Claims That The Maxwell Institute No Longer Does Ancient Studies And The Bom Are False

[LifeOnaPlate]

There have been rumors going around for a long time now that the Maxwell Institute is no longer promoting research on the Book of Mormon in an ancient setting. This rumor has been spread by Bill Hamblin and others. I'm taking a moment here to affirm that the rumor is completely false. The Maxwell Institute is not eschewing research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. It has never done so. Rather, the Institute is broadening the scope of research on the Book of Mormon to include 19th, 20th and 21st-century perspectives on the text, literary studies, reception history, theology, and other matters.

A few points deserve special emphasis:

First, the Maxwell Institute contains several initiatives, only one of which focuses particularly on the Book of Mormon. That is our Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. (This Center is what absorbed FARMS after BYU dissolved the FARMS board in the early 2000s.) The Willes Center inherited the FARMS legacy, its past publications, and its desire to promote academically viable research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

Second, the other initiatives at the Institute are just as important to us, though they likely aren't as important to wider audiences. Each initiative serves particular audiences interested in matters like medieval Islam, Judaism, ancient Christianity, and Mormon studies (which itself is interested in the Book of Mormon).

Third: The Institute continues and has continued to sponsor research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text in addition to its wider scope described above. The last issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies contained multiple pieces either arguing for or assuming an ancient setting for the Book of Mormon.

Fourth: the next issue of JBMS, to be released this upcoming Tuesday, also contains multiple excellent pieces looking at the BoM as an ancient record. You can see the full table of contents here:

http://bit.ly/JBMS-24-ToC

Finally, if you're interested in learning about the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, the Institute has much to interest you. If you are more interested in other approaches, the Institute increasingly have materials that will interest you as well. The idea is not to force a decision between different ways of studying the text. The Institute of course affirms the BoM is the word of God, revelation, sacred scripture, delivered through a prophet by the gift and power of God. The Institute's studies occur under the sponsorship of BYU and the Church, although MI does not speak for either entity. BYU has been closely involved in the direction of the Institute and continues to be. MI receives its direction from them and its direction has been vetted at all levels. The Institute is in the process of replacing its current director, Jerry Bradford, who is retiring after over twenty years of service at BYU.

Please help the Maxwell Institute spread the word, check out the things the Institute produces and judge for yourself. Don't be tossed to and fro by every gripe of complaint and innuendo. Taste the fruit and see for yourself. Great things are happening at the Institute. I'm very blessed and proud to be a small part of it. I'm also very busy, so forgive me if I can't follow up much here. If you have any pressing questions you can email me at blairhodges[at]byu[dot]edu, and I'll try to drop in here to answer q's as well. I have some more exciting announcements to post about later, but for now you can check up on the Institute at the MIBlog, on Facebook, and on Twitter @MI_BYU.

—BHodges

Edited September 9, 2015 by LifeOnaPlate

[Jeanne]

Wow..you know..I almost got kicked off the board for the word "rumor".  Thanks for the clarification. 

[Scott Lloyd]

There have been rumors going around for a long time now that the Maxwell Institute is no longer promoting research on the Book of Mormon in an ancient setting. This rumor has been spread by Bill Hamblin and others. I'm taking a moment here to affirm that the rumor is completely false. The Maxwell Institute is not eschewing research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. It has never done so. Rather, the Institute is broadening the scope of research on the Book of Mormon to include 19th, 20th and 21st-century perspectives on the text, literary studies, reception history, theology, and other matters.

A few points deserve special emphasis:

First, the Maxwell Institute contains several initiatives, only one of which focuses particularly on the Book of Mormon. That is our Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. (This Center is what absorbed FARMS after BYU dissolved the FARMS board in the early 2000s.) The Willes Center inherited the FARMS legacy, its past publications, and its desire to promote academically viable research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

Second, the other initiatives at the Institute are just as important to us, though they likely aren't as important to wider audiences. Each initiative serves particular audiences interested in matters like medieval Islam, Judaism, ancient Christianity, and Mormon studies (which itself is interested in the Book of Mormon).

Third: The Institute continues and has continued to sponsor research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text in addition to its wider scope described above. The last issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies contained multiple pieces either arguing for or assuming an ancient setting for the Book of Mormon.

Fourth: the next issue of JBMS, to be released this upcoming Tuesday, also contains multiple excellent pieces looking at the BoM as an ancient record. You can see the full table of contents here:

http://bit.ly/JBMS-24-ToC

Finally, if you're interested in learning about the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, the Institute has much to interest you. If you are more interested in other approaches, the Institute increasingly have materials that will interest you as well. The idea is not to force a decision between different ways of studying the text. The Institute of course affirms the BoM is the word of God, revelation, sacred scripture, delivered through a prophet by the gift and power of God. The Institute's studies occur under the sponsorship of BYU and the Church, although MI does not speak for either entity. BYU has been closely involved in the direction of the Institute and continues to be. MI receives its direction from them and its direction has been vetted at all levels. The Institute is in the process of replacing its current director, Jerry Bradford, who is retiring after over twenty years of service at BYU.

Please help the Maxwell Institute spread the word, check out the things the Institute produces and judge for yourself. Don't be tossed to and fro by every gripe of complaint and innuendo. Taste the fruit and see for yourself. Great things are happening at the Institute. I'm very blessed and proud to be a small part of it. I'm also very busy, so forgive me if I can't follow up much here. If you have any pressing questions you can email me at blairhodges[at]byu[dot]edu, and I'll try to drop in here to answer q's as well. I have some more exciting announcements to post about later, but for now you can check up on the Institute at the MIBlog, on Facebook, and on Twitter @MI_BYU.

—BHodges

At the time of the purge, it was expressed, as I recall, that the institute would still engage in apologetics in some respects. Yet I have seen little-to-nothing since, emanating from the institute, that could realistically be regarded as apologetics. Is there something that has escaped my notice?

Regarding the Willes Center, perhaps you could spike or confirm a rumor I heard to the effect that soon after the launch of the institute's "new direction," there was a move to change the name to eliminate the words "Book of Mormon," but the Willes family wouldn't have it.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

Thanks for this posting Lifeonaplate.  The new direction of MI is appreciated by many.  Moving to a more scholarly approach to research and publication will (IMHO) will be more accepted by the academic community.  the only push back that I have noticed is from the old guard who were ousted.  It should be clear by now that slash and burn apologetics did not work. Case in point: Tapirs = horses. This type of apologetics does more harm than good.   

Edited September 10, 2015 by sunstoned

[The Nehor]

Tasted the new fruit and did not like it.

[Kenngo1969]

Thanks for this posting Lifeonaplate.  The new direction of MI is appreciated by many.  Moving to a more scholarly approach to research and publication will (IMHO) will be more accepted by the academic community.  the only push back that I have noticed is from the old guard who were ousted.  It should be clear by now that slash and burn apologetics did not work. Case in point: Tapirs = horses. This type of apologetics does more harm than good.   

You haven't been paying enough attention, then.  I wasn't among those ousted; nonetheless, I have (however feebly) pushed back. With the exception of the "feebleness" qualifier, the same can be said of many who frequent this Board.

[sethpayne]

There have been rumors going around for a long time now that the Maxwell Institute is no longer promoting research on the Book of Mormon in an ancient setting. This rumor has been spread by Bill Hamblin and others. I'm taking a moment here to affirm that the rumor is completely false. The Maxwell Institute is not eschewing research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. It has never done so. Rather, the Institute is broadening the scope of research on the Book of Mormon to include 19th, 20th and 21st-century perspectives on the text, literary studies, reception history, theology, and other matters.

A few points deserve special emphasis:

First, the Maxwell Institute contains several initiatives, only one of which focuses particularly on the Book of Mormon. That is our Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. (This Center is what absorbed FARMS after BYU dissolved the FARMS board in the early 2000s.) The Willes Center inherited the FARMS legacy, its past publications, and its desire to promote academically viable research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

Second, the other initiatives at the Institute are just as important to us, though they likely aren't as important to wider audiences. Each initiative serves particular audiences interested in matters like medieval Islam, Judaism, ancient Christianity, and Mormon studies (which itself is interested in the Book of Mormon).

Third: The Institute continues and has continued to sponsor research on the Book of Mormon as an ancient text in addition to its wider scope described above. The last issue of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies contained multiple pieces either arguing for or assuming an ancient setting for the Book of Mormon.

