Bob Crockett Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) Supporting Dan does not mean I have to view the facts through rose-colored glasses. I do support him. WIth money. Not with lip service. And, yes, because I confused Smoot with Smith you should completely disregard my thoughts on the matter. Harsh. Things are not always as one-sided as you would like. Edited December 13, 2019 by Bob Crockett
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Supporting Dan does not mean I have to view the facts through rose-colored glasses. I do support him. WIth money. Not with lip service. And, yes, because I confused Smoot with Smith you should completely disregard my thoughts on the matter. Harsh. Things are not always as one-sided as you would like. I am not the one looking at things one sided or rose coloured glasses. You take two emails with limited information and guess the rest. That is not viewing facts, that is speculation based on minimal info. And the confusion is simply further evidence of your lack of knowledge of the circumstances, not the only reason. Great strawmen. Edited December 13, 2019 by Calm 2
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Things are not always as one-sided as you would like. So are you claiming that Dan is wrong in his comment in this thread? That when Dan states Bradford did not vainly try to meet with him, this is wrong and Bradford actually did try to meet with him? Edited December 13, 2019 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: And with that incomplete info, you came to a faulty conclusion...unless you believe Dan is lying. Have you changed your opinion now you have more info (the post in this thread from him)? I have read and heard much more than just those two emails, so it would seem my opinion is much more informed than yours. Your conclusions about it being "BYU" are overstated as is your conclusion that Bradford attempted to meet with Peterson prior to his leaving to sack him. He says he was hoping to "hear from you on the Review" which implies more written or phone conversation and states it was about the Review and specifies issues with the Review itself. Only later in a separate paragraph does he move on to Peterson's situation and says "I now realize it was wrong to expect..." That "now" suggests he decided to terminate Peterson around the time he was writing the email. There is nothing to suggest as well he initiated any effort to speak to Peterson, no references to anticipating Peterson returning an earlier email or call either. Hoping is not expecting. A boss asking for a meeting or conversation would be expecting his employee to contact him, not just vaguely hoping. Peterson's email states his wife predicted he would be terminated once he was out of the country and she used the word "pull" which does not imply that Dan was ditching any attempt to meet with him face to face so Bradford was forced to do it after he left, but rather that was Bradford's original intention in her view. Neither email suggests Bradford was anticipating a face to face about termination prior to Peterson leaving the country. Bradford could have easily included that in the discussion of what he was anticipating, as in 'I needed to talk about your future as well as the future of the Review.' But even if that demonstrates that you took too great a leap in your conclusions, imo, all that is moot with Dan's information. And since you got that bit about the situation completely wrong, you should be less secure imo in making pontifications on what "BYU" wanted to happen, etc. If you mean the then current directors of the Maxwell Institute, you should specify them rather than use "BYU" which implies the global entity of BYU, which would imo include the Board of Regents. If you really support Dan, then you would stop spreading misinformation about his dismissal. PS: it wasn't even Smoot who was reviewing Mormonstories and Dehlin, but Greg Smith. Something else you got wrong. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/news-gregory-l-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/ ---- You might want to read this to become at least somewhat more informed than just two emails... https://web.archive.org/web/20131019035420/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/10/who-should-get-the-credit-for-giving-me-the-boot.html An almost perfect post. One minor correction: BYU has a board of trustees, not a board of regents.
Bob Crockett Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 Harsh. I'd say I have the facts pretty close to being right. Keep in mind that I have been the Executive Director of the Claremont Mormon Studies program and had access to gossip and storytelling. BYU wanted to bring an end to the journal because, in small part, of Dehlin's complaints and the pending Smith article. The journal wasn't really a central part of the Maxwell Institute but later seemed to eclipse all other elements of it. Bradford was directed to, or wanted to, replace Dr. Peterson and was trying to diplomatically bring it about. Being unsuccessful with that, he sent an email. I think it is fundamentally unfair to characterize Dr. Bradford as the evil guy in this story when all he wanted to do was neuter the Review and publish a journal worthy of the University. The type of Review Dr. Peterson wanted to publish I personally support and have supported but it is not appropriate to be under BYU's mantle. When the Review first was published there wasn't any mean-spirited apologia in it. That mean spirit brought the Review down. It has its place at the Interpreter, where I support it. To deny that the Review was mean-spirited in the end is to deny reality. Why wouldn't BYU want to squelch that? Academic journals are not mean-spirited, usually. 2
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: An almost perfect post. One minor correction: BYU has a board of trustees, not a board of regents. Thank you. Will correct that.
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Harsh. I'd say I have the facts pretty close to being right. Keep in mind that I have been the Executive Director of the Claremont Mormon Studies program and had access to gossip and storytelling. BYU wanted to bring an end to the journal because, in small part, of Dehlin's complaints and the pending Smith article. The journal wasn't really a central part of the Maxwell Institute but later seemed to eclipse all other elements of it. Bradford was directed to, or wanted to, replace Dr. Peterson and was trying to diplomatically bring it about. Being unsuccessful with that, he sent an email. I think it is fundamentally unfair to characterize Dr. Bradford as the evil guy in this story when all he wanted to do was neuter the Review and publish a journal worthy of the University. The type of Review Dr. Peterson wanted to publish I personally support and have supported but it is not appropriate to be under BYU's mantle. When the Review first was published there wasn't any mean-spirited apologia in it. That mean spirit brought the Review down. It has its place at the Interpreter, where I support it. To deny that the Review was mean-spirited in the end is to deny reality. Why wouldn't BYU want to squelch that? Academic journals are not mean-spirited, usually. Did Bradford try to meet with Dan to remove him as editor prior to him leaving on the tour or not? Simple question. Yes, Dan is wrong on this; No, Dan is accurate in his statement. I am not making claims Bradford was evil. I don't believe he was evil. I don't believe the Review should have been associated with the University in order to avoid these types of conflicts. I understand the motivation of Pres. Hinckley in asking FARMS to join the Institute, but there needed to be much more hands on by the church leadership to keep a religious slant in a university publication, imo. And that didn't work with the typical approach of the Board of Trustees from what I hear reported. And my personal preference is a more academic approach, but I see a need for apologetics as well that are solidly based on academics...but better independent of a university or direct oversight by church leadership. But in this thread I am solely addressing whether or not Bradford attempted to remove Dan from the Review prior to Dan's leaving, so please just answer the question rather than going off on side issues. Edited December 13, 2019 by Calm 1
why me Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 If I go back years ago on the FairMormon discussion board, it were apologists like Bill who helped me navigate various issues that the critics were bringing up at that time. Bill helped many members to see the lds side of things. But he wasn't alone. Dan was great too. And others who I forget. The lds community lost a great fighter. 3
Bob Crockett Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Did Bradford try to meet with Dan prior to him leaving on the tour or not? Simple question. I am not making claims Bradford was evil. I don't believe he was evil. I am solely addressing whether or not he attempted to remove Dan from the Review prior to Dan's leaving. Yes. One has to believe that BYU administrative was behind the whole thing. They either approved it in advance or ratified it retrospectively. Thus, Dr. Peterson's termination as Review editor was justified. He didn't lose the rest of jobs -- the ones that paid him. He resigned from those in a fit of pique. Bradford wanted him to stay on and guide the Review and the selection of an editor. Dan wouldn't. Is it difficult to see that your friend would do such a thing? I've done things in fits of pique. I've cut my nose off to spite my face in the past. It happens. It happened here. For the best it would seem, as Dr. Peterson is a more more polished and effective spokesman for the Church that he was ever before. Edited December 13, 2019 by Bob Crockett
Scott Lloyd Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Harsh. I'd say I have the facts pretty close to being right. Keep in mind that I have been the Executive Director of the Claremont Mormon Studies program and had access to gossip and storytelling. BYU wanted to bring an end to the journal because, in small part, of Dehlin's complaints and the pending Smith article. The journal wasn't really a central part of the Maxwell Institute but later seemed to eclipse all other elements of it. Bradford was directed to, or wanted to, replace Dr. Peterson and was trying to diplomatically bring it about. Being unsuccessful with that, he sent an email. I think it is fundamentally unfair to characterize Dr. Bradford as the evil guy in this story when all he wanted to do was neuter the Review and publish a journal worthy of the University. The type of Review Dr. Peterson wanted to publish I personally support and have supported but it is not appropriate to be under BYU's mantle. When the Review first was published there wasn't any mean-spirited apologia in it. That mean spirit brought the Review down. It has its place at the Interpreter, where I support it. To deny that the Review was mean-spirited in the end is to deny reality. Why wouldn't BYU want to squelch that? Academic journals are not mean-spirited, usually. Bob, with respect, I have to say that I agree with Calm on this matter. Your rendition of events seems to be based more on your own suppositions and so-called “gossip and storytelling” than on Daniel Peterson’s firsthand, on-the-ground, straightforward and repeatedly consistent recounting of events. And as a frequent and longtime reader of the Review when it was under Dan’s editorship, I dispute that it was at any time “mean spirited.” It was direct and often witty in its rebuttals of attacks against the Church, but that is not tantamount to being mean spirited. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Yes. According to Dan, there were only three days between his lengthy meeting with Bradford and his departure on the tour. At what point during those three days did Bradford attempt a meeting only to be rebuffed by Peterson, and can you document that? Edited December 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Supporting Dan does not mean I have to view the facts through rose-colored glasses. I do support him. WIth money. Not with lip service. And, yes, because I confused Smoot with Smith you should completely disregard my thoughts on the matter. Harsh. It’s not a reason all by itself for disregarding your thoughts, but you do tend to get names and individuals confused. You once contacted me by personal mail on this board thinking I was Scott Gordon, the president of FairMormon (then called FAIR). I was obliged to respond and tell you you had the wrong man. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: To deny that the Review was mean-spirited in the end is to deny reality. Why wouldn't BYU want to squelch that? Academic journals are not mean-spirited, usually. Whether or not it is true that BYU wanted to squelch the Review as it existed under the Peterson editorship, a few years later they did squelch what became of it it when it was divested under the recent revamping of the Maxwell Institute. Edited December 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Yes So Dan is lying or mistaken when he stated the below earlier in this thread, even though of the two of you it is much, much more likely that Dan would know what happened. And this is you supporting him. I don't see much purpose in discussing this further with you if this is how you deal with "facts". Quote It is not true that the director vainly sought to meet with me in order to sack me. It is not true that the director vainly sought to meet with me. Period. I met with him a couple of days before I left for six weeks overseas, in the Middle East and then in Europe. I was not sacked in that meeting, and there was no expectation of another meeting before my departure. I was sacked while I was still in the Middle East. To be precise, I was sacked by email while I was in my room in the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem. Edited December 13, 2019 by Calm 1
JamesBYoung Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 It is worthwhile, Calm, to consider that Dan remembers in a manner that is more soothing to him. I am not too concerned with anyone else's understanding of the situation of Dan's dismissal. What is important remains that he was dismissed by email no less instead of face to face. I think the manner in which that wihappened to be a dismal spot on the Institute but nonetheless a correct choice. 1
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: It is worthwhile, Calm, to consider that Dan remembers in a manner that is more soothing to him. If this was Dan's first comment on the matter I would agree with you. I am one who fully believes in the malleability of memory. However, I have posted a comment from him from 2013. I also still have my emails ( I don't delete anything but spam and unnecessary notices) from that time and have reviewed a few discussing these events with a few of those directly involved as well as online conversations.**** Dan has been consistent on this aspect since it happened. And the experiences of the other editors involved mirror the way Dan explains it happening, which supports imo Bradford attempting to avoid confrontation or whatever reason that caused him to take the steps he did (or rather not take the steps he should have imo). I am doublechecking with one of them to see if I am accurate in my description of what happened to them. When he responds, I will post his confirmation or correction. Quote I am not too concerned with anyone else's understanding of the situation of Dan's dismissal. What is important remains that he was dismissed by email no less instead of face to face. However, if one accepts Crockett's claim that Bradford was indeed trying to be diplomatic, contrary to Peterson's claims and that instead it was Peterson stonewalling/avoiding Bradford, it implies that Peterson is also likely misrepresenting what else happened in the shift of focus of the MI, that it was Peterson that stood in the way of compromise or who was attempting to undermine efforts of Bradford and others. Since that reflects on the very foundation of why the change happened as well as how and whether that was appropriate given the Institute was supported to a significant extent by those who expected it would be doing apologetic work, I think it relevant. ****you are a newbie, so you may not be aware I am a longtime FairMormon member as well as an obsessive poster on this board and a previous one where such things are dissected down to molecular level at times. I have had a long acquaintance with Dan and others involved, which has given me access over the years. Not that it makes any difference to this issue but the thread itself has brought back memories, I even lived across the street from Bill Hamblin in my youth for a bit (my grandma lived on his culdesac and we lived with her for a bit, his mom was my favorite Mutual leader...oh, and a comment by him or one of his friends gave me nightmares about black widow spiders for years). Edited December 13, 2019 by Calm
JamesBYoung Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 I am quite sure that both sides are spinning to their own best image.
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) I do not have to wait for confirmation, I found a June 22, 2012 email discussing the MI announcement that included this: Quote To better serve these goals, last year we renamed our venerable FARMS Review to Mormon Studies Review. For many years the FARMS Reviewhas filled an important niche in the intellectual life of its many readers under the vigorous editorship of Professor Daniel C. Peterson and his associates [editors], Louis C. Midgley, George L. Mitton, and, more recently, Gregory L. Smith and Robert White. We thank these colleagues and the many contributing writers to the Review for their industry and scholarship over the past twenty-three years. This public announcement was the associates' first notice they no longer had this job. Added for documentation: Followed by this info from Dan: Quote The formal statement mentions my associate editors — Louis C. Midgley, George L. Mitton, Gregory L. Smith, and Robert B. White — and pretty clearly implies that they, too, have been dismissed. They didn’t even receive an email. The newly-posted statement on the Maxwell Institute’s website, I suppose, constitutes their notification and their thanks for, cumulatively, many years of service. (They have been absolutely wonderful.) One of them had written Dr. Bradford several days ago, asking whether he was to be canned along with me, but received no answer. Another called Dr. Bradford by telephone, but his call was not returned. One is traveling in Europe without Internet access, and still knows nothing about any of this (though his earlier calls to Dr. Bradford, regarding a matter that now seems to have been related, also went unanswered). My own emails to Dr. Bradford received no response, and their receipt was never even acknowledged. https://web.archive.org/web/20120625062755/http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/06/of-gratitude-and-its-expression.html Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm 1
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said: I am quite sure that both sides are spinning to their own best image. It is a lie, not a spin, to claim to not get an email if they actually got one. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said: I am quite sure that both sides are spinning to their own best image. Other than Dan, can you cite any direct participant in this drama who has made a public statement contradicting him? Or are you alluding to Bob Crockett, who by his own statement is relying on “gossip and storytelling”? Edited December 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 2
strappinglad Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 Board nanny here. You know what I want to say. 1
Bob Crockett Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s not a reason all by itself for disregarding your thoughts, but you do tend to get names and individuals confused. You once contacted me by personal mail on this board thinking I was Scott Gordon, the president of FairMormon (then called FAIR). I was obliged to respond and tell you you had the wrong man. Then you are free to disregard anything I say!!
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Board nanny here. You know what I want to say. Yeah. I gave myself permission because Bill was quite outspoken back when all this happened and I am assuming he would want to have the facts kept straight. But I don't see any need to say more on the subject, so will accept the counsel and stop that line of discussion. (Added: Oops, had to clarify a comment) Back to Bill... One of the few videos I have been interested was his done with Margaret Barker. For those interested... My only complaint is background noise so I had to take it in smaller bites. https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCoopz64-p7cd1wqBbGpeJJA I assume someone will be stepping in to preserve his online material. There is a sense of eternal accessibility for me that gets a rude awakening when I can't even find something on the way back machine. Here is a link to some of his work with FairMormon: https://www.fairmormon.org/authors/hamblin-william And much, much more extensive, an archive of his Book of Mormon material here: https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/author/William J. Hamblin Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm
Bob Crockett Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 44 minutes ago, Calm said: I do not have to wait for confirmation, I found a June 22, 2012 email discussing the MI announcement that included this: This public announcement was the associates' first notice they no longer had this job. "this job," meaning "contributing authors." I was a contributing author and the change was a surprise to me. Maxwell Institute no longer received my money after that.
Calm Posted December 13, 2019 Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: "this job," meaning "contributing authors." I was a contributing author and the change was a surprise to me. Maxwell Institute no longer received my money after that. No, meaning the four other editors who had requested clarification from Bradford and not received it according to my information. (See above edited post for documentation) Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts