A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for your participation. When you return, would you please provide your description of the events that lead up to and culminated in the removal and replacement of the former Institute leaders? Please include how and by whom it was decided to handle the change the way it was done.

I think this is asking something unreasonable of Blair if you want more than what he has already said.  His employment requires commitment and respect to his employer and that includes keeping private what the employer wants private and it is clear the university doesn't share info about the behind the scenes employment process...nor does Church leadership, probably standard practices for most organizations.  Plus any info he provided would be at least secondhand since he wasn't there.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, BHodges said:

Maybe Dan can tell us why, if the brethren disapprove of his removal as editor, they didn't restore him. Did he ever ask them about that? What did they say? Would it be wrong of him to withhold information like that? It was more than six years ago.

Maybe you can tell us why, if university policy forbids you from saying explicitly that his ouster was ordered and/or approved in advance by apostles on the board of trustees, you are free to make insinuations to that effect with impunity. 

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe this has already been shared but if not...

Terryl & Fiona Givens, as well as Steven Peck will be joining MI in 2019.

https://mi.byu.edu/new-2019-disciple-scholars/?fbclid=IwAR1vqcFme1oFb6DxL9pZirFcT4npBD-vR3oyp8rp1AbzMz43VwhLdDUJCbc

It has already been shared. Also, that the institute is receiving increased funding and will get a new building closer to the center of campus. 

These things may be factors in the Church leadership calling for greater alignment with the Church’s mission on the part of the folks at the institute. 

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for your participation. When you return, would you please provide your description of the events that lead up to and culminated in the removal and replacement of the former Institute leaders? Please include how and by whom it was decided to handle the change the way it was done.

Bear in mind he wasn’t there when it all went down, so the best he could provide would be hearsay. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has already been shared. Also, that the institute is receiving increased funding and will get a new building closer to the center of campus. 

These things may be factors in the Church leadership calling for greater alignment with the Church’s mission on the part of the folks at the institute. 

Thanks.

Does the addition of the Givens' reflect the kind of course correction for MI that you had expected/hoped for?

Edited December 31, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you can tell us why, if university policy forbids you from saying explicitly that his ouster was ordered and/or approved in advance by apostles on the board of trustees, you are free to make insinuations to that effect with impunity. 

He said no such thing and you know it!  He plainly stated that Dan Peterson would be at the MI if the board of trustees so desired and he just as plainly stated that he is not talking about the order in which the original decision was made.  It's you who is hyper-focused on this issue, leading to your improper reading between the lines "with impunity."

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks.

Does the addition of the Givens' reflect the kind of course correction for MI that you had expected/hoped for?

I respect Givens, but I’m not part of his fan base, so I’m kind of meh on that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

He said no such thing and you know it!  He plainly stated that Dan Peterson would be at the MI if the board of trustees so desired and he just as plainly stated that he is not talking about the order in which the original decision was made.  It's you who is hyper-focused on this issue, leading to your improper reading between the lines "with impunity."

As I said, insinuation. By definition, an insinuation is not a direct statement. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, BHodges said:

Maybe Dan can tell us why, if the brethren disapprove of his removal as editor, they didn't restore him. Did he ever ask them about that? What did they say?

I don't think it is any more appropriate for Dan to share private conversations with what are also essentially his employers than it is for you.

--------

I can see the possibility of leadership being unhappy with the removal (not being aware of it beforehand because they don't micromanage or require clearance of position changes or even hiring or firings of BYU employees), but also making the choice that attempting to turn back the clock by taking the unusual step of interfering with what they usually leave in the hands of administration would cause more problems than it would solve.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But it is okay to be uncharitable if you are trying to remove boundaries?  Or do you think labeling someone as having a "huge ego" is civil?

I’m critical yes, but I see it differently.  I’m not calling anyone apostate or unfaithful or unworthy.  I see it as calling out bad behavior.  

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, insinuation. By definition, an insinuation is not a direct statement. 

There was no insinuation, whatsoever.  There were plain statements of fact.  It is you who is reading between the lines.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m critical yes, but I see it differently.  I’m not calling anyone apostate or unfaithful or unworthy.  I see it as calling out bad behavior.  

Hardly a qualitative difference. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

There was no insinuation, whatsoever.  There were plain statements of fact.  It is you who is reading between the lines.

I guess we’ll have to acknowledge disagreement and leave it at that. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m critical yes, but I see it differently.  I’m not calling anyone apostate or unfaithful or unworthy.  I see it as calling out bad behavior.  

And what is calling someone "unfaithful" but "calling out bad behaviour"?  You just apparently don't like the manner in which this is done, but you labeling someone publicly as having a "huge ego" is acceptable.  I know of people who would find that much more insulting than being labeled "apostate" as it would be viewed as a character flaw and "apostate" as difference of beliefs.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Calm

[pogi]

I don't understand why it matters if the brethren were happy with Dan's exit or not. His employer clearly was not happy with him, and that is all that matters when it comes to employment. 

What if the brethren did approve of his exit?  That is their prerogative and we all need to accept that and move on.

What if they didn't approve of his exit?  That doesn't seem to matter either, because he is obviously not coming back - and that is the prerogative of his ex-employer, and we all need to accept that and move on.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by pogi

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't understand why it matters if the brethren were happy with Dan's exit or not. His employer clearly was not happy with him, and that is all that matters when it comes to employment.

I believe many see the 15 as his employers since the Church funds BYU and has apostles as regents, and appoints the BYU presidents. (I don't, I see BYU as his employer with the department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages as the agent of his employment, MI would be 'extracurricular activity' or one of his one time responsibilities of his employment, such responsibilities change over time at all universities from what I have seen...husband is a professor).

