A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

You love conspiracies, don't you.

I believe  everything that I have read Dan saying privately he has shared publicly in the past.  Not sure about Greg, but I vaguely remember him sharing the story of how the paper came to be in one of the papers he wrote about it.  I feel mildly gypped at times that there isn't more eye opening gossip going around behind the scenes.  We are a pretty tame group from what I have seen.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

A little self-reflection? 😎

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

. 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.

 

The leadership seem to want to distance themselves from actually defending the church. They don't want to put themselves out there. We don't see them in the debates other Christians do. There is always a desire to use surrogates.

But of course if it never happens, then no one is to blame.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

A little self-reflection? 😎

I definitely know my view is biased at times by wishful thinking.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The leadership seem to want to distance themselves from actually defending the church. They don't want to put themselves out there. We don't see them in the debates other Christians do. There is always a desire to use surrogates.

But of course if it never happens, then no one is to blame.

Yes, those debates are so effective in converting people to a discipleship of Christ.  FairMormon these days instructs any of its members who want to do these debates they cannot do so under the name of FM because of the counterproductive nature of these debates.   Learned from experience there.

We [church we, not FM we] don't have much of the type of theology that exists for the more interesting to me type of the debates.  Nor do our leadership get the kind of academic training in theology that is typical of pastors and priests.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

You love conspiracies, don't you.

I believe  everything that I have read Dan saying privately he has shared publicly in the past.  Not sure about Greg, but I vaguely remember him sharing the story of how the paper came to be in one of the papers he wrote about it.  I feel mildly gypped at times that there isn't more eye opening gossip going around behind the scenes.  We are a pretty tame group from what I have seen.

I’m not a conspiracy guy at all.  I don’t think people putting a self interested spin on a firing is a conspiracy.  I also don’t know whether Midgley was telling the truth or not, I’m only saying that his disclosures shouldn’t be completely dismissed because they contradict the crafted narrative by parties interested in showing a certain image.  

This seems like common sense to me, but I understand as someone involved with FAIR that you also have an interest in projecting a positive image for these same parties.  I get it.  

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.  

Here is what Dr. Midgley said:

Quote

BYU President and the Academic and Associate Academic Vice President were involved in giving Professor Peterson the boot. His eventual firing by email yet when he was on university business in Jerusalem, was Jerry Bradford's decision that he told me did not sit well with the BYU Administration. It also came as a shock to the Brethren.

But the really bizarre attempt to get Professor Peterson to resign was known to at least President Samuelson. How do I know this? I had the memo that President Samuelson wrote in which he ordered Professor Peterson not to publish Gregory Smith essay detailing the apostasy of John Dehlin my hand long enough to scribble down its contents.

Samuelson indicated that he did not agree with, support or approve of anything that Dehlin believes or says, but he believed that the Brethren wanted to deal with Dehlin in their own time and way. And that Professor Peterson could not publish that very long and detailed essay. Instead of resigning, Dan said that we would not publish it.

But what 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. So President Samuelson flatly wrong about what the Brethren wanted done about Dehlin. The fact is that they wanted us to expose Dehlin's demonic mischief.

What seems to have led to Samuelson knowing about Greg Smith's essay detailing Dehlin mischief, was that Morgan Davis, still and employee of the Maxwell Institute either by accident or intentionally informed a disciple of Dehlin about Greg Smith's essay and Dehlin made a huge fuss about what he called a "hit piece" we were about to publish.

But Samuelson, Bradford, Morgan Davis, Brent Webb, or John Dehlin had read a word of Greg Smith essay. Quite a few of the Apostles and Seventy had read it and made comments about it, and fully approved of our publishing that essay.

Please remember Elder Maxwell's famous statement that Elder Holland quoted--"No more slam dunks." The Brethren have wanted and expected qualified Latter-day Saint scholars to defend the faith, including people like Denver Snuffer, as well as John Dehlin. Some of our most serious problem have always come from those on the fringes of the community of Saints. And the[y] often prefer that we deal with them rather than have to try to do so themselves....

Seems like he had personal knowledge that E. Packer gave some marching orders.  Of course this could be from something written, obviously destroyed after reading.  However, E. Packer was probably careful to not leave a paper trail and so the message was probably verbally done.

Anyway, it seems in character for E. Packer to want to combat a so called "intellectual" who was arguably acting as a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Why not "expose" the wolf to protect the flock?  Or do you think E. Packer was content to sit on the sidelines while Mr. Dehlin carefully led the flock down a wrong road?  Also, surrogates were involved, so E. Packer had plausible deniability.  It just makes sense that this happened as Dr. Midgley stated prior to being reminded of how the brethren want to remain anonymous in these matters.

[juliann]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not a conspiracy guy at all.  I don’t think people putting a self interested spin on a firing is a conspiracy.  I also don’t know whether Midgley was telling the truth or not, I’m only saying that his disclosures shouldn’t be completely dismissed because they contradict the crafted narrative by parties interested in showing a certain image.  

This seems like common sense to me, but I understand as someone involved with FAIR that you also have an interest in projecting a positive image for these same parties.  I get it.  

