A course correction for the Maxwell Institute?

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would make a difference to one whose reputation stands to be harmed by inaccurate or ignorant assertion or speculation, no?

Sure. It would probably make a difference to Peterson. It would also make a difference to the person(s) on the other side who are blamed for Peterson's removal. All could have their reputations harmed.

I didn't say it didn't make a difference to anyone. What I said, is it doesn't make a difference to ME. And since I don't know the inner workings I'm happy saying "I don't know."

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sure. It would probably make a difference to Peterson. It would also make a difference to the person(s) on the other side who are blamed for Peterson's removal. All could have their reputations harmed.

I didn't say it didn't make a difference to anyone. What I said, is it doesn't make a difference to ME. And since I don't know the inner workings I'm happy saying "I don't know."

That he was removed by the leadership at the institute is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that apostles were behind it.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I hope not and choose not to go there for now.  But it's certainly a thought.  

I think we ought to consider that the things MIdgley disclosed may have in fact had a degree of truth to them, and perhaps he just doesn't have the same filter as others who know they are not supposed to disclose certain things publicly.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That he was removed by the leadership at the institute is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that apostles were behind it.

The logical assumption is that the apostles had some involvement in the process.  What degree of involvement and who was involved are elements we don't know.  That Dan has a different version of events to tell for his own personal benefit is no surprise, its called self interest.  

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would make a difference to one whose reputation stands to be harmed by inaccurate or ignorant assertion or speculation, no?

Who is actually making said assertion or speculation, Scott?  Because, other than you, I don't seen anyone else in this thread saying such a thing.

 

ETA:  Never mind...just found one from HFT just before I posted my question to you.

Edited January 2, 2019 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The logical assumption is that the apostles had some involvement in the process.  What degree of involvement and who was involved are elements we don't know.  That Dan has a different version of events to tell for his own personal benefit is no surprise, its called self interest.  

I disagree that it's necessarily a logical assumption. It's just as logical to assume the apostles don't micromanage the day-to-day administration of academic departments at the university.**

And Dan's report of conversations he has had with apostles -- and with other General Authorities who have conversed with apostles -- is unequivocal.

**Edited to add: Morgan Davis, from his response post on the Interpreter web page, seems to feel the 2012 events were blown way out of proportion. Evidence, perhaps, that leadership at the institute felt it was a matter too minor to bring to the attention of the members of the Board of Trustees, including the apostles who sit on that board.

Edited January 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Who is actually making said assertion or speculation, Scott?  Because, other than you, I don't seen anyone else in this thread saying such a thing.

Hope for Things, for one. Did you see his two posts just above yours?

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Exiled said:

But wasn't Dr. Midgley personally there for the events of 2012? It doesn't appear to be gossip that he is repeating, from some unknown source, but from his own personal knowledge. 

Greg is the writer of the article, he should know how and why he wrote it.  And everything he said matches how he and others explained it at the time.  Anything he says that contradicts Lou I would go with what Greg says.  Lou would probably say the same thing.

Lou has talked about this a lot over the years.  I can see him getting timing of who he talked to mixed up or maybe someone sharing info with him was ambiguous and Lou assumed the wrong thing as fact.  We all do those kinds of things.

[ttribe]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The logical assumption is that the apostles had some involvement in the process.  What degree of involvement and who was involved are elements we don't know.  That Dan has a different version of events to tell for his own personal benefit is no surprise, its called self interest.  

Why is that the logical assumption?  Because they COULD be involved?  That doesn't necessarily follow.  A lot of boards are more distantly involved in day-to-day decisions than you seem to be assuming.  Frankly, I find such speculation to be in very poor taste.  This is someone's CAREER we are talking about.  They got fired.  Let's just LET IT GO.

Edited January 2, 2019 by ttribe

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hope for Things, for one. Did you see his two posts just above yours?

 

Yeah...I just edited my post.  Sorry about that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Calm said:

Greg is the writer of the article, he should know how and why he wrote it.  And everything he said matches how he and others explained it at the time.  Anything he says that contradicts Lou I would go with what Greg says.  Lou would probably say the same thing.

Lou has talked about this a lot over the years.  I can see him getting timing of who he talked to mixed up or maybe someone sharing info with him was ambiguous and Lou assumed the wrong thing as fact.  We all do those kinds of things.

Lou acknowledged being mistaken and thanked Greg for the correction.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ttribe said:

Yeah...I just edited my post.  Sorry about that.

Noted.

 

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, I'm guessing it would go a long way toward assuaging injured feelings if someone like Morgan Davis, who had a front-row seat to witness the events of 2012, were to admit upfront that high-level Church leaders did not order or orchestrate or approve in advance or even have any prior knowledge of the ouster of the Peterson team from the editorship of the FARMS Review/Mormon Studies Review. 

 

It would likely be secondhand knowledge as if it had been ordered, it likely would have been direct to Samuelson, who then relayed it to Bradford.  Davis would only know what Bradford told him, in that case.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I disagree that it's necessarily a logical assumption. It's just as logical to assume the apostles don't micromanage the day-to-day administration of academic departments at the university.

