A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If a business was effectively taken over and all the founders ousted or exited on their own accord, then they have no one to blame but themselves, it seems.  They had control at one point - then they made themselves too vulnerable and lost it. It may have been dirty, it may have felt like betrayal, but business owners/founders need to have the wisdom and foresight to protect against such take-overs. 

Businesses, maybe. But BYU, Priesthood, the defense of the gospel...no. One would expect more.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Could just be spin to save face and walk back disclosures made in the heat of the moment by someone who is obviously still harboring a lot of frustration over events 6+ years ago.  I think we shouldn't dismiss this possibility.  

I went back to review what was said, because I was willing to let it die as some mistake by Midgley.  But...

Midgley says:

Quote

"[W]hat President Samuelson did not know is that one of the Brethren--Elder Packer, for any who are interested, urged us to have Gregory Smith write that essay. And I have it reviewed by several of the Brethren by sending a copy to Elder Bruce Porter, who had constant contact with the Apostles. He was in charge of all the Apostolic committees, including the Area Committee. And I also sent a copy to the secretary to the Strengthening the Church Members Committee so that the Seventies who constitute that committee comment on it."

Midgley is front and center in this whole thing.  He was one, among others, who was told by Elder Packer to have not just someone look into it, but names Greg Smith himself to write the essay.  He, Midgley himself, had it reviewed by several of the brethren including those on the SCMC.  That is quite the detail he is aware of.  

Greg responds (he's playfully speaking in the 3rd person for anyone who hasn't seen it):

Quote

No one(*) asked Dr Smith to write the essay reviewing two Mormon Stories podcasts, and contrasting them with the public off-air antics and dissembling of their host.

No one knew Dr Smith was writing the essay until he sent a fairly-advanced draft to the Review editors (Peterson, Midgley, and Mitton). What they did with it thereafter, Dr. Smith does not know, aside from confirm that his reasoning was solid and he should polish it. Peterson had not read it prior to John Dehlin making a fuss--he usually read things at an advanced stage after source checking and copy editing.

No one besides them at the Maxwell Institute had read the essay prior to it being leaked and halted from publication by the Maxwell institute (including those who leaked and blocked its publication.)

No one could ever tell Dr Smith what was wrong with it. He put it aside and immediately wrote another essay for publication. This is significant only because it illustrates one of many instances of Gerald Bradford's claims at the time being economical with the facts.

This was all set out ages ago in a contemporaneous document:

https://www.mormoninterpret...

To stir Dr. Smith out of his slumber and get him to review something, he has to read or hear something that is so eggregious, so absurd, or so
terribly reasoned that he cannot help himself. Fortunately, this does not happen very often. In this case, however, Dr. Smith encountered what the military sometimes call "a target rich environment."

At any rate, no one ever informed Dr. Smith that his services had been requested regarding the Mormon Stories podcast. He can get himself into trouble all on his own. He was rather hoping not have to tell this story yet again.

He says no one asked him to write it.  Midgley was initially certain that Packer asked Midgley, Peterson et al to ask Greg to write it.  Midgley's story would make more sense to me, if the idea was shared with Packer and Packer said, yeah, do it, go ahead.  But neither really go that route.  I suppose it's possible a draft was already written before the Packer angle got involved.  That is, Greg wrote a quick draft, notified Midgley, et al, and sought their feedback. Midgley et al mentioned it to Packer who approved asking them to proceed with it.  Dr. Smith, in this scenario might not have even known that Packer was talked to.  

Midgley responds:  

Quote

I am pleased that Greg has corrected a number of mistakes I made in how all that happened. I hope he will understand how I managed to muddle together some things.

What's odd about this to me is, Dr. Smith seems to deny any of the details Midgley mentions, as if the story Midgley had in mind involved completely different people at a different time on a different topic/project.  But Midgley, seems to suggest he still had some of it right, but managed to "muddle together some things".  

Dr. Smith responds again:

Quote

No one approved it....

Which seems odd again.  Approved it?  Who was talking about approving it?  Midgley claims it was initiated by Packer.  Smith claims it was initiated by himself.  The approving it related to whether it was going to be published.  