Fourth: the next issue of JBMS, to be released this upcoming Tuesday, also contains multiple excellent pieces looking at the BoM as an ancient record. You can see the full table of contents here:

http://bit.ly/JBMS-24-ToC

Finally, if you're interested in learning about the Book of Mormon as an ancient text, the Institute has much to interest you. If you are more interested in other approaches, the Institute increasingly have materials that will interest you as well. The idea is not to force a decision between different ways of studying the text. The Institute of course affirms the BoM is the word of God, revelation, sacred scripture, delivered through a prophet by the gift and power of God. The Institute's studies occur under the sponsorship of BYU and the Church, although MI does not speak for either entity. BYU has been closely involved in the direction of the Institute and continues to be. MI receives its direction from them and its direction has been vetted at all levels. The Institute is in the process of replacing its current director, Jerry Bradford, who is retiring after over twenty years of service at BYU.

Please help the Maxwell Institute spread the word, check out the things the Institute produces and judge for yourself. Don't be tossed to and fro by every gripe of complaint and innuendo. Taste the fruit and see for yourself. Great things are happening at the Institute. I'm very blessed and proud to be a small part of it. I'm also very busy, so forgive me if I can't follow up much here. If you have any pressing questions you can email me at blairhodges[at]byu[dot]edu, and I'll try to drop in here to answer q's as well. I have some more exciting announcements to post about later, but for now you can check up on the Institute at the MIBlog, on Facebook, and on Twitter @MI_BYU.

—BHodges

 

Thanks for the info, Blair.  Keep up the good work!

[sethpayne]

Tasted the new fruit and did not like it.

 

So don't eat it.  

[sethpayne]

At the time of the purge, it was expressed, as I recall, that the institute would still engage in apologetics in some respects. Yet I have seen little-to-nothing since that could realistically be regarded as apologetics. Is there something that has escaped my notice?

 

 

Well clearly you haven't been reading very carefully, Scott.  So instead of continuing to rumor-monger and bear false witness against your fellow saints, I'd suggest reading the recent article on Chiasmus by Carl Cranney.  It affirms a historical BoM and expands on Jack Welch's fantastic work.

 

So yes, you have missed something.

[The Nehor]

So don't eat it.

I like complaining that the restaurant changed the food and kicked out all the old chefs and lamenting the lost entrees of years ago.

[LifeOnaPlate]

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/periodical/jbms-23-2014/

At the time of the purge, it was expressed, as I recall, that the institute would still engage in apologetics in some respects. Yet I have seen little-to-nothing since that could realistically be regarded as apologetics. Is there something that has escaped my notice?

What have you read so far? I think there are definitely things that have escaped your notice. Last time we talked about this you said you wouldn't subscribe to the ten dollar digital pass so I presume you haven't read our books, either. I understand frugality, of course. You work for the press, though. You could contact me for review copies at any time. Consider our entire Living Faith series, which exemplifies proactive apologetics. We made a conscious decision to avoid allowing critics to dictate the contours of the conversation but rather to tackle pressing questions ourselves. Adam Miller's Letters to a Young Mormon approaches questions about scriptural inerrancy, Mormonism and grace versus works, defense of the law of chastity. Responses to typical criticisms are couched in wider narratives about being Latter-day Saints today. This is the case with Sam Brown's First Principles and Ordinances: The Fourth Article of Faith in Light of the Temple. Brown confronts new atheists, but does it in a wider conversation about Joseph Smith's theology: binding God's family together. It tells the story of a teenage atheist (Brown himself) converting to Christ and the restored gospel. Steve Peck's contribution, Evolving Faith: Wanderings of a Mormon Biologist is set to appear October 27. It directly confronts scientism (faulty reliance on the idea of scientific objectivity) but does it in a way that affirms the inspiration that can be gained from taking science seriously. I've personally seen friends leave the church due to claims about evolution being incompatible with our beliefs. Peck shows this need not happen, and lays groundwork for church members to take science and their faith more seriously than ever. This is the first supportive book on Mormonism and evolution that a church-related entity has published in years (perhaps ever). There are many young people in the church who need this approach as they enter higher education. Finally, there's Patrick Mason's forthcoming book which we are co-publishing with Deseret Book. It's called Planted: Belief and Belonging in an Age of Doubt. Terryl and Fiona Givens called the book "an entirely honest and entirely affirming treatment of the challenges facing LDS believers. Mason brings a historian’s training and sophistication together with a disciple’s compassion and sensitivity to bear on an urgent topic. The result is a provocative and inspiring framework for faith." Together with The Crucible of Doubt I believe it's one of the most important and candid books Deseret has ever published. It's a real watershed. You can see the rest of the book's many endorsements here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/book/planted/

That's just the Living Faith series so far. We have more titles in development. There are more books I could describe, but consider volume 23 of the Journal of BoM Studies. David Bokovoy's piece does a masterful job of accommodating contemporary biblical scholarship to the BoM, paving the way for similar studies in the future. Carl Cranney's piece uses statistical methods to argue for the presence of purposeful chiasmus in the BoM contra critics who dismiss that style as happenstance. Heather Hardy's piece argues that the book of Mormon provides a surprising answer to historical questions about Bible prophecies about Christ's return. This volume will become freely available to all when the next volume comes out on Tuesday. It has a very fascinating piece on the Title of Liberty in a Mesoamerican context, among other great pieces.

Speaking of the Book of Mormon, our most recent tile that was released last week is called Schooling the Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration. It was originally brought to the Institute's attention by Terryl Givens who wrote the book's foreword. The book is an extended argument that rather than writing it, Joseph was instructed by the Book of Mormon which he translated by God's gift and power. Here's what longtime FARMS contributor Stephen Ricks said about the book:

“Painstakingly researched and carefully written, Gerald Smith’s study demonstrates how profoundly—and paradoxically, since Joseph Smith only occasionally cited it—the Book of Mormon shaped early Latter-day Saint theology and practice, including baptism, the sacrament, the temple, and the concept of Zion. Warmly to be recommended.”

Here's Stephen Smoot's review, which enthusiastically recommends the book.

Cost-wise we are practically giving these materials away. Schooling costs 9.99 in ebook format, which is an amazing price. Even the full paperback version is priced low compared to similar titles and similar sized books. But perhaps you don't have as much time to read, or my descriptions are getting tedious. I host the Maxwell Institute Podcast, and in my opinion every episode serves the apologetic purpose of better familiarizing members with their own faith as well as the faith of other traditions. Episodes have covered issues such as biblical criticism and faithful reading of scripture, blacks and the priesthood/temple restriction, the nature of apologetics, religious tolerance, scriptures of other faith traditions, and more.

As I mentioned above, the Institute has several initiatives with various goals and audiences. Defending and commending the faith is only one of our multiple objectives. You might not personally find our particular efforts in that area as useful as you find other efforts away from the Institute. The Nehor suggested as much above in this thread. I understand that. I know we can't reach everyone. But we believe the people we do reach really matter. Just as FairMormon doesn't appeal to everyone, just as the Joseph Smith Papers Project doesn't appeal to everyone, or the church's new essay topics, or much of the old FARMS material doesn't inspire everyone, not all of what we do will satisfy everyone. I hope people can still recognize the good that is being done for others if not for them, and be grateful that the church has multiple outlets doing their best to help each other out when they need it.

I could say more but I'm typing this out on an iPad! Hence the typos and poor formatting. (cleaned some of it up.)

Regarding the Willes Center, perhaps you could spike or confirm a rumor I heard to the effect that soon after the launch of the institute's "new direction," there was a move to change the name to eliminate the words "Book of Mormon," but the Willes family wouldn't have it.

Consider it spiked. It's not true. I've heard the rumor. I believe I know who started the rumor. They are mistaken. This should be obvious from the fact that the Willes Center choose to change the name of the Journal of BoM and Other Restoration Scripture back to its original title, the Journal of BoM Studies. I was present when the Willes family visited the Institute after having heard that rumor. They left surprised at how wrong the rumor was and satisfied with what's happening at the Willes Center. As an aside, the 2015 Laura F. Willes Book of Mormon Lecture is coming up on October 6. The speaker is professor Kristin Matthews.

Which reminds me that the Institute is trying harder than ever to bring women's voices into the conversation. It will take more time to overcome the systemic issues which lead to the gender imbalance, but it's on the radar like it's never been before.

I hope this gives people a better sense of what we've been working on. It's easy to criticize. I hope you'll be more understanding and supportive of the Institute as we go forward. I know the circumstances seem more personal for you and you seem to scrutinize us more based on loyalty to a particular group of friends than by a fair analysis of what work we're actually producing. While writing this I was thinking of a quote from a movie I recently watched with my little daughter:

Not everything the Institute is doing is new. Much of what we do has continued largely unchanged over the last decade. But as we also try new things we love to see fellow Saints benefiting from them, and we love to see people (perhaps even you someday) defending many approaches to commending and defending the faith. Even our modest but strenuous and heart-felt attempts.

Edited September 10, 2015 by LifeOnaPlate

[juliann]

Tasted the new fruit and did not like it.

 

Oh, sheesh....I accidentally liked this with a touch screen and undisciplined fingers. Try another fruit Nehor. There is more than one variety to choose from.

Edited September 10, 2015 by juliann

[LifeOnaPlate]

You haven't been paying enough attention, then.  I wasn't among those ousted; nonetheless, I have (however feebly) pushed back. With the exception of the "feebleness" qualifier, the same can be said of many who frequent this Board.

 

Kenngo, I assure you there's been no desire to push you or anyone else back. We're just trying to do our jobs the best we can. I'd would be happy to send you a complimentary digital copy of Sam Brown's First Principles and Ordinances. Robert Millet endorsed it as follows:

 

"Hyrum Smith the Patriarch counseled the Saints to ponder and study, again and again, the First principles of the gospel. He assured us that as we do so, deeper insights and meaningful applications would follow. Samuel Brown’s excellent book confirms Hyrum’s charge. The combination of Brown’s discipline, depth, and devotion result in a study that is at once both intellectually stimulating and spiritually inspiring. One thing is for sure: After reading this work, a Latter-day Saint will never see the fourth article of faith in the same way."

 

 

Please send me an email at blairhodges[at]byu[dot]edu and I will respond with the book attached. 

 

The Nehor: I extend the same offer to you. Just send me an email and give the book a chance. All I ask is that you both post a few comments about the book, whether positive or negative, here on the board after you've read it. 

Edited September 10, 2015 by LifeOnaPlate

[Robert F. Smith]

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

.......................................... It should be clear by now that slash and burn apologetics did not work. Case in point: Tapirs = horses. This type of apologetics does more harm than good.   

I'm not sure what "slash and burn apologetics" are supposed to be (perhaps you could give us an example), but your false equation of "tapirs = horses" is an obvious fallacy in the form of a straw man or red herring.

 

An anthropologist naturally examines the actual documentation available about what various peoples have said in real life and presents it.  In this case, your complaint is displeasure and impatience with reality.  As Sorenson pointed out in his 1985 Ancient American Setting, 293, the Maya themselves looked at the horse, mule, and *** and called them "tapirs" in the Maya language.  The Conquistadores themselves, on the other hand, looked at the tapir and decided that it "looked like a pig, although it weighs up to 700 pounds."  If the reportage of scholars were so shallow as sunstoned claims, of course it would do "more harm than good."  However, instead of accurately reporting the nature and content of scholarly publications, he prefers to ridicule a fantasy version of what has been reported.

 

You need to stop being so angry at reality, sunstoned.  Live in the real world.

[Duncan]

Kenngo, I assure you there's been no desire to push you or anyone else back. We're just trying to do our jobs the best we can. I'd would be happy to send you a complimentary digital copy of Sam Brown's First Principles and Ordinances. Robert Millet endorsed it as follows:

 

 

Please send me an email at blairhodges[at]byu[dot]edu and I will respond with the book attached. 

 

The Nehor: I extend the same offer to you. Just send me an email and give the book a chance. All I ask is that you both post a few comments about the book, whether positive or negative, here on the board after you've read it. 

 

i'll do that!!! hint hint, wink wink nudge nudge

[Bernard Gui]

Please explain the manner in which the changes were made.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Bernard--Was that directed to me? Not sure I follow.

Duncan--first you must say how terrible the Institute is!

[Duncan]

Bernard--Was that directed to me? Not sure I follow.

Duncan--first you must say how terrible the Institute is!

