It's Now Even More Official

[_Shulem]

As a good friend of mine quipped when hearing this news: Dan has been dismissed without further argument.

"You're OUT, Dan! Beat it"!



Paul O

[_degaston]

What happened to Daniel Peterson is a very typical way that business is done by Mormons in Utah. True there are plenty of leaders who do business this way around the rest of the world. But in Utah its more risky that they'll do things this way.

[_Shulem]

What happened to Daniel Peterson is a very typical way that business is done by Mormons in Utah. True there are plenty of leaders who do business this way around the rest of the world. But in Utah its more risky that they'll do things this way.

Business is business. Dan's work was substandard and simply lacked the latest vision had by the leaders of the church. Dan is not in step with the leaders of newMormonism. So, he's fired.

Paul O

[_Yoda]

I think that Dan should have been given an opportunity to lead MI into the new direction. It seemed like he was willing to do that, and had what he considered an amicable conversation with Bradford, dicussing how this would be accomplished. I really don't understand why Bradford chose to simply dismiss Dan outright. If Dan had pushed back to the point that he didn't want to try, or if he had failed to produce the vision, then I could see cause for replacement, but to not even allow him to try? After 20+ years dedication to an organization, that is just rotten.

[_Kevin Graham]

I think that Dan should have been given an opportunity to lead MI into the new direction.

He was, but he disagreed with that direction.

It seemed like he was willing to do that

Based on what? He flat out disagrees with it.

and had what he considered an amicable conversation with Bradford, dicussing how this would be accomplished

But we don't know the details of that conversation and probably never will. I'm sure Bradford has his side that story as well, and the fact that Bradford spent "hours" talking to Dan about this over the phone gives some indication that he really wanted Dan to stay aboard, but he simply couldn't convince Dan to change his ways.

I really don't understand why Bradford chose to simply dismiss Dan outright

We don't know that it was only Bradford's decision. From what I keep hearing from those in the know, there are a number of scholars who were aching to see the NAMIR change its ways. Keep in mind that the only people really supporting Dan and trying to turn him into a martyr, are those among his cult following.

If Dan had pushed back to the point that he didn't want to try, or if he had failed to produce the vision, then I could see cause for replacement

Well that is what happened apparently. All indicators suggest this, whether it be from Dan, Bill, etc, they all allude to an ongoing struggle between these two visions for quite some time now. If Dan was willing to budge an inch, then he probably wouldn't have signed off on the Dehlin hit piece, which was a sure sign that Dan wasn't willing moves towards that new direction so many others were wanting to see. Nor would he have been so adamant about publishing that insignificant peon and hatchet man William Schryver, if he were really interested in meeting Bradford half way. No, instead it seems Dan doubled down on his position practically daring Bradford to fire him. Dan is not a very smart person when it comes to negotiations of any sort. Not with critics,dissidents and now we see he has the same problems getting along with people of his own faith ; except those among his cult following.

Notice also that Dan first said he suspected he would be fired because his wife warned him, and then he turns around and acts like this was such a huge surprise "out of the blue." Maybe Dan should stick to what he does best: tour guiding.

[_the narrator]

I think that Dan should have been given an opportunity to lead MI into the new direction. .

Dan was given the opportunity and plenty of time. He fought it. The Mormon Studies Review was supposed to reflect the new vision, and he failed miserably with the first issue. He further made with the trashed issue that he refused to embrace it. It is my understanding that the MI staff wants to start fresh and pretend that the first MSR never happened by beginning the next issue 1:1.

[_Shulem]

I think that Dan should have been given an opportunity to lead MI into the new direction. It seemed like he was willing to do that, and had what he considered an amicable conversation with Bradford, dicussing how this would be accomplished. I really don't understand why Bradford chose to simply dismiss Dan outright. If Dan had pushed back to the point that he didn't want to try, or if he had failed to produce the vision, then I could see cause for replacement, but to not even allow him to try? After 20+ years dedication to an organization, that is just rotten.

Liz, Liz. Listen. This has been an ongoing problem and has not happened overnight. Bradford didn't fire Dan. The General Authorities did. Can I prove it? Of course not. But my weegie board says so. That's good enough for me.



Paul O

[_Shulem]

Dan was given the opportunity and plenty of time. He fought it. The Mormon Studies Review was supposed to reflect the new vision, and he failed miserably with the first issue. He further made with the trashed issue that he refused to embrace it. It is my understanding that the MI staff wants to start fresh and pretend that the first MSR never happened by beginning the next issue 1:1.

Excellent. Let them start with Explanation 6 of Facsimile No. 3. I will be the first person to disprove their silly excuse.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

I think that Dan should have been given an opportunity to lead MI into the new direction. It seemed like he was willing to do that, and had what he considered an amicable conversation with Bradford, dicussing how this would be accomplished. I really don't understand why Bradford chose to simply dismiss Dan outright. If Dan had pushed back to the point that he didn't want to try, or if he had failed to produce the vision, then I could see cause for replacement, but to not even allow him to try? After 20+ years dedication to an organization, that is just rotten.

It seems to me that the changes were made pretty poorly. One should keep in mind, however, that Bradford's understanding of the pre-trip conversation about the Review may be quite different from Daniel's representation of it. Daniel writes about how he was having difficulty "wrapping his head around" what Bradford had in mind for the new direction. Maybe Bradford was perfectly clear, but Daniel wasn't interested in a view that differed from his own agenda. After arguing with the guy for years myself, I wouldn't think this unlikely.

[_the narrator]

. After arguing with the guy for years myself, I wouldn't think this unlikely.

Questioning Dan's version of a story is probably a good rule, especially when he is the victim in the story.... Which I guess is the case for all of his stories.