Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mormon Studies Shakeup

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mormon Studies Shakeup

    Initial Thought: Wow!

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54...itute.html.csp
    "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
    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."

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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."

          Comment


          • #6
            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpete...xpression.html

            This guy seriously needs a PR advisor.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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."

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      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.
                      "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                      "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                      - SeattleUte

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X