jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I think the critics miss the old style FARMS apologetics just as much as Dan and Bill. Can't they just go to Mormon Interpreter?
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 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. I think he should have done the firing in person, but I don't know that "sleazy" is appropriate for what happened. I don't think any of us really knows what happened or the reasons why things went the way they did. For all we know, there could be an innocent explanation. 2
The Nehor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I think he should have done the firing in person, but I don't know that "sleazy" is appropriate for what happened. I don't think any of us really knows what happened or the reasons why things went the way they did. For all we know, there could be an innocent explanation.An angel with a flaming sword showing up and telling Bradford or his bosses that they must expel the old guard immediately or be killed? 3
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 An angel with a flaming sword showing up and telling Bradford or his bosses that they must expel the old guard immediately or be killed? I'm just saying it's hard to make a judgment when you only have one side of the story, particularly when emotions are so high. It is entirely possible for one party to a dispute to feel totally in the right and yet to be mistaken. There aren't that many situations in life that are completely one-sided, and I don't know enough to say one way or the other who is at fault or if there's plenty of fault to go around. I don't think you or I will ever have enough information to make a reasonable judgment because Bradford is clearly never going to give his side of the story. 1
The Nehor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I'm just saying it's hard to make a judgment when you only have one side of the story, particularly when emotions are so high. It is entirely possible for one party to a dispute to feel totally in the right and yet to be mistaken. There aren't that many situations in life that are completely one-sided, and I don't know enough to say one way or the other who is at fault or if there's plenty of fault to go around. I don't think you or I will ever have enough information to make a reasonable judgment because Bradford is clearly never going to give his side of the story.Don't know about you but I plan to become a god and become omniscient. I figure at that point I will be able to make a reasonable judgement. 1
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Don't know about you but I plan to become a god and become omniscient. I figure at that point I will be able to make a reasonable judgement. Well, unless you're not telling me something, you're not there yet.
The Nehor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Well, unless you're not telling me something, you're not there yet.Give me a day or two.
CA Steve Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 I'm just saying it's hard to make a judgment when you only have one side of the story, particularly when emotions are so high. It is entirely possible for one party to a dispute to feel totally in the right and yet to be mistaken. There aren't that many situations in life that are completely one-sided, and I don't know enough to say one way or the other who is at fault or if there's plenty of fault to go around. I don't think you or I will ever have enough information to make a reasonable judgment because Bradford is clearly never going to give his side of the story.Well as long as Bradford remains silent we can base our current beliefs on the situation on the hope that his side of the story would actually vindicate what we now are certain of, correct? I call that my "Missing Story Theory".
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Well as long as Bradford remains silent we can base our current beliefs on the situation on the hope that his side of the story would actually vindicate what we now are certain of, correct? I call that my "Missing Story Theory". I have no idea what happened, so I am not certain of anything. I just don't feel comfortable making conclusions based on one side of the story. For all I know, Bradford could be practically perfect in every way or evil incarnate. I'm sure Dan and Bill have accurately portrayed what they believe happened and why, but I know from my own experience that I can be absolutely certain about a sequence of events and yet be totally wrong (ask Russell McGregor about that).
phaedrus ut Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Can't they just go to Mormon Interpreter? They can but now they are responding to the private efforts of apologists rather than quasi official publications coming from a church owned entity. Phaedrus
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 They can but now they are responding to the private efforts of apologists rather than quasi official publications coming from a church owned entity. Phaedrus Understood. Having the university's name behind their efforts meant a lot.
readstoomuch Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 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.I hear good things about Bradford also. I don`t know who is right or wrong. Maybe some of both sides. Maybe none on both sides. What I do know and sense from many sources is that the people who supported the old FARMS are not over the top happy with the new MI. Part of that IMO, has to do with the sense that Dan was not treated well. The new MI may and probably is building their new audience from a different batch of people. As I have said or tried to say, I like and need the new MI and Mormon Interpreter. 1
cinepro Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I think he should have done the firing in person, but I don't know that "sleazy" is appropriate for what happened. I don't think any of us really knows what happened or the reasons why things went the way they did. For all we know, there could be an innocent explanation. Ideally, it would have gone down like this. (Warning: A little language). With a cute-as-a-button Hamblin following out the door. Edited September 10, 2015 by cinepro
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) 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....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.Dr. Peterson was not the one who leaked the email that fired him to the internet even before Dan had seen it himself, iirc.There were three other persons also fired at the time through email. It is not just Dr. Peterson's comments. Edited September 10, 2015 by Calm 1
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Dr. Peterson was not the one who leaked the email that fired to the internet even before Dan had seen it himself, iirc.There were three other persons also fired at the time through email. It is not just Dr. Peterson's comments. Firing someone by email is, IMO, tacky and unprofessional, but I don't know why it was done that way. Do you? If it had been me, I would have made every effort to do it face to face, but is it necessary to believe that the manner of dismissal indicates bad character or intent on Dr. Bradford's part? I'm pretty sure there's a long history between the two sides, and we are never going to get the full story.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 They can but now they are responding to the private efforts of apologists rather than quasi official publications coming from a church owned entity. PhaedrusBearing in mind, of course, that FARMS was originally a private, independent entity run by a Board of Directors composed of scholars focused on the ancient world. That Board deliberated and voted. I saw it in full operation and participated. University departments and colleges are run by deans who take input when and how they wish, or not -- unless it is orders from above. Once FARMS was absorbed by BYU, the die was cast. 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted September 10, 2015 Popular Post Posted September 10, 2015 Firing someone by email is, IMO, tacky and unprofessional, but I don't know why it was done that way. Do you? If it had been me, I would have made every effort to do it face to face, but is it necessary to believe that the manner of dismissal indicates bad character or intent on Dr. Bradford's part? I'm pretty sure there's a long history between the two sides, and we are never going to get the full story. A one-time occurrence, with all of those being fired out of the country, perhaps. But the same thing was done at another time, to a key employee who was in England at the time. Another purge took place much earlier in a very underhanded way. I knew all of the parties involved, John, including Jerry Bradford (whom I have known since we were members of the same ward in San Francisco in 1964), and my own judgment is that one cannot justify firing people in that fashion. It must always be done face-to-face, and it should have been done in that way in these instances. None of the people involved have violent tendencies. All are very civilized and nice folks (although Jerry did once lose his temper and yell at me). It should be obvious to all of us why it was done in this fashion . . . 6
readstoomuch Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Bearing in mind, of course, that FARMS was originally a private, independent entity run by a Board of Directors composed of scholars focused on the ancient world. That Board deliberated and voted. I saw it in full operation and participated. University departments and colleges are run by deans who take input when and how they wish, or not -- unless it is orders from above. Once FARMS was absorbed by BYU, the die was cast.I see what your saying and those of us who cut our teeth on FARMS and early FAIR don`t all find the taste of the new MI to our liking yet. Personally, I have been enjoying MI and will continue to support them. I also read Mormon Interpreter.
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 A one-time occurrence, with all of those being fired out of the country, perhaps. But the same thing was done at another time, to a key employee who was in England at the time. Another purge took place much earlier in a very underhanded way. I knew all of the parties involved, John, including Jerry Bradford (whom I have known since we were members of the same ward in San Francisco in 1964), and my own judgment is that one cannot justify firing people in that fashion. It must always be done face-to-face, and it should have been done in that way in these instances. None of the people involved have violent tendencies. All are very civilized and nice folks (although Jerry did once lose his temper and yell at me). It should be obvious to all of us why it was done in this fashion . . . I agree with you that it was the wrong way to do it. My point is that I don't know all the parties involved and don't know the history, so any judgment on my part is based on half the story and none of the history. You know these folks, so you are obviously in a better place to judge whether Bradford had bad motivations or evil intent.
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 A one-time occurrence, with all of those being fired out of the country, perhaps. But the same thing was done at another time, to a key employee who was in England at the time. Another purge took place much earlier in a very underhanded way. I knew all of the parties involved, John, including Jerry Bradford (whom I have known since we were members of the same ward in San Francisco in 1964), and my own judgment is that one cannot justify firing people in that fashion. It must always be done face-to-face, and it should have been done in that way in these instances. None of the people involved have violent tendencies. All are very civilized and nice folks (although Jerry did once lose his temper and yell at me). It should be obvious to all of us why it was done in this fashion . . .And ignoring any requests to explain or talk to the former employees even to say perhaps 'lawyers have instructed me to not engage in a conversation' is very questionable in my view. Making a mistake is understandable. Refusing to do anything about it ever is something beyond just making a mistake imo. 4
hope_for_things Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 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. Blair, I just wanted to thank you for all the work you do with the Maxwell Institute. I love your podcasts, I also appreciate the Adam Millers and Sam Browns of the world, and thanks to your summary of other things being worked on I'm intrigued to learn more about those projects. The current direction of the MI is one that has helped me immensely. It gives me hope that I can continue to navigate my faith transition in positive ways and not be untrue to my intellectual criticisms and questions. The old guard like the Hamblin’s of the world, do not speak to me and I often find myself more frustrated with them than with many exmormon critics. I have to say that I’m a fan of the new directions that MI is headed. Thanks!
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 And ignoring any requests to explain or talk to the former employees even to say perhaps 'lawyers have instructed me to not engage in a conversation' is very questionable in my view. Making a mistake is understandable. Refusing to do anything about it ever is something beyond just making a mistake imo. Depends on the history between the parties. I used to work with someone who had a long history of causing problems for my team and my department. My boss ended up putting in writing that this person was no longer to communicate with her directly, whether face to face or through email or phone. As I recall, the only explanation given was that the company's legal counsel advised her to take that step.
Calm Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Depends on the history between the parties. I used to work with someone who had a long history of causing problems for my team and my department. My boss ended up putting in writing that this person was no longer to communicate with her directly, whether face to face or through email or phone. As I recall, the only explanation given was that the company's legal counsel advised her to take that step.That could explain one person, but three?
The Nehor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Firing someone by email is, IMO, tacky and unprofessional, but I don't know why it was done that way. Do you? If it had been me, I would have made every effort to do it face to face, but is it necessary to believe that the manner of dismissal indicates bad character or intent on Dr. Bradford's part? I'm pretty sure there's a long history between the two sides, and we are never going to get the full story.One could even say it was a butthead move. 2
canard78 Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Tsk, tsk. Grammar please. I think you meant to say "The Book of Mormon IS false" not "are false."I must say though, even from the new MI, that's quite the change in direction.
Recommended Posts