 

Fewf! is all I can say.  That just doesn't feel to be cleared up at all.

oh Link

[Calm]

Quote

 He, Midgley himself, had it reviewed by several of the brethren including those on the SCMC.  That is quite the detail he is aware of.  

This happened after the firing, not before.

Quote

Midgley was initially certain that Packer asked Midgley, Peterson et al to ask Greg to write it.

This is something Lou has never said before that I have seen (and he has shared extensive details of his discussions with others), so I suspect it is a long after conclusion based on something else.

Again Dan and Greg have been consistent in how they have described things from the beginning.  Lou has not.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

Seriously? He said he was mistaken. What is there to explain beyond that? It's time to give it a rest.

Of course, nothing to see .... Dr. Midgley probably loves making up detailed rumors and Mr. Smith loves making denials in the third person.

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if you were asked by the prophet to join BYU, you would have refused or insisted on a contract detailing how complete control for all decisions remained in your hands? (Can't remember where I heard it, so don't treat it as fact, but I believe previous overtures direct from the university had been turned down).

When the cause for creating FARMS was in part to help further the work of the Church and not just about personal satisfaction, I can understand why the Church's request was not refused.

I don't think it would have been seen as an unreasonable request to ask for some protections before merging. I personally would have insisted on a contract that I retain some control, if that was my baby.  Especially knowing that the prophet and apostles would not be directly overseeing and managing internal affairs.  But that is just me.  I have enough business experience to know how quickly things can turn out of your favor, even when dealing with well meaning people.   I have learned to always require everything in writing, and that I am my own best advocate.  Nobody can take care of my own baby like I can. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Could just be spin to save face and walk back disclosures made in the heat of the moment by someone who is obviously still harboring a lot of frustration over events 6+ years ago.  I think we shouldn't dismiss this possibility.  

Good grief!

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which may be one of the reasons he made the assumptions he made...because he had seen some other things work that way in the past and he improperly extrapolated they had happened again.

Again you are requiring us to believe Dan and Greg have consistently lied about things they were directly involved (for what purpose?) in where Lou was only reporting what he believed he had been told.  And Lou has admitted he was wrong.

I don't think Lou would have done that unless he believed he was wrong.

Its a possibility, as I mentioned, I wouldn't rule it out.  However, the fact that Midgley provided very specific detail of events is curious.  Its hard to imagine someone just "misremembering"  that kind of detail.  

Sometimes thing get leaked to the public and later walked backwards, we see this all the time across all types of institutions.  I think it prudent to consider that this may have been what happened in this instance as well.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Could just be spin to save face and walk back disclosures made in the heat of the moment by someone who is obviously still harboring a lot of frustration over events 6+ years ago.  I think we shouldn't dismiss this possibility.  

Good grief!

If Midgley did disclose events that other insiders don't want disclosed, I can only imagine how frustrating that must have been to his friends and others who seek to keep these kind of things quiet.  

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Of course, nothing to see .... Dr. Midgley probably loves making up detailed rumors and Mr. Smith loves making denials in the third person.

Greg is good at explaining things, including what he is involved in.  I suspect this time around the third person bit was in response to what was being assumed and at how certain places were responding.

Lou loves telling of his personal experiences and he pulls in tons of details, often including others' experiences to provide background and context (he is famous for his stories about New Zealand).  He got some details wrong this time.  He has before.  He would be a very unique human being if he didn't.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a possibility, as I mentioned, I wouldn't rule it out.  However, the fact that Midgley provided very specific detail of events is curious.  Its hard to imagine someone just "misremembering"  that kind of detail.  

Sometimes thing get leaked to the public and later walked backwards, we see this all the time across all types of institutions.  I think it prudent to consider that this may have been what happened in this instance as well.  

I know the people involved and have been hearing descriptions from the three of them since it happened (sometimes quite extensive).  I can consult most of these (don't delete my emails).  Juliann has as well, even in more detail than me (she is a founding member of FM and was on the board till recently with Dan) too.  Neither of us have a problem with imagining it as has been made clear.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't think it would have been seen as an unreasonable request to ask for some protections before merging. 

Probably not.  But my understanding is assurances were made by Pres. Hinckley and others.  Asking for a written contract to enforce such seems tacky upfront, wise in hindsight...not that some didn't anticipate problems and express concerns at the time.

Also this wasn't the only thing Dan and many others were doing with BYU.  Fighting for control if the President of the University had okayed the transfer of it would put their primary jobs as professors at risk even if a contract had been in place.

My understanding is even before joining BYU there was some tension between FARMS and some faculty departments.  Research published there wasn't counted towards academic requirements.  Insisting on a contract where such would not exist for other departments could have dramatically increased tensions (pure speculation based on how I have watched other universities my husband has worked at operate).

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Greg is good at explaining things, including what he is involved in.  I suspect this time around the third person bit was in response to being assumed at how certain places were responding.

Lou loves telling of his personal experiences and he pulls in tons of details, often including others' experiences to provide background and context (he is famous for his stories about New Zealand).  He got some details wrong this time.  He has before.  He would be a very unique human being if he didn't.

Dr. Midgley is a smart human being too. It seems likely he wasn't just getting some minor details wrong when he was so explicit in invoking G.A. authority to bolster his claims and bolster his desire to punish those who are less than in his p.o.v. So, one must conclude that Dr. Midgley was deliberately lying or misleading us in his zeal to stick it to the MI and Mr. Hodges?

In a different vein, why wouldn't leaders of an organization take ownership of defending said organization? It seems that if one believes in an organization and is its leader, that person would be passionate in defending it and wouldn't worry about others finding out about said passionate response to those determined to lead the flock away. It seems like it would be expected.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably not.  But my understanding is assurances were made by Pres. Hinckley and others.  Asking for a written contract to enforce such seems tacky upfront, wise in hindsight...not that some didn't anticipate problems and express concerns at the time.

Also this wasn't the only thing Dan and many others were doing with BYU.  Fighting for control if the President of the University had okayed the transfer of it would put their primary jobs as professors at risk even if a contract had been in place.

My understanding is even before joining BYU there was some tension between FARMS and some falculty departments.  Research published there wasn't counted towards academic requirements.  Insisting on a contract where such would not exist for other departments could have dramatically increased tensions (pure speculation based on how I have watched other universities my husband has worked at operate).

Thanks for helping me out with your understanding of the history and some of the internal affairs. 

I truly wish the best for both organizations and hope to see a more amiable and allied effort in the future, as it has aptly been noted that we are all laborers in the vineyard together. 

[Anijen]

On 1/1/2019 at 3:24 PM, Calm said:

I don't think you understood my point.  He is the MI spokesperson.  Just as a Church spokesperson is not expected to speak critically of the Church, other organizations' spokespeople rarely criticize who they work for.  Therefore it is unrealistic to expect Blair to speak critically of MI in his postings, especially since many/most are likely done as part of his job.

Calm, You are correct. I did not understand your point and after reading I had replied out of context in which your post intended.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

 So, one must conclude that Dr. Midgley was deliberately lying or misleading us in his zeal to stick it to the MI and Mr. Hodges?

.

Not really.  I can imagine, for example, someone 6 years or so ago saying "Elder Packer would love this" (perhaps also said something about showing it to others) and Lou interpreting it then as  telling him Elder Packer had approved it and then expanding it or confusing the timing to prior to the firing.

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Calm, You are correct. I did not understand your point and after reading I had replied out of context in which your post intended.

Thanks for clearing that up.  I like to know people are understanding me and I understand them.  Not always easy to determine from their posts.

[Anijen]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This link doesn't go anywhere. 

What are you getting at with it?

 

Sorry, I cannot seem to post from my laptop. I kept getting an error that said submit other material, where I only wanted to write. I am now at a computer with no hiccups. What you questioned was on a reply to calm and because I could not write a reply, I used Microsoft Word wrote my reply to her and I titled the document Calm MDDB on my desk top...

[RevTestament]

On 12/30/2018 at 4:51 PM, mfbukowski said:

Oh the quaint tale that "objectivity" exists rises like the pale moon, silent and colorless, yet again. 

I agree. HFT seems to operate under the delusion that scholarly peer review means that the product is objective and true. While it seeks to promote a degree of objectivity, scholars certainly have their biases. Expecting the Maxwell Institute not to have a faith-promoting bias  or at least overarching goal is naive. Really, what he means is that he doesn't like that KIND of bias. Scholars tend to start with their own biases - such as any interpretation which recognizes real prophecy or supernatural things should be discounted. There just is no getting rid of bias, but I might agree with HFT that there are certainly degrees of bias.

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not really.  I can imagine, for example, someone 6 years or so ago saying "Elder Packer would love this" (perhaps also said something about showing it to others) and Lou interpreting it then as  telling him Elder Packer had approved it and then expanding it or confusing the timing to prior to the firing.

 

So, this is how distance is achieved? Someone must have told him, even though he intimated personal knowledge as in personal conversations with Packer re Dehlin .....

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Exiled said:

why wouldn't leaders of an organization take ownership of defending said organization? It seems that if one believes in an organization and is its leader, that person would be passionate in defending it and wouldn't worry about others finding out about said passionate response to those determined to lead the flock away. It seems like it would be expected

There are different ways to defend the Church.  I suspect leadership feel it is their calling to do it in some ways, others it is beneficial for the lay members to participate and even lead.  If everything is only done by direction of SL, I can see massive amounts of volunteering would slow down.

Quote

 wouldn't worry about others finding out about said passionate response to those determined to lead the flock away

. This seems to assume there was hidden direction when that is what is being challenged.  You can't worry about someone finding out about secret responses if the responses never occurred in the first place.

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, this is how distance is achieved? Someone must have told him, even though he intimated personal knowledge as in personal conversations with Packer re Dehlin .....

Please quote where he stated he has a personal  conversation with Elder Packer about Dehlin and Elder Packer stated he asked Greg to write an article.  I don't remember reading his comments that way, but that may be because previous information from Lou never referred to Elder Packer as the one he was having a conversation with.

Someone can be brilliant, but still swayed into thinking incorrectly by bias or wishful thinking.  

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If Midgley did disclose events that other insiders don't want disclosed, I can only imagine how frustrating that must have been to his friends and others who seek to keep these kind of things quiet.  

I know I am frustrated by him being mistaken.  I lost track of time between this and the temple thread and missed my Physical Therapy appt.

Got to go, I don't think repeating myself again is going to convince anyone who prefers the conspiracy theory to Lou just being mistaken in how he put numerous pieces together, so hopefully I will be able to resist saying more of the same....unless something new comes up.  I reserve the right to respond to new stuff without guilt over lack of self control.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I know the people involved and have been hearing descriptions from the three of them since it happened (sometimes quite extensive).  I can consult most of these (don't delete my emails).  Juliann has as well, even in more detail than me (she is a founding member of FM and was on the board till recently with Dan) too.  Neither of us have a problem with imagining it as has been made clear.

I don’t doubt that everyone was aligned on what should be shared with the public up until the Midgley went off the rails.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I know I am frustrated by him being mistaken.  I lost track of time between this and the temple thread and missed my Physical Therapy appt.

Got to go, I don't think repeating myself again is going to convince anyone who prefers the conspiracy theory to Lou just being mistaken in how he put numerous pieces together, so hopefully I will be able to resist saying more of the same....unless something new comes up.  I reserve the right to respond to new stuff without guilt over lack of self control.

Sorry to hear you missed an appointment.  No worries, I think your point is clear.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I agree. HFT seems to operate under the delusion that scholarly peer review means that the product is objective and true. While it seeks to promote a degree of objectivity, scholars certainly have their biases. Expecting the Maxwell Institute not to have a faith-promoting bias  or at least overarching goal is naive. Really, what he means is that he doesn't like that KIND of bias. Scholars tend to start with their own biases - such as any interpretation which recognizes real prophecy or supernatural things should be discounted. There just is no getting rid of bias, but I might agree with HFT that there are certainly degrees of bias.

The only thing you got right about my position is the last sentence, that there are degrees of bias.  

I merely reject the idea that all parties are equally biased.  When people irresponsibly throw the idea out that scholarship can’t be trusted because they are biased as a defense for poorly argued and unfounded supernatural thinking or apologetics, then I  bristle at their inability to critically evaluate evidence.