagine you agree with this so far. But I don't understand why you would choose a comparison that has so much unintended baggage in a context that has been quite ugly (the context I'm referring to is the shift in administration in MI). Surely you know that some will take your comparison has having more similarities than 'saying one thing, but doing another.' Some will take it as evidence of your "deprativty," some will take it as evidence of the MI having much more in common with Stalin than falling short in practice. You've been discussing religion with people for quite some time; surely you know that despite your attempts to qualify your comparisons there are people on both sides of the issue that are going to take your comparisons too far. If you know these things, then why choose the example of Stalin?

Excellent insight, although any compliment from a liberal like myself must be taken with a grain of salt. After all, our politics on one matter must most assuredly discredit our POV on all things.

See my comment above. Even if we take Dan at his word, this is a case of poor judgment or lack of awareness of the context. It's these repeated cases of poor judgment, in my opinion, that made it so hard to keep him involved in the transition at MI.

Exactly, but you will be hard pressed to find even a smidgen of recognition that this might have been the case from the DCP Royal Court.

I would say, "I don't know"; and if compelled I would agree with the answer you've given. But here's what the larger question is: What kind of intentions do we ascribe to others? What I've seen some people doing here is ascribing nothing but the best of intentions to Dan when he does things such as compare the MI to Stalin; but ascribing the worst of intentions to the MI when they do things such as claim that they will continue to defend the faith. If we're going to take Dan at face value, then it seems we should do the same with MI. If we're going to ascribe the worst of intentions to the MI, then why shouldn't we do something similar for Dan?

That seems like an unreasonably balanced approach.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[Mark Beesley]

Care to actually engage the argument?

I am finding that at times it is best to follow the example of the Savior in responding to the Herodians of the Board.

Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Luke 21:9

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps I should have said "less loaded."

Any comparison or analogy is going to bring with it unintended baggage. Some comparisons have more baggage than others. We should try to unload this unintentional baggage.

I unloaded it immediately, by pointing out that I really do see substantial differences between Josef Stalin and the leadership of the newly redirected Maxwell Institute. (Please note the understated irony. Pure evil.)

I don't understand why you would choose a comparison that has so much unintended baggage in a context that has been quite ugly (the context I'm referring to is the shift in administration in MI). Surely you know that some will take your comparison has having more similarities than 'saying one thing, but doing another.' Some will take it as evidence of your "deprativty," some will take it as evidence of the MI having much more in common with Stalin than falling short in practice. You've been discussing religion with people for quite some time; surely you know that despite your attempts to qualify your comparisons there are people on both sides of the issue that are going to take your comparisons too far. If you know these things, then why choose the example of Stalin?

I chose it because it's pretty much the clearest example I can think of of a divergence between promise and fulfillment, between word and actual intent, or between word and deed. No ambiguities at all.

Other people make different choices. Some, for example, choose to believe that I meant it in the way I specifically said I didn't mean it, because they firmly believe that I'm perpetually disingenuous even when I'm not simply being brazenly dishonest. And they'll continue to believe that, no matter what I say, and no matter how often I say it, and they'll feel morally superior because they do.

Even if we take Dan at his word

LOL. Something that you obviously want to resist.

this is a case of poor judgment or lack of awareness of the context. It's these repeated cases of poor judgment, in my opinion, that made it so hard to keep him involved in the transition at MI.

Good grief.

why shouldn't we do something similar for Dan?

You're entirely free to continue on your present course.

Exactly, but you will be hard pressed to find even a smidgen of recognition that this might have been the case from the DCP Royal Court.

You're more personally hostile than you used to be, Mark. And more contemptuous of other posters here, too.

.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[wenglund]

Care to actually engage the argument?

The so-called "argument" has been adequately engaged, and for reasonable people, it has been put to rest. Beyond that, there is little or no point continuing to engage unreasonableness. That was my engaging "counter-argument"--not that you or Mark may grasp it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Mark Beesley]

You're more personally hostile than you used to be, Mark. And more contemptuous of other posters here, too.

I don't know that I would agree with your assessment, but I think I can understand why you might see it this way. Perhaps you can try to see things the way I, and perhaps others, see them.

This thread was started with the simple objective of alerting us to some of the activities of the MI that we, as internet users, might be interested in. The initial post was quickly followed by impatient needling and finally derision by some certain segments who were disaffected by the MI changes last year. There appeared to be need to keep fresh in the minds of all that some people were deeply hurt by what they perceived as an injustice. When I, and others, suggested that it might be time to bury the hatchet and adopt a more forgiving and conciliatory tone, we were met with an onslaught of sarcasm and derision.

When a subsequent post was shared to offer what I saw as an olive branch, the Mission Statement of the MI, it was met with a sorta/kinda claim of plagiarism and skepticism, and when some posters again suggested a more nuanced view might be appropriate, the sarcasm and derision returned.

We follow a certain rule on the Board that certain parallels are not to be drawn, i.e Godwin's Law. Certainly, if drawing parallels to Nazism is to be shunned, surely the same can be said of Stalin. If a less inflammatory parallel cannot be found, perhaps the parallel should not be attempted.

That being said, if I have been unduly hostile and contemptuous of some people on the Board, even if I may have felt justified in what I thought were rather nuanced and measured "attacks," then I apologize. I too must exercise more self-restraint and not simply engage in self-congratulatory celebrations because of what I did not post.

Have a nice day, and good luck with The Interpreter. It looks to be a valuable resource for many.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am finding that at times it is best to follow the example of the Savior in responding to the Herodians of the Board.

Blah blah blah.,

[wenglund]

We follow a certain rule on the Board that certain parallels are not to be drawn, i.e Godwin's Law. Certainly, if drawing parallels to Nazism is to be shunned, surely the same can be said of Stalin. If a less inflammatory parallel cannot be found, perhaps the parallel should not be attempted.

What you and diahman don't seem to understand, is that the parallel wasn't between MI and Stalin, but between "promise and fulfillment" for both. What will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 5, 2013 by wenglund

[Mark Beesley]

The so-called "argument" has been adequately engaged, and for reasonable people, it has been put to rest. Beyond that, there is little or no point continuing to engage unreasonableness. That was my engaging "counter-argument"--not that you or Mark may grasp it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

I've just received a private note, asking -- with the obvious expectation that I'll answer in the negative -- whether I would ever dream of drawing a comparison between the Church and Soviet Russia.

The answer is, Yes, I would.

I'll supply three examples off the top of my head:

First, there's a great deal of Church art that I don't much care for, and I've occasionally compared it to socialist realism. That isn't meant as an endorsement.

Second, I've laughed a few times at our propensity to feature quotations from current presidents of the Church, even when they're fairly ordinary or commonplace ("'Repentance is a good thing,' declared President Orson Fielding Young in a speech to the Bunkerville Nevada Third Ward yesterday"), in Gospel Doctrine lessons and Church magazines, and etc. During the nearly ten years that I served on the Church's Gospel Doctrine writing committee, we were under strict orders (not from the Brethren, but from some staff committee somewhere) to include quotations from the current Church president, which, when we were writing lessons on the Old Testament, was often rather hard to do. Sometimes it seems just a tad reminiscent of the cult of the Great Leader that we know from various states over the past century, including Stalin's Russia. Not in a sinister way, but in a slightly funny way.

Third, I've sometimes laughingly compared the Church News, with its invariably positive spin on LDS-related matters, to Pravda. I hasten to add that I mean absolutely no insult to Scott Lloyd, nor, for that matter, to the Church News, which I read faithfully. (In fact, for many years, it was the only reason that I subscribed to the Deseret News as a whole, and, even now, when there are, in my opinion, many other additional reasons for subscribing to the Deseret News, it remains a major reason for my subscription, and I always turn immediately to it when I pick my Saturday paper up from the driveway.)

The second and third examples ought to demonstrate especially clearly, I think, that I don't inevitably intend such comparisons in a hostile way -- although, overall, I really am, as decent people everywhere already know, a horrible person, consumed with hatred. I respect the leadership of the Church enormously, and venerate its presidents. My good-humored take on the world around me is completely fake, of course, but it can't be denied that it's been my pretty consistent pose for many decades now.

[Mark Beesley]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Picture of gnome's backside deleted.

[Mark Beesley]

I know, I know . . . I'm out of the pool . . . :-D