Yes, you are the only unbiased person at hand. That gives you and only you the task of dismissing multiple statements of people who were there. Everyone else has an interest in projecting after all. Believe what you want unbiased one. But you are beginning to add insults and it's not a good look for a perfected and objective mind. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by juliann

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Here is what Dr. Midgley said:

Seems like he had personal knowledge that E. Packer gave some marching orders.  Of course this could be from something written, obviously destroyed after reading.  However, E. Packer was probably careful to not leave a paper trail and so the message was probably verbally done.

Anyway, it seems in character for E. Packer to want to combat a so called "intellectual" who was arguably acting as a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Why not "expose" the wolf to protect the flock?  Or do you think E. Packer was content to sit on the sidelines while Mr. Dehlin carefully led the flock down a wrong road?  Also, surrogates were involved, so E. Packer had plausible deniability.  It just makes sense that this happened as Dr. Midgley stated prior to being reminded of how the brethren want to remain anonymous in these matters.

And was that before or after he met with the illuminati? It only makes sense, after all. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes, you are the only unbiased person at hand. That gives you and only you the task of dismissing multiple statements of people who were there. Everyone else has an interest in projecting after all. Believe what you want unbiased one. But you are beginning to add insults and it's not a good look for a perfected and objective mind. 

Seems a little hypocritical to insult me and accuse me of adding insults at the same time. 

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

And was that before or after he met with the illuminati? It only makes sense, after all. 

I thought you were the one who believed in UFO's ...... 🤣

Anyway, I think Dr. Peterson erased the offending comments from Dr. Midgley on his site.  So, it never really happened ......

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

And was that before or after he met with the illuminati? It only makes sense, after all. 

Hah, love the attempts to dismiss a POV by calling it a conspiracy, keep these hot takes coming!  

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Hah, love the attempts to dismiss a POV by calling it a conspiracy, keep these hot takes coming!  

Whom shall we believe, their word or our lying eyes?

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Seems a little hypocritical to insult me and accuse me of adding insults at the same time. 

To be fair though you deserve them.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Whom shall we believe, their word or our lying eyes?

Wait, you are an eye witness to the events?

[Exiled]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Wait, you are an eye witness to the events?

Dr. Peterson erased the offending Dr. Midgley comments.  So, it never really happened anyway.  Nothing to see any more and Dr. Peterson is on a higher plain now, reflecting on Egypt and its mysteries.

[Peppermint Patty]

Blair,

Do you think you'll ever have Mpho Tut Furth back on your podcast? I've listened to it several times. There was so much good material.

Sorry for the derail everyone. Please carry on about who was involved in Dan's firing back in 2012, or whatever it is everyone is now discussing.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To be fair though you deserve them.

Piling on is always a nice trait to possess.  

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Piling on is always a nice trait to possess.  

Agreed.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m only saying that his disclosures shouldn’t be completely dismissed because they contradict the crafted narrative by parties interested in showing a certain image

And this is not a claim for a conspiracy?  Especially when the crafted narrative would have to include lies if all of Lou's comments are accurate.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Seems a little hypocritical to insult me and accuse me of adding insults at the same time. 

Juliann has never claimed to be unbiased or noninsulting.  

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And this is not a claim for a conspiracy?  Especially when the crafted narrative would have to include lies if all of Lou's comments are accurate.

Conspiracies happen all the time and our courts are full of alleged and proven conspiracies of all kinds.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Here is what Dr. Midgley said:Seems like he had personal knowledge that E. Packer gave some marching orders. 

"Us" could have referred to a group he was in that Elder Packer talked directly to or it could have referred to the Maxwell Institute people in general and meant that Elder Packer talked to a higherup who then relayed to Lou in some fashion that he had received this instruction from Elder Packer or so Lou understood him.

If the first, Lou is now lying when he said "my mistake"....so that makes three liars.

If the second, Lou could have misinterpreted or misremembered the conversation with that individual, which would mean no one is lying.

Dan and Greg were part of the group of editors for the Review.  Dan was the head editor.  I believe Lou and George Mitton were the other two.  Add-on:  Robert White was also an editor.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

 As far as knowing what was going on with the Review piece, I trust the general editor and the actual writer the most.  I see no reason for them to be lying and a lot of reason for them to be open about it if they were told to do it.  It makes no sense in the greater context of what they have shared that they would lie about that.  It would be different if there had been no claims about apostle involvement made, but Dan has stated he has talked to apostles about other aspects a number of times. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Conspiracies happen all the time and our courts are full of alleged and proven conspiracies of all kinds.

Thus Dan and Greg and Lou are therefore part of a conspiracy...even if Lou forgot about it for a day or two.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Dr. Peterson erased the offending Dr. Midgley comments.  So, it never really happened anyway.  Nothing to see any more and Dr. Peterson is on a higher plain now, reflecting on Egypt and its mysteries.

There is quite a bit there last time I read it about an hour ago.  Crap job of deleting to hide it if he did delete it.  Too lazy to compare to the original quotes.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm