A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve read and re-read it, and pardon, but I do see ambiguity. Hence my probing question. 

Do you have reliable inside  information to offer? If not, I would prefer to see a response from Blair. 

Blair already said to listen to her

Why would he say that if he doesn't want you to do so. This is very tiresome.

[Peppermint Patty]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve read and re-read it, and pardon, but I do see ambiguity. Hence my probing question. 

Scott, there is no ambiguity. Here is the statement again, "The Institute's course then as now is shaped and approved by BYU administration and its Board of Trustees, which includes apostles."

Explain how this statement is ambiguous to you. I'll try to help you out here.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Peppermint Patty

[BHodges]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve read and re-read it, and pardon, but I do see ambiguity. Hence my probing question. 

Do you have reliable inside  information to offer? If not, I would prefer to see a response from Blair. 

Yes, deliberate ambiguity. The university generally doesn't give specifics about personnel decisions like that to the public. The general position is as I've stated it. I can confidently say that the brethren aren't generally shy in making course corrections and if/when they want things to happen at the Institute things happen at the Institute. They don't direct its day to day operations in all cases, but I know they've been directly involved in the selection of its current director and in its new official mission statement. And, as Dan Peterson observes, they also like to see a variety of groups more and less official working to defend and sustain the gospel.

The Maxwell Institute doesn't view this as a contest. We're all working in our apportioned sections of the vineyard and none of us alone can reach everyone. I think it's well past time everyone understands this and moves forward in faith. Hopefully you're ready to do that, too.  

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s a common sense observation, who needs to publish it.  Would you honestly argue that all bias is created equally?  Perhaps the Smithsonian Institute is equally as biased as the Taliban?  

I don't think we are capable of communicating on this subject. Have a good evening.

 

[BHodges]

I refer you also to Dr. Morgan Davis's comments at Interpreter. 

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-interpreter-foundation-and-an-apostolic-charge/#comment-60579

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, BHodges said:

Yes, deliberate ambiguity. The university generally doesn't give specifics about personnel decisions like that to the public. The general position is as I've stated it. I can confidently say that the brethren aren't generally shy in making course corrections and if/when they want things to happen at the Institute things happen at the Institute. They don't direct its day to day operations in all cases, but I know they've been directly involved in the selection of its current director and in its new official mission statement. And, as Dan Peterson observes, they also like to see a variety of groups more and less official working to defend and sustain the gospel.

The Maxwell Institute doesn't view this as a contest. We're all working in our apportioned sections of the vineyard and none of us alone can reach everyone. I think it's well past time everyone understands this and moves forward in faith. Hopefully you're ready to do that, too.  

Thank you. 

I’ll take this as an admission that you have nothing to offer by way of reliable and candid information about direct involvement of apostles in ordering the ouster of the Peterson team. I asked about it, because Dan Peterson has gone on record more than once, based on personal conversations he has had with those in a position to know, that such never occurred. 

I think this is important to know, because I still see indications of regrettable albeit widespread misconception on this matter. And when the reputations of good men and women are at stake, I’m not persuaded that “deliberate ambiguity” is a praiseworthy thing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Peppermint Patty said:

Scott, there is no ambiguity. Here is the statement again, "The Institute's course then as now is shaped and approved by BYU administration and its Board of Trustees, which includes apostles."

Explain how this statement is ambiguous to you. I'll try to help you out here.

Obviously, Blair, who acknowledges  “deliberate ambiguity,” disagrees with you. See above. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[BHodges]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. 

I’ll take this as an admission that you have nothing to offer by way of reliable and candid information about direct involvement of apostles in ordering the ouster of the Peterson team. I asked about it, because Dan Peterson has gone on record more than once, based on personal conversations he has had with those in a position to know, that such never occurred. 

I think this is important to know, because I still see indications of regrettable albeit widespread misconception on this matter. And when the reputations of good men and women are at stake, I’m not persuaded that “deliberate ambiguity” is a praiseworthy thing. 

Your complaint is with BYU's general policy on personnel decisions. You can take it as an admission of whatever you'd like, however inaccurately. If the brethren wanted Dan at the Institute today he would be there today. You're concerned about the reputation of Dan. But you've contributed to tarnishing the reputation of myself and others at the Institute. Perhaps you could reverse course on that. Again, it's time to move forward. Elder Holland invites us to do so. Hope you'll come along. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by BHodges

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Blair already said to listen to her

Why would he say that if he doesn't want you to do so. This is very tiresome.

I don’t see that Peppermint Patty would be in a position to know the answer to the very specific question I asked. I thought that Blair, as PR director, might be, which is why I held out for a response from him, whereupon he, contrary to Peppermint Patty’s opinion, acknowledged “deliberate ambiguity.”

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, BHodges said:

I refer you also to Dr. Morgan Davis's comments at Interpreter. 

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-interpreter-foundation-and-an-apostolic-charge/#comment-60579

Morgan is a fantastic guy. He's in my ward and was in the prior bishopric. I do wish Dan Peterson and folks would just forgive and forget whatever happened. I've no inside knowledge of anything that happened btw and don't particularly care too much. I do worry that MI goes a tad too far at times into secular Mormon Studies. But then I also worry that The Interpreter isn't as charitable as it could be as well. Plus honestly I thought at the time it was a mistake for FARMS to join formally BYU precisely because it'd lose its independence. So having the Interpreter outside of BYU is in my mind a good thing.

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see that Peppermint Patty would be in a position to know the answer to the very specific question I asked. I thought that Blair, as PR director might be, which is why I held out for a response from him, whereupon he, contrary to Peppermint Patty’s opinion, acknowledged “deliberate ambiguity.”

The implication seems to be that the Brethren would prefer Dan not be at the MI. Given how many (fairly or unfairly) perceive him, that might be wise. I kind of wish there were a middle ground where we got a careful apologetic that takes seriously historicity without necessarily being inflammatory or combative about it. Of course easier said that done and I've certainly fallen down in my attempts to always be charitable in discussions with critics.

Edited December 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, BHodges said:

Your complaint is with BYU's general policy on personnel decisions. You can take it as an admission of whatever you'd like, however inaccurately. If the brethren wanted Dan at the Institute today he would be there today. You're concerned about the reputation of Dan. But you've contributed to tarnishing the reputation of myself and others at the Institute. Perhaps you could reverse course on that. Again, it's time to move forward. Elder Holland invites us to do so. Hope you'll come along. 

I’m not complaining about anyone’s policy, only asking for a candid response from you, which you have declined to give. That is your right, of course, but it is my right to point it out — and to reiterate what Dan Peterson has said on multiple occasions: that no one from the high leadership of the Church ordered his ouster. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Morgan is a fantastic guy. He's in my ward and was in the prior bishopric. I do wish Dan Peterson and folks would just forgive and forget whatever happened. I've no inside knowledge of anything that happened btw and don't particularly care too much. I do worry that MI goes a tad too far at times into secular Mormon Studies. But then I also worry that The Interpreter isn't as charitable as it could be as well. Plus honestly I thought at the time it was a mistake for FARMS to join formally BYU precisely because it'd lose its independence. So having the Interpreter outside of BYU is in my mind a good thing.

I will agree with you insofar as to say that the rise and development of Interpreter has been and continues to be a good thing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The implication seems to be that the Brethren would prefer Dan not be at the MI. 

Not just an implication, but Blair’s direct assertion of a few moments ago, one I don’t accept on his say-so alone. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[BHodges]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not complaining about anyone’s policy, only asking for a candid response from you, which you have declined to give. That is your right, of course, but it is my right to point it out — and to reiterate what Dan Peterson has said on multiple occasions: that no one from the high leadership of the Church ordered his ouster. 

Why would I speak beyond what I've been instructed to speak by the University, Scott? Meanwhile, Lou Midgley is over on Dr. Peterson's blog openly discussing his efforts to entrap me in some sort of incriminating statement. He says that would be "useful." Useful for what, Scott? 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, BHodges said:

Why would I speak beyond what I've been instructed to speak by the University, Scott? Meanwhile, Lou Midgley is over on Dr. Peterson's blog openly discussing his efforts to entrap me in some sort of incriminating statement. He says that would be "useful." Useful for what, Scott? 

Maybe it would be best not to make insinuations about that which you are forbidden to address directly.

I don’t speak for Lou, nor am I acquainted with what you are referring to. But I’ll go over there and take a look. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[BHodges]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not just an implication, but Blair’s direct assertion of a few moments ago, one I don’t accept on his say-so alone. 

If they wanted Dr. Peterson to be at the Institute do you not think they could make that known as members of the board and it would happen? If Dr. Peterson or you or Dr. Midgley have pertinent information, perhaps you can explain why they don't do that. According to you, Elder Holland is rebuking the Institute in part because of administrative decisions made more than 6 years ago, but at the same time is taking no measures to correct that mistake, but is rather speaking to different issues. 

As far as I can tell, Elder Holland appreciates Dr. Peterson's current independent efforts. Elder Holland is going to be more direct and invested in the church's own official entity of BYU and the Institute, of course. He speaks from a position of stewardship over us that sets us apart from places like Interpreter. But according to Elder Holland, we're all charged to lift where we stand. We at the Institute are determined to do that in faith as best we can. Not always perfect, but always striving. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by BHodges

[BHodges]

If the brethren are in such a state of disapproval of the Institute, Scott, perhaps you can explain to me why they recently made the decision to fully fund us, why they are building us a wonderful new customized building more central on campus, why they're approving several new scholars to join us in 2019, why they're approving our new study edition of the Book of Mormon, and much more. I mean, this really should go without saying, but if you have some theory I'd hear you out and kindly point out a different perspective. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, BHodges said:

If they wanted Dr. Peterson to be at the Institute do you not think they could make that known as members of the board and it would happen? If Dr. Peterson or you or Dr. Midgley have pertinent information, perhaps you can explain why they don't do that.

Declining to intervene in the matter does not necessarily indicate what you seem to be implying, that they prefer he not be there. I think you are jumping to conclusions, or as some of our attorneys on the board might put it, assuming facts not in evidence.

And by the way, I went over to Dan Peterson's blog to see the comment from Lou Midgley to which you referred. I note that one commenter there mistakenly asserted in reference to this conversation we are having: "According to the Maxwell Institute's Blair Hodges, it was BYU and apostles who gave Dan the 'boot.'" You were obliged to correct that mistaken impression. It's to your credit that you did so, but perhaps this is an indication you need to be more clear about what it is you are and are not implying.

Quote

According to you, Elder Holland is rebuking the Institute in part because of administrative decisions made more than 6 years ago, but at the same time is taking no measures to correct that mistake, but is rather speaking to different issues. 

I'm only giving my impression based on portions of his speech that I have seen quoted. I acknowledged upfront that I was not present to hear the address and that I do not have access to a written transcript. I look forward to reading the unredacted text as it is published in the upcoming NAMI annual report (including footnotes).

I don't believe the Brethren are interested in or have time for stepping into the internecine squabbles among academics at the university, especially at this late juncture. Thus, it is hardly surprising to me that they are "taking no measures to correct that mistake." At the same time, I believe they are tapping the brakes on a headlong drive by NAMI into "Mormon studies" in the form that the discipline is practiced at other academic institutions. I think that much is clear from the portions of Elder Holland's address that I have read.

Quote

As far as I can tell, Elder Holland appreciates Dr. Peterson's current independent efforts. Elder Holland is going to be more direct and invested in the church's own official entity of BYU and the Institute, of course. He speaks from a position of stewardship over us that sets us apart from places like Interpreter. But according to Elder Holland, we're all charged to lift where we stand. We at the Institute are determined to do that in faith as best we can. Not always perfect, but always striving. 

I think that's a fair analysis. And because he speaks from such a "position of stewardship," I believe it is appropriate for rank-and-file Church members such as I to give attention to what he says in that regard. And, I would add, to observe if and how those at the institute apply it.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, BHodges said:

If the brethren are in such a state of disapproval of the Institute, Scott, perhaps you can explain to me why they recently made the decision to fully fund us, why they are building us a wonderful new customized building more central on campus, why they're approving several new scholars to join us in 2019, why they're approving our new study edition of the Book of Mormon, and much more. I mean, this really should go without saying, but if you have some theory I'd hear you out and kindly point out a different perspective. 

Could be at least in part due to the revised mission statement. Could be any number of factors. I do wish the institute well insofar as it strives to fulfill the charge given by Elder Holland and to abide by the directives that come from the leadership of the Church. 

[BHodges]

Glad you wish us well. Thanks. Of course we always strive to do so. Take care. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by BHodges

[Bernard Gui]

This long-time observer finds unfortunate intrigues like this in the Church to be  disheartening and sources of doubt and mistrust. 

 

[hope_for_things]

Here’s my take.  Dan Peterson is the Rush Limbaugh of Mormon apologetics.  The White House/Mormon leadership likes him poking fun of the liberals and they agree with him most of the time.  However, the optics just don’t look good to have him running point for the institution, so he’s not in the position of Press Secretary.  They are just fine with him running things over at Fox News/Interpreter and lifting where he stands over there.  

For those in Dan’s camp like Scott, he was never going to believe anything Blair or the MI said anyway.  He already has an opinion and it wasn’t going to be swayed by new information.  Dan has a huge ego, so when he was fired he had to spin it as some kind of political insider move because its impossible to fathom that his buddies in the quorum, who always speak so highly of him, would have done this to him.  They love Dan.  And while its likely true that they do love Dan, its also true that they can’t afford to have a Rush Limbaugh rubbing people wrong and leading a flagship program owned by the church.  The PR controversies just wouldn’t work in our modern day.  

Lastly, is it any surprise that Mormonism created a character like Dan?  Mormonism is such a young and egotistical religion.  It’s very foundation is built on a superiority complex.  On top of that, Mormonism was founded in America which is also a young country with a superiority complex.  Ego mania is to be expected if you really think about it.  

Warning: Dan is an occasional poster here. This is personal and over the line. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Here’s my take.  Dan Peterson is the Rush Limbaugh of Mormon apologetics.  The White House/Mormon leadership likes him poking fun of the liberals and they agree with him most of the time.  However, the optics just don’t look good to have him running point for the institution, so he’s not in the position of Press Secretary.  They are just fine with him running things over at Fox News/Interpreter and lifting where he stands over there.  

For those in Dan’s camp like Scott, he was never going to believe anything Blair or the MI said anyway.  He already has an opinion and it wasn’t going to be swayed by new information.  Dan has a huge ego, so when he was fired he had to spin it as some kind of political insider move because its impossible to fathom that his buddies in the quorum, who always speak so highly of him, would have done this to him.  They love Dan.  And while its likely true that they do love Dan, its also true that they can’t afford to have a Rush Limbaugh rubbing people wrong and leading a flagship program owned by the church.  The PR controversies just wouldn’t work in our modern day.  

Lastly, is it any surprise that Mormonism created a character like Dan?  Mormonism is such a young and egotistical religion.  It’s very foundation is built on a superiority complex.  On top of that, Mormonism was founded in America which is also a young country with a superiority complex.  Ego mania is to be expected if you really think about it.  

I reiterate that Daniel Peterson has on a number of occasions reported that he has received assurances from high-level sources (about as high as it gets, he said at one point, as I recall) that the purge of 2012 was not ordered by the Brethren. I think it rather telling that Blair (who hired on after all this transpired) has declined either to provide substantive contradictory information or to substantiate his own insinuations. 

Dan is traveling in Egypt right now and has only spotty and poor internet access, but I am in high hopes that we will hear from him later.

[Avatar4321]

I also don’t understand completely. For those of us not following this closely:

what was the original mission of the MI?

what direction were they going with the “course change”?

what exactly is going on now?

have the first presidency and Twelve been involved in it to this degree before now?

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, BHodges said:

I refer you also to Dr. Morgan Davis's comments at Interpreter. 

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-interpreter-foundation-and-an-apostolic-charge/#comment-60579

 

 

A couple of thoughtful responses to Dr. Davis's comments have now been posted.