A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

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). 

Then there should not be veiled insinuations either. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And whether or not someone else views it that way is a personal bias.  That is 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.

Your opinion and personal bias are abundantly clear.  

You are one post away from being thread banned if you don't rein in the insults.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Your opinion and personal bias are abundantly clear.  

I would hope so.  I am not pretending otherwise.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your opinion and personal bias are abundantly clear.  

She makes a solid point, though, doesn’t she? If you have rejected a religious faith why should it bother you to be regarded as having apostatized from it?

Lokewise, I find puzzling those who make a fuss over the term “anti-Mormon.” Why should one object to being identified as against (“anti-“) the thing he detests?

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

She makes a solid point, though, doesn’t she? If you have rejected a religious faith why should it bother you to be regarded as having apostatized from it?

Lokewise, I find puzzling those who make a fuss over the term “anti-Mormon.” Why should one object to being identified as against (“anti-“) the thing he detests?

If she or you want to open up another thread to discuss this topic, feel free, but I see this as deviating too far from relevancy for this thread.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If she or you want to open up another thread to discuss this topic, feel free, but I see this as deviating too far from relevancy for this thread.  

Agreed. I’ve said my piece. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If she or you want to open up another thread to discuss this topic, feel free, but I see this as deviating too far from relevancy for this thread.  

As long as you stop insulting Dan on a personal level by negative character descriptions such as "huge ego", I am happy to drop the conversation.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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). 

No, there is no law to this effect. This is a common myth. It might be university policy not to comment (and most employers avoid it) but they are free to give reasons if they wish.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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). 

No, there is no law to this effect. This is a common myth. It might be university policy not to comment (and most employers avoid it) but they are free to give reasons if they wish.

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Perhaps. On the other hand, this sore continues and will continue to fester until someone decides to clear out the infection. In the meantime, doubt and mistrust are the unfortunate result. One would hope this kind of intrigue would not prevail at BYU.

My concern is how it was done, not why it was done. No one deserves that kind of shabby treatment, especially in this situation. Someone should be held accountable for the travesty, IMO.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Of course. Which is all we are getting from at least one side. In any case, I would like to hear the Institute’s justification for the unkind and unprofessional manner in which the changes were made. Or explain why they think it was the best way to do it.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

I had thought that Daniel Peterson might weigh in here on this thread regarding what has been posted  here (as far as I know, he is still registered as a contributor here). It appears, for now, that he has chosen his own blog, Sic et Non, as the platform for his response to comments that have been made here and elsewhere.

It remains to be seen whether he will yet make an appearance here to augment what he has already written on his blog or to respond to specific posts here or whatever. He might deem his blog comments as sufficient to the moment, which would be justifiable, in my view.

In case that is his choice, I am taking the liberty of excerpting his blog post here, copying and pasting a portion that strikes me as the most relevant to the dialogue that has transpired here over the past couple of days. Those who desire to read the entire blog post may click on the hyperlink I have provided above.

Quote

 

What prompts me to write this ... is the insinuation – surfacing yet again, hoary with age, and still lacking any actual basis in fact – that I was shown the door of the Maxwell Institute by order of the Brethren.

 

This is not only false but, in a very real way, defamatory.

 

I wearied long ago of being portrayed as under condemnation by the leaders of my church.  I hope that people of fairness and good will stop spreading the claim.  It is groundless slander.

 

At their own initiative, not at mine, I have been directly assured by several individual members of the Twelve that they did not order my dismissal, and that, in fact, it caught them by surprise.  Several members of the Seventy have expressly confirmed much the same thing, based on conversations that they have had with members of the Twelve.  (I can’t imagine that they’re lying.)  Moreover, I think it fair to say that my relationship with the Brethren, including current and former members of the First Presidency and the Twelve, has remained quite good since the events of 2012.  (I could point to specific illustrations of that, but I’ve resisted the temptation to do so in the past and will continue to resist it.  Because I’m a historian, though, they will ultimately go into the archival record.)

 

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had thought that Daniel Peterson might weigh in here on this thread regarding what has been posted  here (as far as I know, he is still registered as a contributor here). It appears, for now, that he has chosen his own blog, Sic et Non, as the platform for his response to comments that have been made here and elsewhere.

It remains to be seen whether he will yet make an appearance here to augment what he has already written on his blog or to respond to specific posts here or whatever. He might deem his blog comments as sufficient to the moment, which would be justifiable, in my view.

In case that is his choice, I am taking the liberty of excerpting his blog post here, copying and pasting a portion that strikes me as the most relevant to the dialogue that has transpired here over the past couple of days. Those who desire to read the entire blog post may click on the hyperlink I have provided above.

 

A poster named Jon posed some interesting questions to Dr. Peterson regarding Dr. Midgley's various statements. Do you think Dr. Peterson should answer these? Also, what do you make of Greg Smith's denials of Dr. Midgley's claims that the brethren, including E. Packer, were involved with his 2012 John Dehlin piece? Who is telling the truth?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/12/my-alleged-war-against-the-maxwell-institute.html#disqus_thread

[ksfisher]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

My concern is how it was done, not why it was done. No one deserves that kind of shabby treatment, especially in this situation. Someone should be held accountable for the travesty, IMO.

Or perhaps just forgive and move on. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Or perhaps just forgive and move on. 

Perhaps. However, without the truth the disappointment lingers on.

As The Preacher said,

Quote

Maybe so, but I say it is better to be content with what little you have. Otherwise, you will always be struggling for more, and that is like chasing the wind.

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

A poster named Jon posed some interesting questions to Dr. Peterson regarding Dr. Midgley's various statements. Do you think Dr. Peterson should answer these? Also, what do you make of Greg Smith's denials of Dr. Midgley's claims that the brethren, including E. Packer, were involved with his 2012 John Dehlin piece? Who is telling the truth?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/12/my-alleged-war-against-the-maxwell-institute.html#disqus_thread

Smith is telling the truth. I would have known if that were the case. Lou exaggerates and creates his own version of events so always take his gossip with a grain of salt. 

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I had thought that Daniel Peterson might weigh in here on this thread regarding what has been posted  here (as far as I know, he is still registered as a contributor here). It appears, for now, that he has chosen his own blog, Sic et Non, as the platform for his response to comments that have been made here and elsewhere.

It remains to be seen whether he will yet make an appearance here to augment what he has already written on his blog or to respond to specific posts here or whatever. He might deem his blog comments as sufficient to the moment, which would be justifiable, in my view.

In case that is his choice, I am taking the liberty of excerpting his blog post here, copying and pasting a portion that strikes me as the most relevant to the dialogue that has transpired here over the past couple of days. Those who desire to read the entire blog post may click on the hyperlink I have provided above.

 

Thanks for posting.  Isn’t it possible that some members of the Q15 may have been aware/involved while others weren’t.  I don’t think we should assume they always act in unison.  

[juliann]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting.  Isn’t it possible that some members of the Q15 may have been aware/involved while others weren’t.  I don’t think we should assume they always act in unison.  

They chair different committees. It would be very inefficient to require all of them to be there for every decision ever made by one of them    In charge of a particular area. 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, juliann said:

They chair different committees. It would be very inefficient to require all of them to be there for every decision ever made by one of them    In charge of a particular area. 

I agree, and there have been enough examples written about throughout history as evidence of this.  I can easily see a scenario where Dr. Peterson was told one thing by some leaders who weren’t part of the discussions that led to him getting sacked.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I have been in email contact with Dan. He indicated in a message I just read from him that he is still on a boat on the Nile with sporadic and frustrating internet access, that he had been unable to get through all of this thread, but that he has already seen several remarks here that demand response and he will get to it when he can. In worst-case scenario, he expects to be able to get to it by this coming Saturday evening. 

Meanwhile, I earnestly implore the moderation team to keep this thread open at least until then so that he has opportunity to respond. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

They chair different committees. It would be very inefficient to require all of them to be there for every decision ever made by one of them    In charge of a particular area. 

But the ones with charge over BYU do work together on the board of trustees and would be apt to know the goings on there. I would assume it was some of them who remarked to Dan, unsolicited, that the infamous events of 2012 had taken them by surprise. 

[Anijen]

All I know is the Maxwell Institute has gone steeply down hill since Brother Peterson was rudely, removed. Life on a Plate has did nothing, IMO, to improve MI from its former years. In fact, MI costs more, has less scholarly papers to offer, cherry picks those papers while refusing others, and costs for every interesting paper, but allows free papers for information down on my interest list. New building this, new building that, whoopee, Life on a Plate had nothing to do with that, but implies it as one of his success stories. 

The brethren were probably duped if they had a part in Dan's removal. I do not believe they did. The Brethren are slowly, wisely, taking steps to bring back the MI without raising contention.

Just my two cents.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Or perhaps just forgive and move on. 

As far as I can tell, no one involved with that unfortunate scenario has ever sought forgiveness. 

Meanwhile, it appears to me Dan has done his best to move on. The rapid emergence and amazing success of the Interpreter Foundation is indication of that. 

The only occasions I see Dan commenting these days are when he becomes aware that someone has made an ignorant public remark or implication to the effect that the Brethren were behind his removal at the Maxwell Institute. I think a person is entitled to defend his own reputation, even as he is generally forgiving. Would you not agree?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As far as I can tell, no one involved with that unfortunate scenario has ever sought forgiveness. 

Meanwhile, it appears to me Dan has done his best to move on. The rapid emergence and amazing success of the Interpreter Foundation is indication of that. 

The only occasions I see Dan commenting these days are when he becomes aware that someone has made an ignorant public remark or implication to the effect that the Brethren were behind his removal at the Maxwell Institute. I think a person is entitled to defend his own reputation, even as he is generally forgiving. Would you not agree?

I just bought a book from Deseret Book that was put together by the Interpreter Foundation and am very impressed with it.  It's the first offering in the Science and Mormonism series (the title is something about Cosmos and Man but I can't remember it exactly).

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Anijen said:

All I know is the Maxwell Institute has gone steeply down hill since Brother Peterson was rudely, removed. Life on a Plate has did nothing, IMO, to improve MI from its former years. In fact, MI costs more, has less scholarly papers to offer, cherry picks those papers while refusing others, and costs for every interesting paper, but allows free papers for information down on my interest list. New building this, new building that, whoopee, Life on a Plate had nothing to do with that, but implies it as one of his success stories. 

The brethren were probably duped if they had a part in Dan's removal. I do not believe they did. The Brethren are slowly, wisely, taking steps to bring back the MI without raising contention.

Just my two cents.

I learned a bit more about that new building from Dan’s blog post. It would seem this point has been overstated. The Maxwell Institute from the time of its founding has been moved from building to building over the years and in this latest move will merely be a tenant, not the sole occupant, of the facility under construction. I dare say that might have happened even if Dan and his team had remained there, but who knows?