Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 82

Thread: Mormon Studies Shakeup

  1. #1
    Senior Member The Fourth Nephite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sanpete County
    Posts
    778

    Default Mormon Studies Shakeup

    "I'm going to go back to CUF now, where the censorship is less, the average IQ is higher, and we don't have to deal with so much of this nonsense. Goodbye." - SoonerCoug

  2. #2
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    So I guess that 100-page ad hominem attack on JD can finally be published.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  3. #3
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    Total pages of article written about John Dehlin > Total pages of aggregate scriptures that reference Christ in the Book of Mormon.

    No wonder they wanted to take the Review in a different direction.
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    So I guess that 100-page ad hominem attack on JD can finally be published.
    That piqued my curiosity. I had no idea it was 100 pages. Seems like a waste of time for men with PhD's.

  5. #5
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    That piqued my curiosity. I had no idea it was 100 pages. Seems like a waste of time for men with PhD's.
    I doubt it's anywhere near 100 pages.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  6. #6

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    I doubt it's anywhere near 100 pages.
    I have no idea. The SL Trib Article was the first time I'd heard that.

    The tipping point against that approach may have been a 100-page article about John Dehlin, a church member in Logan who launched Mormon Stories, which welcomes those who question aspects of LDS history, practice and theology.

  8. #8
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    I have no idea. The SL Trib Article was the first time I'd heard that.
    Yeah, I read that and thought it a little too much to believe. How many of us could have 100 pages of ad hominem attacks written about us?

    But even if it's only 10 pages, does it mean it will now be published?
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  9. #9
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    Yeah, I read that and thought it a little too much to believe. How many of us could have 100 pages of ad hominem attacks written about us?

    But even if it's only 10 pages, does it mean it will now be published?
    I could easily do 100 pages of ad hominem attacks against certain people.
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  10. #10
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    I could easily do 100 pages of ad hominem attacks against certain people.
    Agreed.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...xpression.html

    This guy seriously needs a PR advisor.
    No kidding. He's only enforcing his Internet persona of a drama queen.

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    Yeah, I read that and thought it a little too much to believe. How many of us could have 100 pages of ad hominem attacks written about us?

    But even if it's only 10 pages, does it mean it will now be published?
    I might be misunderstanding the issue. I thought the JD article was going to be published under the direction of Petersen and his board. I thought Bradford was against it, and Petersen's sacking was related to this.

  12. #12
    Faith crisis consultant SeattleUte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,582

    Default

    I wonder if he'll leave the church.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift

  13. #13
    Liberal Feminazi Pheidippides's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    14,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    I could easily do have already done 100 pages of ad hominem attacks against certain people most people on this board.
    FIFY.
    Awesomeness now has a name. Let me introduce myself.

  14. #14
    Senior Member myboynoah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Land of the Morning Calm
    Posts
    14,631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    No kidding. He's only enforcing his Internet persona of a drama queen.



    I might be misunderstanding the issue. I thought the JD article was going to be published under the direction of Petersen and his board. I thought Bradford was against it, and Petersen's sacking was related to this.
    Hence, DP can now publish the article himself.
    Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!

    For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.

    Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."

  15. #15
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,556

    Default

    Here is, supposedly, the email exchange between Bradford and Peterson that he mentioned in his blog...

    On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:43 AM, [M. Gerald Bradford] xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote:
    Dear Dan:

    I trust all goes well with your travels. I was hoping to hear from you on the Review before you left. Given how far behind it is, we need to decide its future and address our breach of expectations with its subscribers. Our front office staff are even now soliciting subscription renewals for a periodical that is now two issues behind schedule. And I'm unwilling to publish 23:2 as it stands.

    I remain convinced that the time has come for us to take the Review in a different direction, along the lines of the prospectus I gave you. But I now realize it was wrong of me to ask you to accept and execute my editorial vision in place of your own. I value you as an academic colleague and I respect your right to pursue the research and publication projects you find inspiring and valuable. I will continue to support you in this regard. But what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen. I plan to begin the process of finding a new editor right away. At the same time, I would welcome your continued involvement as a member of its soon-to-be-formed editorial advisory board. I believe you will continue to find much in it to commend, and it will be a better publication for your involvement.

    I plan to announce that the Review will be on hiatus until this process is completed. In the interim, we will settle things up with our current subscribers. I want to make this announcement as soon as possible and word it the right way.

    I’m sensitive to the fact that there are those who would love nothing better than to make something of a change in editors and I’m concerned that we not give them any grounds to do this. I would appreciate any ideas you have along these lines that I might include in this announcement. Please be assured that, while brief, it will be positive and will highlights the important things that the Review has achieved under your helm during the past two decades plus. It will also indicate that the recently christened Mormon Studies Review is going to chart a new course, with a new editorial team, one that will bring it explicitly in-line with the scholarly agenda of the Institute, that will ensure that it clearly complements the Journal and Studies, and that will further enable it to make solid, scholarly contributions to Mormon studies.

    Please let me hear from you in the next week or so. I’ll make the announcement sometime around the first of the month.

    All the best,

    Jerry
    From: Daniel Peterson
    Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:18 PM
    To: <[M. Gerald Bradford] xxx@xxx.xxx> [18 other recipients, redacted for privacy]
    Subject: Re: Charting a new course

    Dr. Bradford:

    You've achieved your goal. I resign.
    I resign as Director of Advancement, effective immediately. You've already fired me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.
    My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.
    I realize now, too, that you've been plotting this for some time, and that, naïve fool that I am, I didn't even realize that I was playing chess before I had been checkmated.
    There is nothing you can do to prevent this from being an absolutely spectacular propaganda triumph for those who oppose the Institute and despise me, so don't bother trying. As a matter of fact -- since the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review. They know about it, and they're going to feast on this for years to come.
    The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works. You could have waited a bit so that that conclusion would be less apparent, but, of course, you haven't. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
    With my sacking now, and with what I presume to be the simultaneous dismissal of Lou Midgley and George Mitton and my other associate editors, which follows the utter marginalization of the scholars who once made up the board of directors and the complete ostracism of Jack Welch and, most recently, the re-alienation of Bill Hamblin, the process of driving away those who committed so much of their energy to the creation and building of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute continues apace.
    You think it healthy. I do not.
    And let's not pretend that the delay in this issue of the Review, or the slowness with which recent issues have appeared, is the justification for this move. You've never raised the matter with me before. In fact, your own actions have significantly contributed to the delay of this most recent issue. (It's substantially complete, though, and the Institute owes my associate editors the proper fees for their services. It's no fault of theirs that you're spiking this issue.)
    I regard this as an utterly wrong-headed and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it. And not merely because it will subject me to enormous and quite undeserved public humiliation. It's a betrayal of Elder Maxwell, who explicitly approved of what we were doing. "No more uncontested slam dunks," he said. But now we're returning to the status quo ante, under which there were and will continue to be plenty of "uncontested slam dunks." It's a brazen repudiation of the mandate given to us by President Packer, who, when he spoke at the dinner during which we were officially entrusted with Elder Maxwell's name, praised two specific aspects of the Institute's work: the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and its apologetic efforts. It's a betrayal of the promises we made to our leading donors, who explicitly asked us to do apologetics and, in some substantial recent cases, gave us major donations based on our assurance that we would continue to do so.
    You place me in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as I'm supposed to be an advocate for a Maxwell Institute that, in my view, will soon no longer exist, and to maintain good relations with donors to the Institute to whom, in my opinion, we will now prove to have flatly lied. I cannot do that. I don't know what to do about the forthcoming Development Council Turkey trip that I conceived, since several of the people who are slated to participate in it are going, at least partially, because I persuaded them to do so.
    I feel obliged to try to make it a good trip and to go, but it will, I think, be my last effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, and I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere. And, though I won't be so disloyal as to solicit funds from them for anything else during the trip to Turkey, I will feel entirely free to do so thereafter. And I'll be vocal about why I no longer regard the Maxwell Institute as an appropriate recipient of their money. I will explain my resignation, and my reasons for it, in a note to members of the Development Council after the conclusion of the Turkey trip but prior to the October PLC meeting. I do not feel that I can do otherwise and maintain my integrity. I've built up a good relationship with the members of the Smith Family Foundation; good luck in maintaining that.
    I agreed to give a private tour to the Holy Land -- the trip that I'm currently on -- partially in the hope of interesting a PLC donor in giving to the Maxwell Institute. We're getting along well, but I'm not going to mention the Institute to him any more. Nursing and Athletics are perfectly adequate continuing recipients of his gifts. And I think I can safely predict that, even without my saying much, you will, with my dismissal, instantly lose one very specific annual donation.
    Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.
    I understand that some contract issues may be affected by my resignation as Director of Advancement. I trust that we can work those out in a civil manner. Pending my dismissal from METI, I will insist that I continue to be compensated as a director in my role, which I will now have more time for, as its editor in chief. I also expect my usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review that you've killed. It was finished and ready to go.
    Very seriously yours,
    Daniel C. Peterson
    Tiberias, Israel
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  16. #16
    Faith crisis consultant SeattleUte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,582

    Default

    These people are all despicable. Yuk.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay santos View Post
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...xpression.html

    This guy seriously needs a PR advisor.
    That thing has been shared 400+ times on FB?

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myboynoah View Post
    Hence, DP can now publish the article himself.
    Aw yes. Got it now.

  19. #19
    Invisible Swordsman DrumNFeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Knee Deep in the Hoopla
    Posts
    8,851

    Default

    It would be interesting to see what the reaction would have been if the roles were reversed. This whole thing strikes as terribly ironic.
    "They're good. They've always been good" - David Shaw.

    Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    It would be interesting to see what the reaction would have been if the roles were reversed. This whole thing strikes as terribly ironic.
    Roles reversed how? Delhin vs Peterson? What would that look like? What would the expected reaction be? How would it be ironic?

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    It would be interesting to see what the reaction would have been if the roles were reversed. This whole thing strikes as terribly ironic.
    Whose reaction? The reason this is a story is because of how those with authority over Peterson reacted right? By the way, Dehlin had Peterson on his show and gave him a platform to give his perspective (though I believe it was Dan Wotherspoon who did the interview).

  22. #22
    Time to camp HuskyFreeNorthwest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Eug
    Posts
    25,955

    Default

    Are we supposed to know who this person is, or why he is supposed to be important to us? Also who the person he wrote a 100 page attack on?
    Get confident, stupid
    -landpoke

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrumNFeather View Post
    It would be interesting to see what the reaction would have been if the roles were reversed. This whole thing strikes as terribly ironic.
    You've said this twice so I assume you're making a point, but like santos, I'm not catching it.

    Here's a possible role reversal: John Dehlin starts to develop a reputation for making ad hominem attacks against apostles. A rumor circulates that he's developed a particularly nasty one against Elder Packer. The board of mormonstories (I think they have one, right?) decides they don't like this direction and replace him before he records/publishes it under the mormonstories name.

    Does that work? As a fan of mormonstories, I'd be all for replacing him because I think ad hominem attacks or focuses (foci?) are embarrassing and unseemly. Even if I liked that approach, I'd still support a private organization doing whatever it wants with its direction.

    Where's the irony?
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
    Whose reaction? The reason this is a story is because of how those with authority over Peterson reacted right? By the way, Dehlin had Peterson on his show and gave him a platform to give his perspective (though I believe it was Dan Wotherspoon who did the interview).
    Dehlin would have done the interview himself, but Peterson preferred Wotherspoon.

  25. #25
    sweet triple TripletDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    58,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HuskyFreeNorthwest View Post
    Are we supposed to know who this person is, or why he is supposed to be important to us? Also who the person he wrote a 100 page attack on?
    Apparently, the guy that used to run a certain publication was fired recently while he was traveling on business. He was not fired face-to-face. He was fired because the powers that be at the publication wanted to take the publication in a different direction. Meanwhile, some folks at the publication wrote a 100-page article attacking a guy that is considered by the Church to be an agitator. Not coincidentally, the guy that was fired viewed the agitator as a sympathetic figure. The article was never published.

    In sum, if you are a Church employee or work in a Church-related area and the Church thinks you are veering off the path or causing others to do the same, you will likely lose your job. Not sure why any of this is shocking or upsetting, but many have chosen to use it as proof or confirmation of something or other.
    Fitter. Happier. More Productive.


  26. #26
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    Apparently, the guy that used to run a certain publication was fired recently while he was traveling on business. He was not fired face-to-face. He was fired because the powers that be at the publication wanted to take the publication in a different direction. Meanwhile, some folks at the publication wrote a 100-page article attacking a guy that is considered by the Church to be an agitator. Not coincidentally, the guy that was fired viewed the agitator as a sympathetic figure. The article was never published.

    In sum, if you are a Church employee or work in a Church-related area and the Church thinks you are veering off the path or causing others to do the same, you will likely lose your job. Not sure why any of this is shocking or upsetting, but many have chosen to use it as proof or confirmation of something or other.
    Well said. I am not sure why Rosebud and others are high-fiving over this. Hard to say how much connection there is between this and JD's censoring incident. But if they are related, this doesn't mean that DP has been silenced. Not by a long shot. He and his compadres will simply find a new venue. All it means is that he has been demoted/removed from a BYU/Church-sanctioned position and JD was instrumental in one of the more heavy-handed episodes of correlation we have seen in a while. Bravo, Dehlin.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Well said. I am not sure why Rosebud and others are high-fiving over this. Hard to say how much connection there is between this and JD's censoring incident. But if they are related, this doesn't mean that DP has been silenced. Not by a long shot. He and his compadres will simply find a new venue. All it means is that he has been demoted/removed from a BYU/Church-sanctioned position and JD was instrumental in one of the more heavy-handed episodes of correlation we have seen in a while. Bravo, Dehlin.
    Lol
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

  28. #28
    Local Character clackamascoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Frog Pond Grange
    Posts
    6,693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Well said. I am not sure why Rosebud and others are high-fiving over this. Hard to say how much connection there is between this and JD's censoring incident. But if they are related, this doesn't mean that DP has been silenced. Not by a long shot. He and his compadres will simply find a new venue. All it means is that he has been demoted/removed from a BYU/Church-sanctioned position and JD was instrumental in one of the more heavy-handed episodes of correlation we have seen in a while. Bravo, Dehlin.
    And being removed from a church sanctioned position, will have more freedom. After the initial shock, I would venture that a year from now Peterson will say its the best thing that could have happened to him.

    When poet puts pen to paper imagination breathes life, finding hearth and home.
    -Mid Summer's Night Dream


  29. #29
    Faith crisis consultant SeattleUte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TripletDaddy View Post
    Not coincidentally, the guy that was fired viewed the agitator as a sympathetic figure.
    Peterson was on Dehlin's side? I find that hard to believe. Now, that would be ironic however.

    This whole episode brings to mind the old saying no honor among thieves. A slight change: No honor among fraudsters.
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

    --Jonathan Swift

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Next to the Ocean
    Posts
    859

    Default

    I too thought Peterson was against JD. Can someone clarify ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •