Recognition Of Jerry Bradford

[jkwilliams]

Of course they did. The question is really if it was ethical to use resources that had been gathered for one purpose and apply them to another purpose after promising when those resources were given to BYU that they would be used for the original purpose.

Not sitting down and discussing the change of direction with those who gave those resources with that understanding before going ahead with one's intent to change things ssems to me to be essentially breaking a contract while trying to pretend one wasn't.

Just because one has a worthwhile ethical goal doesn't mean the process to achieve it was morally correct.

 

Agreed. I'm just saying that, unless you know more than I do, we aren't privy to any promises made or broken when the MI was brought into the university, so I can't really speculate on what they did when they changed directions. 

[ERayR]

Seth, let me explain something you've apparently failed to grasp.  What you've done here is the equivalent of you telling me, for example, "I've never read the Harry Potter series," and me sniffing in response (with duly-upturned nose), "Hmph!  It's a pity you don't like books."  You can get down off of that intellectual high horse any time now!*  

 

*All tastes aren't the same, all books/authors aren't created equal, et cetera, and these principles apply even to (Gasp! )  Academic journals.  Unlike you, the rest of us haven't fallen into the trap of assuming that just because it's published in the academy, it is, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, worthwhile.

 

Well said and worth repeating. 

[ERayR]

I think a big difference is that while apologetics was being done at the MI it carried the weight of university backing. Isn't there a big difference between referencing a university source versus one from FARM's?

 

If that were a problem they should not have been invited in to start with.

[Bob Crockett]

Exactly.

 

If you have to explain the joke, then the joke ceases to be on me.  

 

The whole thing is completely ridiculous, really.  I was a super-supporter of Old FARMS, published twice, and was a Platinum level financial supporter.  But I long harbored the view that BYU wouldn't put up with it forever because it wasn't true academic work.  (Even though BYU's publishing arm publishes a lot of soft work in support of the Church.)   So, it had to go and it was no surprise, but the departure of key personnel was certainly inelegant on the part of the departees.  We have not heard the side from the Bradford camp, nor will we.

 

But, the new iteration of Mormon Interpreter is interesting and stylish, if not really subject to proper academic rigor. 

 

New Maxwell Institute/Bradford comes along and I saw little prospect for success, given the lack of enthusiasm and flagwaving that Old FARMS had.   And now we have Blair Hodges as the public relations guy?   I just don't see BYU equipped to support a secular Mormon Studies program.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

I think a big difference is that while apologetics was being done at the MI it carried the weight of university backing. Isn't there a big difference between referencing a university source versus one from FARM's?

Only if one is in awe of universities.

[cinepro]

Of course they did. The question is really if it was ethical to use resources that had been gathered for one purpose and apply them to another purpose after promising when those resources were given to BYU that they would be used for the original purpose.

Not sitting down and discussing the change of direction with those who gave those resources---including those who continued to do so up till the time they received an email their content contributions would no longer be needed (with the exception of fundraising iirc)---with that understanding of mission commitment before going ahead with one's intent to change things seems to me to be essentially breaking a contract while trying to pretend one wasn't.

Just because one has a worthwhile ethical goal doesn't mean the process to achieve it was morally correct.

 

It's been a while since I donated to MI, but I seem to recall that the donation form said something along the lines of ""Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the property of the Maxwell Institute and will be used at the Institute's sole discretion to further the Institute's overall mission." 

 

Nothing wrong with that!

[Kenngo1969]

I think a big difference is that while apologetics was being done at the MI it carried the weight of university backing. Isn't there a big difference between referencing a university source versus one from FARM's?

Perhaps, but as Cal ... er, Calm  (edited to add, "and ERayR") ... ha[ve] pointed out, BYU simply could have returned to the status quo by cutting the former FARMS loose again rather than "rebranding" the entire organization and ostensibly abandoning its former mission.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Seems to me Seth was pretty clear... 

Fine.  I don't have as much of a problem with his argument (even though I might not agree with it) as I do with his approach.  The same arguments would be better received even by those who disagree with him if he weren't so haughty and high-minded about it.

[Calm]

Perhaps, but as Cal ... er, Calm

 

Short is good, so Cal is even better than Calm...it seemed so intelligent last night, just knock off a few letters and still have a workable, recognizable alias.  Now it looks pretentatious....never should make a decision after taking Ambien.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Short is good, so Cal is even better than Calm...it seemed so intelligent last night, just knock off a few letters and still have a workable, recognizable alias.  Now it looks pretentatious....never should make a decision after taking Ambien.

 

I did a double-take, as I know a lady in Utah who runs an organization called "CALM" (Community After Leaving Mormonism), which is a support group for ex-Mormons. I thought you might be her, and then I realized my mistake.

[juliann]

There is most certainly an audience and I think it is safe to say you are not part of it.  The MI, I would imagine, would like to see the Mormon Studies Review on library shelves at universities around the country.  If you don't enjoy reading  academic journals, Nehor, then I don't think the MSR is for you.

 

Perhaps that is the real issue.  Was it Dan who said that FARMS was meant for the "sister in Parowan?"  The MSR -- and BYU Studies for that matter -- are written for an academic audience and so all the fun jabs, references to people's sexuality, condemnation of other members faithfulness etc... are simply out of place in academic discourse.  So I can see why people who enjoyed the polemics in the old FARMS -- and hey, who can deny that there was some clever and funny writing in the old review -- would not enjoy the new MSR.  Bill made this clear when he stated that he received grief from his dept. Chair for publishing in the old venue.  The old review was not an academic journal.  The new MSR is.

 

But the great news is this.  By the time BYU decided that NAMIRS should publish for academics --because BYU is a university -- FairMormon had been in full swing for over a decade with thriving conferences.  Shields was still posting correspondence from anti-Mormons.  With the existence of FairMormon and Shields ... who needed the old-style FARMS?  Market saturation!

 

I wish MI well. They have some very good people there. 

 

FairMormon (thanks for using the proper name!) wouldn't be here without FARMS having first blazed a path. Where FARMS was for the "sister in Parowan" (hmmm, why do I get the feeling a "sister" was considered to be the least informed, I'll have to smack Dan) FM was for the brother and sister in Parowan to have information to counter the hate ministries of the 90s. What FM succeeded in doing was raising the bar so that countercultists, who relied heavily on the internet,  had to counter scholarship rather than using their Bible college or ministry site stuff. Biblical scholarship was readily available but Mormon specific stuff wasn't. FM couldn't have succeeded without FARMS output and this board would likely still be swarming with evangelical ministry cut and paste giggling over Satan being Jesus' brother. (Oh, how I miss those simple days!)

 

I think people have forgotten how involved FARMS was with the DSS translations and they rarely get credit for their scholars who did enter "mainstream" scholarship. My first encounter with a David Paulsen article was in a CGU class. The list of scholars who published with them is pretty awe inspiring. That people prefer to highlight occasional polemics over that says more about them than FARMS.

 

And by the way, when you are in the business of defending the Church you do not say no to Pres. Hinckley ;-)  FM benefited from the BYU takeover by getting more input from the FARMsters who saw the writing on the wall. I don't know where SHIELDS fits into all this other than in the early days and have no idea if they are even active. I can't remember the last time I heard the name. They were the most polemical.

[Analytics]

If you have to explain the joke, then the joke ceases to be on me.  

 

The whole thing is completely ridiculous, really.  I was a super-supporter of Old FARMS, published twice, and was a Platinum level financial supporter.  But I long harbored the view that BYU wouldn't put up with it forever because it wasn't true academic work.  (Even though BYU's publishing arm publishes a lot of soft work in support of the Church.)   So, it had to go and it was no surprise, but the departure of key personnel was certainly inelegant on the part of the departees.  We have not heard the side from the Bradford camp, nor will we.

 

 

The question is *why* we won't hear from Bradford's camp.

 

To be clear, the OP was a blend of satire and honest analysis.  Which aspects are which?  It doesn’t really matter--my words carry little weight and most people here don’t understand me anyway. All I was trying to do is start a conversation.

 

In seriousness, this is what I think:  Jerry successfully executed the strategy of the decision makers above him.  He made a few mistakes, but the damage those mistakes caused were exponentially amplified by the mistakes and poor behavior of certain members of the prior regime. The fans of the prior regime have unfairly heaped a boatload of criticism on Bradford.  He has stoically taken it without comment.  Taking the criticism without explaining himself is evidence that he’d rather be hated and misunderstood than allow the people above him to be hated.  Such loyalty really should be commended.

 

This has been my belief since the beginning.  Others have insisted that these events are best regarded as “Bradford’s coup” or “Bradford’s junta.”  They accuse Bradford of conceiving, orchestrating, and executing this whole thing.  They think Bradford personally betrayed the trust of FARMS donors, of the University, of Neil A. Maxwell, and of Gordon B. Hinckley himself.  That’s always come across as a crazy conspiracy—it’s clear who is in charge at BYU, and it isn’t Jerry Bradford.

 

The fact that the University has now chosen a search committee that excludes everyone loyal to the prior regime is further evidence that I’m right about this.

[The Nehor]

The question is *why* we won't hear from Bradford's camp.

 

To be clear, the OP was a blend of satire and honest analysis.  Which aspects are which?  It doesn’t really matter--my words carry little weight and most people here don’t understand me anyway. All I was trying to do is start a conversation.

 

In seriousness, this is what I think:  Jerry successfully executed the strategy of the decision makers above him.  He made a few mistakes, but the damage those mistakes caused were exponentially amplified by the mistakes and poor behavior of certain members of the prior regime. The fans of the prior regime have unfairly heaped a boatload of criticism on Bradford.  He has stoically taken it without comment.  Taking the criticism without explaining himself is evidence that he’d rather be hated and misunderstood than allow the people above him to be hated.  Such loyalty really should be commended.

 

This has been my belief since the beginning.  Others have insisted that these events are best regarded as “Bradford’s coup” or “Bradford’s junta.”  They accuse Bradford of conceiving, orchestrating, and executing this whole thing.  They think Bradford personally betrayed the trust of FARMS donors, of the University, of Neil A. Maxwell, and of Gordon B. Hinckley himself.  That’s always come across as a crazy conspiracy—it’s clear who is in charge at BYU, and it isn’t Jerry Bradford.

 

The fact that the University has now chosen a search committee that excludes everyone loyal to the prior regime is further evidence that I’m right about this.

By your standard all the Japanese political and military leaders at the end of World War 2 who took the fall and the blame for the war to protect the Emperor were in fact heroes.

[Analytics]

By your standard all the Japanese political and military leaders at the end of World War 2 who took the fall and the blame for the war to protect the Emperor were in fact heroes.

 

Not necessarily.  I'm just saying that acts of loyalty should be recognized for what they are.

[Calm]

why do I get the feeling a "sister" was considered to be the least informed, I'll have to smack Dan

 

Probably not, he just typically alternates female and male for generic positions.  It is just as likely he will use "she" for a scholar as "he".  I noticed this a long time ago with his writings.

[stemelbow]

The question is *why* we won't hear from Bradford's camp.

 

To be clear, the OP was a blend of satire and honest analysis.  Which aspects are which?  It doesn’t really matter--my words carry little weight and most people here don’t understand me anyway. All I was trying to do is start a conversation.

 

In seriousness, this is what I think:  Jerry successfully executed the strategy of the decision makers above him.  He made a few mistakes, but the damage those mistakes caused were exponentially amplified by the mistakes and poor behavior of certain members of the prior regime. The fans of the prior regime have unfairly heaped a boatload of criticism on Bradford.  He has stoically taken it without comment.  Taking the criticism without explaining himself is evidence that he’d rather be hated and misunderstood than allow the people above him to be hated.  Such loyalty really should be commended.

 

This has been my belief since the beginning.  Others have insisted that these events are best regarded as “Bradford’s coup” or “Bradford’s junta.”  They accuse Bradford of conceiving, orchestrating, and executing this whole thing.  They think Bradford personally betrayed the trust of FARMS donors, of the University, of Neil A. Maxwell, and of Gordon B. Hinckley himself.  That’s always come across as a crazy conspiracy—it’s clear who is in charge at BYU, and it isn’t Jerry Bradford.

 

The fact that the University has now chosen a search committee that excludes everyone loyal to the prior regime is further evidence that I’m right about this.

So you think it commendable for an employee to not blame his boss for assigning the task, if by carrying it out he makes a few mistakes? The employee could just blame the boss, in your view, for the mistakes because, after all those mistakes only came about because he tried to carry out the bosses orders?

Okay, we're stretching a little bit on what to find commendable.

"Great job. Sure you fired a ton of people....angered a good portion of our audience...made enemies out of our former faithful employees. But at least you didn't tell people that we as your bosses assigned you a task. You didn't blame us for others criticizing the way you handled it. that's admirable"

Whatever....be happy you can find a positive in this.

[Analytics]

So you think it commendable for an employee to not blame his boss for assigning the task, if by carrying it out he makes a few mistakes? The employee could just blame the boss, in your view, for the mistakes because, after all those mistakes only came about because he tried to carry out the bosses orders?

Okay, we're stretching a little bit on what to find commendable.

"Great job. Sure you fired a ton of people....angered a good portion of our audience...made enemies out of our former faithful employees. But at least you didn't tell people that we as your bosses assigned you a task. You didn't blame us for others criticizing the way you handled it. that's admirable"

Whatever....be happy you can find a positive in this.

 

No, you are missing the point.  Bradford wasn't the decision maker here.  He was merely the messenger.  Yes, he could have delivered the "you're fired!" message better (Likewise, the previous regime could have handled the changes with a lot more class).  But be that as it may, what "angered a good portion of our audience" and "made enemies of out our former faithful employees" was the decision to get out of the apologetics business in the first place.  That decision shouldn't be blamed on Bradford because Bradford didn't make that decision. 

[Jeanne]

I want to hear from Dan Peterson!  Dan????

[sunstoned]

Seems to me Seth was pretty clear: BYU has decided that the MI will focus on academic studies of Mormon history and scripture instead of apologetics. Those looking for a more popular and apologetic approach will need to look elsewhere. There's nothing inherently more valuable in academic publications than popular or apologetic publications; they just have different purposes and audiences, as Seth points out. From everything we know, BYU has decided that popular apologetics do not enhance the university's reputation, so they have gotten out of the business.

I believe this is the true that apologetics (as practiced by the old MI) did nothing to enhance BYU's or the Church's reputation.  In fact, I think the converse could be argued.  Anyway, the die has been cast, and BYU has moved on.  BYU and the church is no longer in the apologetics business.

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................

To be clear, the OP was a blend of satire and honest analysis.  ...........................................

.........................................

What I said, Analytics.  What I said.

 

And now, you have followed up on the satire with some more in the same vein.  Good show, Bro !!  The same minds which didn't get it the first time, are in for another round of the same -- having learned nothing.  

Edited September 10, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I read academic articles in several fields in which I have an interest. The MSR is rather milquetoast and the articles I read in the past are like the worst of articles I often find in academic literary journals.

I should really try writing for them. Looks pretty easy.

You should -- especially among Mormons.  They'll believe anything . . .

[Calm]

the church is no longer in the apologetics business.

Have you checked out the Gospel Topics essays lately?

[Robert F. Smith]

I think a big difference is that while apologetics was being done at the MI it carried the weight of university backing. Isn't there a big difference between referencing a university source versus one from FARM's?

Actually, where BYU is concerned, no.  Harvard, Yale, CGU, Berkeley, perhaps, but not BYU.

 

Moreover, BYU is owned and operated by the LDS Church, with the Brethren sitting as Trustees.  Being hugged by BYU is the kiss of death.  When independent, FARMS could tout its freedom from confirmation bias and the like.  Independent research institutes are a frequent accompaniment to university communities throughout the free world.  Once they sacrifice their independence, one can begin to question which master they serve -- a university administration or specific research objectives.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you have to explain the joke, then the joke ceases to be on me.  ....................................

.........................................  And now we have Blair Hodges as the public relations guy?   I just don't see BYU equipped to support a secular Mormon Studies program.

Hey, Bob, you need to quit casting shadows at Blair.  He is a great guy, open and easy to talk to.  Indeed, it looks as though the only way a secular Mormon Studies program can get into BYU is through the back door.  Only the Bradford could have done it, all the while being comforted by the very right-wing Religious Education people at BYU who were the natural enemies of FARMS.  Conquest by misdirection.  Brilliant !!

[sunstoned]

Have you checked out the Gospel Topics essays lately?

I consider most of this as clarification.  Not hard code, in your face apologetics.