 

oh, terrible, terrible, terrible! bad food, water is poisoned, and once I saw a teacher smoke behind the woodshed and it was a menthol

[Anakin7]

     Just an observation, though the new House is doing well when I enter it it is like someone moved the furniture [ A nibley quote from what I remember ] and I left confused/brokenhearted/sad, like someone took my friends to another house blocks away from the city. It makes me feel empty in comparison to the feeling of fullness in the original House. Just my opinion. The colors are terrible and depressing, need more uplifting colors.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

Edited September 10, 2015 by Anakin7

[readstoomuch]

Blair, I think you do a good job at promoting MI. It doesn't have the same feel that it did before Dan left, though. Those of us who followed and loved Dan had a hard time watching him "slashed and burned" if you want to put it that way. I can see where the old guard calling a spade a spade didn't go over so well in the academic world. I understand where interacting with the academic world will help BYU and can have positive effects on the Church.

Blair brought up David Bokovoy and his writings. Also Adam Miller and Samuel Brown. They are all faithful, but liberal. The old guard likes them, but struggles with their writings. I love David and everything I have read. In his Old Testament writings he deals with the BoA and BoM as pseudopigrapha. I like pondering some of those angles, but it does challenge some of my old thoughts about those books. With the BoA it is about the only thing that has settled my mind on its origins. When one of the elders in my quorum left the Church he brought up the BoA over and over again. I run across that with the twenty something's who doubt. The new MI and people like David can help start that conversation, but it is not exactly the way the old FARMS would have forwarded their ideas. The last ten books I have purchased have been from the individuals that Blair mentioned.

So, I like MI. It feels different and I am still getting used to it. I wish/hope that Dan could be dealt with more generously. Until Dan is explained or addressed differently, all of the old fans are going to have a burr under their saddle blanket. All of this of course is IMO, but Iam readstoomuch.

[Bob Crockett]

So, I like MI. It feels different and I am still getting used to it. I wish/hope that Dan could be dealt with more generously. 

 

And the basis of this is what?   You're willing to form judgments without hearing BYU's side of things?   Besides the fact that BYU really cannot comment upon personnel issues, I think it has been a class act in maintaining silence.

[The Nehor]

You're willing to form judgments without hearing BYU's side of things?

Yes, mostly because I trust Dan. I do not know Bradford. I realize why BYU does not and probably should not comment. They are going to have to live with me thinking it is a sleazy thing to do and never donating to them again. I am under no delusion that they are losing any sleep over that.

[Bob Crockett]

Yes, mostly because I trust Dan. I do not know Bradford. I realize why BYU does not and probably should not comment. They are going to have to live with me thinking it is a sleazy thing to do and never donating to them again. I am under no delusion that they are losing any sleep over that.

 

Everything I've heard of Bradford is that he is a wonderful educator and a person and a great Latter-day Saint.  He isn't sleazy.  He hasn't called people a Butthead to his subordinates.  He doesn't publish pieces that are not only critical of a body of work but also are critical of the of the person.   He is a careful person.   Your only basis for a character attack on Bradford are what you have been told by Dr. Peterson and I presume the author of the Butthead piece.

 

I think the world of Dr. Peterson, but he's a bigger-than-life personality, and as such he's going to go out on limbs, be a public lightning rod, take offense, give offense and talk to many, and too much to, critics.  Hugh Nibley had some of those qualities, but Dr. Nibley was also an iconoclast -- not the type to make Zions Bank directors his biggest fans.   Dr. Peterson should not have made public the details of his exit, but Dr. Peterson being quiet about slights isn't likely to be seen.  

Edited September 10, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[phaedrus ut]

I think the critics miss the old style FARMS apologetics just as much as Dan and Bill. 

[The Nehor]

Everything I've heard of Bradford is that he is a wonderful educator and a person and a great Latter-day Saint.  He isn't sleazy.  He hasn't called people a Butthead to his subordinates.  He doesn't publish pieces that are not only critical of a body of work but also are critical of the of the person.   He is a careful person.   Your only basis for a character attack on Bradford are what you have been told by Dr. Peterson and I presume the author of the Butthead piece.

 

I think the world of Dr. Peterson, but he's a bigger-than-life personality, and as such he's going to go out on limbs, be a public lightning rod, take offense, give offense and talk to many, and too much to, critics.  Hugh Nibley had some of those qualities, but Dr. Nibley was also an iconoclast -- not the type to make Zions Bank directors his biggest fans.   Dr. Peterson should not have made public the details of his exit, but Dr. Peterson being quiet about slights isn't likely to be seen.

I thought the butthead thing was hilarious and would even if it had been aimed at me. I did not say Bradford was a sleaze just that in this one instance his actions were sleazy.