And Dan's report of conversations he has had with apostles -- and with other General Authorities who have conversed with apostles -- is unequivocal.

I explained how Dan's reports can have an element of truth to them at the same time as my point about Apostles being involved.   I think its logical because we know Apostles are involved in much smaller things in the church, so why not a very important position like that.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This link doesn't go anywhere. 

What are you getting at with it?

 

Same for me.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I explained how Dan's reports can have an element of truth to them at the same time as my point about Apostles being involved.   I think its logical because we know Apostles are involved in much smaller things in the church, so why not a very important position like that.  

As I already mentioned, Morgan Davis, who was at the institute at the time and still is, doesn't seem to feel the matter was important enough to get all the attention it received.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I know what people have said, but I don't know how accurate or honest they are

I can only provide that in my experience Dan and Greg's comments have always been consistent from the beginning in the telling of their own personal experiences and when relating shared experiences.  While that doesn't mean they have been honest (though I believe they are, there is nothing either has done that ever caused me to doubt their honesty), it goes a long way for me to believing they are likely as accurate as possible (humans never getting it perfectly right).

[Bernard Gui]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"m not sure what you mean by your question.  I know you are referring to the time when Dr Peterson was told about the change at MI, but I dont' know how it applies.  

Just pointing out what I see as a double standard you have set....

Quote

I would think if Holland wanted a major course correction he wouldn't go and give a speech about it, he'd sit with the board or people in charge and tell them directly that they need to change.  This sounds more like his effort to tell them to pray more and stuff.   I mean it sounds like an unappealing and uneventful speech if you think of it that way.  

Brother Peterson deserved the same consideration, IMO.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Lou acknowledged being mistaken and thanked Greg for the correction.

 

This is my first stop of the day, so good to hear.

[Daniel Peterson]

I finally have reliable internet access and a few minutes.  (Very few.  It's late here, and I'm tired.)

Curiously, I was told late in the summer of 2012 -- by someone superbly positioned to know -- that the Twelve were (collectively) surprised by my dismissal.  And, from the same source, I know that at least ten of them had "no problem" with me (his words) at that time.  (Two were traveling and could not be reached when he made his inquiry.)  If someone wants to claim that there was a faction in the Twelve that disapproved of me during the summer of 2012, that person should submit actual evidence to support the claim.

Could they have demanded that I be reinstated?  Yes.  But they rarely if ever do such things.  They don't micromanage BYU.  And I'm not sure that anybody in the BYU administration, let alone at Church headquarters, saw the implications of the 2012 "change of course" at the time.

Did I ask to be reinstated?  No.  Never.

Nor would I have accepted reinstatement.  To have returned would, given what happened and how it happened, have been unspeakably awkward and uncomfortable for me.  Trust, once destroyed, is very difficult to rebuild.

Am I the egotistical cad that one person here claims me to be?  I'll leave that vital question to be decided by people who actually know me.

As to the "FARMS Review" and science (particularly, it seems, evolution), we only published one (brief) article directly addressing that topic.  It was a book review, entitled "Lamarck, Giraffes, and the Sermon on the Mount":

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=13

We had another article on the subject edited and fully ready to go in the issue of the "FARMS Review" that was suppressed by the new Maxwell Institute regime in 2012.  It ultimately appeared in "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture" under the title "'Endless Forms Most Beautiful': The uses and abuses of evolutionary biology in six works":

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

People are free to read those two articles for themselves and determine whether we were anti-scientific.

There's considerably more to be said about all this.  (I haven't even had a chance, yet, to read through all of the comments here.)  Eventually, I'll deposit a detailed account with BYU Special Collections.  I care about the historical record.  But I don't feel authorized to publish details of private conversations and the like.

 

 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I explained how Dan's reports can have an element of truth to them at the same time as my point about Apostles being involved.   I think its logical because we know Apostles are involved in much smaller things in the church, so why not a very important position like that.  

Editing of a journal?  As much as I enjoy the Review at times, I don't consider being general editor of it "a very important position" in terms of the Church. (No offense, Dan , I personally feel your work in other areas, especially in groundbreaking stuff like the Meti texts, has greater unique effect).

Edited January 2, 2019 by Calm

[BHodges]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Thank you for this clarification. I really do appreciate it.

I only wish that it had not been such a long time in coming. Several pages ago, when I asked specifically whether apostles had been involved in the ouster of Dan and company, your response was to invoke BYU personnel policy as though you were under some gag order preventing you from spilling the beans about what you really know.

Suppose that instead your response had been something along this line: "I can't address that question, because I was not employed by the institute in 2012 when it happened and I have not undertaken any formal after-the-fact investigation into it. What I can say from personal knowledge is that the Brethren were very much involved in the subsequent search for and appointment of a new director and the formulation of a revised mission statement" etc. I would have accepted that. And it might have precluded the anonymous individual misquoting you in comments on Dan's blog, to wit: "According to the Maxwell Institute's Blair Hodges, it was BYU and apostles who gave Dan the 'boot.'"

Furthermore, I'm guessing it would go a long way toward assuaging injured feelings if someone like Morgan Davis, who had a front-row seat to witness the events of 2012, were to admit upfront that high-level Church leaders did not order or orchestrate or approve in advance or even have any prior knowledge of the ouster of the Peterson team from the editorship of the FARMS Review/Mormon Studies Review. It wouldn't really cost him anything to do so, and it might help bring about the sort of civility and comity he and you are calling for among those, as  you put it, who are "engaged in the same cause."

 

You're welcome for the clarification. There's little I can do, aside from saying nothing (which is sometimes the wisest approach) to prevent someone from misreading my words like the "anonymous individual" did. My clarification neither confirms nor denies Dr. Peterson's account of events. I'm simply attempting to state that the Institute and University have not spoken—nor are there any plans to speak—on how particular lines of authority were involved in Dr. Peterson's dismissal as editor. Morgan isn't in a position to reveal confidential personnel information any more than I am, as he's also a university employee. What's clear to everyone is that, for whatever reason, the university and its administration have stuck by the decision for the past six years, regardless of how the decision was made. It's far in BYU's rear-view mirror at this point. 

Maybe someday it will become clear to more people that the very few active critics of Dr. Peterson seem to be more interested in riling him up and sowing division than they are in knowing who actually ordered what and when. A really weird hobby, to be sure, but one that is fueled by the reaction of the offended, IMO.

 

 

[Daniel Peterson]

I write publicly on this subject solely to ensure that false stories and misleading allegations don't remain publicly uncorrected.

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, Daniel Peterson said:

As to the "FARMS Review" and science (particularly, it seems, evolution), we only published one (brief) article directly addressing that topic.  It was a book review, entitled "Lamarck, Giraffes, and the Sermon on the Mount":

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1428&index=13

We had another article on the subject edited and fully ready to go in the issue of the "FARMS Review" that was suppressed by the new Maxwell Institute regime in 2012.  It ultimately appeared in "Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture" under the title "'Endless Forms Most Beautiful': The uses and abuses of evolutionary biology in six works":

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/endless-forms-most-beautiful-the-uses-and-abuses-of-evolutionary-biology-in-six-works/

People are free to read those two articles for themselves and determine whether we were anti-scientific.

Thanks for chiming in Dan.

Unfortunately those weren't the only examples. Just doing a quick search there's, "Mormonism and Intelligent Design" by Richard Sherlock (which I was shocked was published), "Creation by Evolution?" by Frank Salisbury and "The Clockmaster Returns" by James Farmer. It's mentioned in passing in Book Notes reviewing a Sam Harris (noted New Atheist) book. I found your own passing comments, while giving the caveat you're not bothered by evolution, to be troubling too in one volume. I'm sure there are many others.

At the Interpreter things have been much better. (And as I've often said overall I find The Interpreter a step up from FARMS/MI days - I'm actually glad of the move from MI to The Interpreter) So we have David Belnap's excellent "The Theory of Evolution is Compatible with Both Belief and Unbelief in a Supreme Being." Likewise Greg Smith did a good job in "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" for the most part - especially where he takes Dembski to task.That's the sort of thing I'd like to see more of. I wish we'd seen more papers like those in the FARMS days - the Whiting review was the only one I'd found at the classic MI making that case.

I've no comments on the rest of the issues. I know nothing about it and kind of just wish people would let the conflict go. I'm glad The Interpreter is there although, as with FARMS, some articles I wish weren't published. Likewise I'm glad the Maxwell Institute is there, although as I've said I worry about the lack of engagement and criticism of certain secular interpretations of Mormon history. And of course there's things there that I wish weren't published too. While I think it silly to say MI is dominated by secularism I also think secularism is starting to be a bit of a problem there.

Edited January 2, 2019 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Thanks for chiming in Dan.

I'd say both were deeply problematic.  However they weren't the only examples. "Mormonism and Intelligent Design" by Richard Sherlock. "Creation by Evolution?" by Frank Salisbury. "The Clockmaster Returns" by James Farmer. It's mentioned in passing in Book Notes reviewing a Sam Harris (noted New Atheist) book. I found your own passing comments, while giving the caveat you're not bothered by evolution, to be troubling too in one volume. I'm sure there are many others. So far as I can tell there's never even been a single article critical of Intelligent Design at FARMS/MI but many clearly buying into it.

At the Interpreter things have been much better. (And as I've often said overall I find The Interpreter a step up from FARMS/MI days - I'm actually glad of the move from MI to The Interpreter) So we have David Belnap's excellent "The Theory of Evolution is Compatible with Both Belief and Unbelief in a Supreme Being." Likewise Greg Smith did a good job in "Endless Forms Most Beautifu" where he takes Dembski to task.That's the sort of thing I'd like to see more of.

Is a belief in intelligent design anti-science?  Doesn't everyone who believes in God (and believes that He is the reason that this world and everything on it exists) believe in intelligent design?