This would make the BYU president and MI director "managers" rather than employers.  

Dan was not fired, but removed from one position/responsibility as editor iirc.  I believed he resigned from the other (he is currently listed as "founding editor" on the Meti page, but no link to "personnel" page as the other editors have) His primary position as professor remained unchanged.  

Edited December 31, 2018 by Calm

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't understand why it matters if the brethren were happy with Dan's exit or not. His employer clearly was not happy with him, and that is all that matters when it comes to employment. 

What if the brethren did approve of his exit?  That is their prerogative and we all need to accept that and move on.

What if they didn't approve of his exit?  That doesn't seem to matter either, because he is obviously not coming back - and that is the prerogative of his ex-employer, and we all need to accept that and move on.

 

Probably because it is a whole lot more difficult to accept being fired by an apostle or maybe even a prophet than it is by an administrator.

[The Nehor]

Just now, CA Steve said:

Probably because it is a whole lot more difficult to accept being fired by an apostle or maybe even a prophet than it is by an administrator.

It also would have been perceived as a betrayal if the apostles were behind it as they encouraged the organization to voluntarily merge with the university despite reservations many had about giving up their independence and then the university eliminated most everyone who built it in the first place.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe many see the 15 as his employers since the Church funds BYU and has apostles as regents, and appoint the BYU presidents.

This would make the BYU president and MI director "managers" rather than employers.  

Dan was not fired, but removed from one position as editor iirc.  I believed he resigned from the other.  His primary position as professor remained unchanged.  

Thanks for clarifying the details.  

However, this makes it at all the more bewildering to me as to why this is still being discussed so many years later.  His manager wasn't happy with his work (it doesn't really matter what his employer thought) and he was demoted (I am assuming that is how it was perceived) by his manager and resigned on his own.  This kind of stuff happens in life.  We pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and move on.  It really doesn't matter what the brethren thought about his demotion because they didn't intervene. 

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what is calling someone "unfaithful" but "calling out bad behaviour"?  You just apparently don't like the manner in which this is done, but you labeling someone publicly as having a "huge ego" is acceptable.  I know of people who would find that much more insulting than being labeled "apostate" as it would be viewed as a character flaw and "apostate" as difference of beliefs.

The label of Apostate in Mormonism has a very strong history in the tradition, generally being a label associated with covenant breakers, Holy Ghost deniers and in extreme cases people in need of blood atonement.  

Me saying someone has a huge ego doesn’t really compare.  At any rate, this isn’t a thread about me, your criticism of me is noted. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Probably because it is a whole lot more difficult to accept being fired by an apostle or maybe even a prophet than it is by an administrator.

Meh, maybe he should look at it as being "released" then 

Sometimes the brethren see fit to mix things up with fresh faces and fresh perspective, that is their prerogative.  He seems to be doing fine now, so I truly don't understand what the big deal is. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by pogi

[Bob Crockett]

As I have pointed out on this board in the past, BYU is prohibited as an employer from publicly discussing the circumstances of Dan's change in position unless (and there are some exceptions which don't apply here). 

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Meh, maybe he should look at it as being "released" then 

Sometimes the brethren see fit to mix things up with fresh faces and fresh perspective, that is their prerogative.  He seems to be doing fine now, so I truly don't understand what the big deal is. 

It just seems like some people can leave the MI but they just can't leave it alone. 😲

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The label of Apostate in Mormonism has a very strong history in the tradition, generally being a label associated with covenant breakers, Holy Ghost deniers and in extreme cases people in need of blood atonement.  

Me saying someone has a huge ego doesn’t really compare.  At any rate, this isn’t a thread about me, your criticism of me is noted. 

And whether or not someone else views it that way is a personal bias.  That it doesn't compare is your personal bias.  It certainly isn't mine.  Your reassurance "huge ego" isn't hugely insulting is not working for me.

I do not view "apostate" as automatically covenant breakers, etc.  I don't see how one can break a covenant with someone one doesn't believe in, for example.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks for clarifying the details.  

However, this makes it at all the more bewildering to me as to why this is still being discussed so many years later.  His manager wasn't happy with his work (it doesn't really matter what his employer thought) and he was demoted (I am assuming that is how it was perceived) by his manager and resigned on his own.  This kind of stuff happens in life.  We pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and move on.  It really doesn't matter what the brethren thought about his demotion because they didn't intervene. 

Peterson was one of the founders/original members of the private organization FARMS (this is from memory, others probably remember better than I do; edit:  FARMS was formed in 79 and Dan got his doctorate in 1990 so it just seems like he was there from the beginning, I guess, lol; I have no doubt confused it with the origin of FAIR but Dan got his BA at BYU in 77, so possible) and iirc was the director or chairman of it when asked to join BYU by Pres. Hinckley.  He had been Chairman of the Board as well as editor of the Review for over 20 years.

My understanding was certain assurances that FARMS mission would not be interfered with were given at the time it became part of NAMI though it may have been when it joined BYU.

It is not the usual professor being given an extra responsibility and then being moved when different directors came in.  

Plus he was the founder of the METI project.

And it was never just about the dismissal of Dan as editor:

"Dan Peterson was the only scholar of the original FARMS Board who was left as a “director” of the Institute; with his dismissal classic-FARMS is gone.  There is not a single voice left in the leadership of the Institute to represent the original goals of classic-FARMS.  This is why Dan’s dismissal and marginalization is seen as such a massive betrayal.  It is the removal of the last vestige of classic-FARMS.  The pretense of the MI as the heir of FARMS can no longer be maintained."

http://www.templestudy.com/2012/06/25/rise-fall-farms/

Edited January 1, 2019 by Calm