SL Trib: Shake-up hits BYU?????s Mormon studies institute

[_degaston]

Dr. Scratch's informant (who I shall call DEEP SPIRIT) was sure right on the money. It makes me wonder if this informant is quietly an "apostate" who doesn't believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of the Lord. Some people surely must wonder why other people become "apostate" and forsake the "fulness of truth".

How could anyone not believe that Joseph Smith translated all the Book of Abraham facsimiles 100% accurately? Or how could they not believe in the written testimony about a descendant of Ham as contained in the Kinderhook Plates according to William Clayton who so faithfully served as the prophet's scribe for so many marvelous works, wonders and revelations? Or how could someone not believe that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and how it tells about the ancestors of the American Indians and all the wonderful traditions and stories we now have thanks to the great exalted angel Moroni, a resurrected being who was a great Nephite prophet-historian who so obviously must have gotten it right so Joseph would tell us all how it really was with the Native Americans' ancestors? Or how could someone doubt the prophet Brigham Young's powerful statements about monogamy and the contribution this "one man one wife" marriage system has made to history? Or how about the sacred actions of Brigham Young in the years following the Mountain Meadow Massacre and what happened to the belongings of the Fancher party? Or how about the sure knowledge about God's origins and man's potential as taught so powerfully by prophet Hinckley to the media? What about perusing the church's statistical reports and financial reports to help you gain a witness that its the most honest/truthful church on earth? Or how about the stability of the Lord's endowment compared to the everchanging ways of man from the time of Solomon's temple until the Masons had their own ceremonies? And what about the unchanging revelations in the Book of Commandments about the trinity and the higher/lesser priesthoods? Or what about the canonized article on marriage in the 1835 D&C which was so eloquently quoted by the church leaders during their marvelous years of marriage in the 1840's and early 1850's? Or how about the inspiration/discernment that the other 14 members of the FP/12 had about Richard R. Lyman from 1925-1943? Or who could doubt how the Lamanites are blossoming as a rose, as we see in the year 1977 there were only 89 Lamanite stakes in the chuch but how many today? Or surely we should sing praises of Joseph Smith for his strong defense of obeying the laws, of the freedom of the press and the respect for the rights of private property holders to have due process? Or how Wilford Woodruff's marvelous 1890 revelation was taught to the world including magnificent women like Lydia Mountford? Or who couldn't feel the good feelings when Elder Paul H. Dunn told of his days as a great pro baseball player and when he was a war hero? Or who could doubt that it was a wonderful thing it is to know that Monson/Packer are like Spanier/Paterno were at protecting the youth in the culture from child molesters and that they almost did the right thing in ex'ing a mid-level church leader for disobeying a direct order from Monson (when he was 1C to Hinckley) to obstruct justice so the church's reputation could be clear while a child molester would continue to roam free from scrutiny? Yes siree, how in the world could anyone doubt such a marvelous religion and ever let a thought enter their brain, heart, and spirit that it might not be the most truthful and honest religion in the history of the world?

Not long ago I told my mom that I'd love to teach gospel doctrine sunday school class. I tell my kids that I'd love to be a seminary teacher as I have some really good ideas to help the youth better understand the church and its role in history and their lives. But alas my mom doesn't think they'll call me to be a gospel doctrine teacher and my kids think I'll get fired IF I were to be a seminary teacher. And I really don't think the Bishopric would like me to bear my testimony in their sacrament meetings because they might be worried about what comes out of my mouth. Let the truth be known though that I certainly do have a testimony about the church that's pretty strong and stronger probably than it's ever been. If ever given the chance to teach I'll just say a quiet prayer that I can have faith that if I open my mouth then it shall be filled, and all sorts of marvelous words would come out :)

[Guest]

Monson/Packer indeed were like Spanier/Paterno in NOT protecting the youth of the world from child molesters and that they tried to excommunicate a mid-level church leader for disobeying a direct order from Monson (when he was 1C to Hinckley) to obstruct justice so the church's reputation could be clear while a child molester would continue to roam free from scrutiny. Some people get angry when I share this story and tell me that I have no right to tell it without providing all the details. However they fail to realize that if all the details came out then it could compromise the privacy rights of the victim who went to this mid-level leader for help. In addition staying silent only will cause others who might have been in the same predicament to continue to suffer in silence. Well I stand by my claim and advise anyone who wants me to shut up about this to file a lawsuit against me and I'll see you in court. I believe that the truth on this will eventually come out. However I think that day could be years down the road.

In the meantime just go read the comments in the Sandusky verdict news stories to see what people think of Spanier. He'll probably look back at his life for the rest of his mortality and think to himself "why did I throw away my career and reputation for Jerry Sandusky". And anyone in the FP/12 (especially the guys living who were there a decade ago) ought to ask themselves the say thing now. I wouldn't trade every luxury in the world to be in the shoes of those men who serve in the LDS FP/12. in my opinion it must be hell if they were to really look at themselves honestly in the mirror.

[_angsty]

I'd be curious to hear from Peggy what kind of response she gets from her readership-- whether people in general seem to care. I understand the excitement on our end considering the history of DCP's interactions with various characters on these internet message boards, but I'm curious to know if a more general audience would even give a rat's ass about the MI, DCP or this whole ordeal.

I bet 95% of TBMs have never heard of Daniel Peterson and have never heard of the Maxwell Institute. Of the general SLTrib readership, that would go up to about 99%.

I'm sure he isn't known generally among either Tribune readership or the faithful members of the church.

I do wonder if this story will register at all with Stack's LDS readers who are concerned about the church's public image (Romney supporters, members who are proud of the "...and I'm a Mormon" campaign, etc.). I don't see the Review as being particularly influential overall, but a change in direction that will enable Mormonism to be taken more seriously as a subject of academic study has to be seen as a plus.

[_Quasimodo]

I don't see the Review as being particularly influential overall, but a change in direction that will enable Mormonism to be taken more seriously as a subject of academic study has to be seen as a plus.

I'm confused by this. Any serious academic study (unless undertaken by BYU) could only be detrimental to the church as a whole.

[_Cylon]

for what it's worth, I was told by my informant roughly a week ago that news of this had been sent to the SL Trib. I suppose they've simply just been waiting to formally confirm all the details.

Doctor Scratch, Will Schryver has just recently started saying that he and others know the identity of the leaker at MI. At least, he says he knows who spilled the beans about the John Dehlin piece, and he assumes the same person is the source of the emails, too. To your knowledge, is your informant in any danger of repercussions to his/her job now?

[_angsty]

I don't see the Review as being particularly influential overall, but a change in direction that will enable Mormonism to be taken more seriously as a subject of academic study has to be seen as a plus.

I'm confused by this. Any serious academic study (unless undertaken by BYU) could only be detrimental to the church as a whole.

Lol. We have good reasons for believing that. But, there are sincere believers who think that when the facts are all in, their belief will be justified. My parents, for example.

There's also the "uncorrelated Mormon" crowd to consider. Some Mormons love Mormonism and identify with it without accepting its historical claims. They don't necessarily hold the kinds of beliefs that would be threatened by a closer examination of Mormonism.

[_Quasimodo]

There are just too many reliable facts that refute the church's origins and tenets. The only way to successfully combat those truth's is by defaming the people that bring them up.

Something tells me that during the proceedings which led up to this BYU decision, the question was asked as to whether such defaming was detrimental to us as a religious people and to the Church in seeking to better its relationship with the outside world, and the answer was that it must stop.

The trouble is that a realistic interpretation of the facts might not bode well for the church.

[_Kishkumen]

I haven't commented on this whole situation thus far because I have no relationship with Dan Peterson or any of the other individuals involved but I want to go on record as saying that once I read through the various threads here and at MDDB, I was hoping this would remain an internet affair and die a quick, quiet death.

Unfortunately, what has now happened is that Dan appears to have gotten the same kind of public dressing down by MI (via Peggy's article) that George Pace got from Bruce R. McConkie, a pointed humiliation that has always bothered me.

That's positively brutal and not something I would wish done to any fellow human being. I seem to recall reading that Brother Pace never quite recovered. I hope Dan fares better.

Hello, mercyngrace-

It is good to hear from you. I am a little puzzled by your message, however. What were you hoping would remain an internet affair? Daniel's dismissal from his editor's position?

I really don't see how this could have been the case, since Daniel went out of his way to engage the public for so many years. He has written columns in multiple venues. He has participated in numerous online discussion boards, and through the Review he has been close to some of the biggest historical moments in the LDS world over the past couple of decades in one way or another. There is simply no way this could have remained a small thing.

I think that this is quite different from what happened to poor Brother Pace. From one perspective, and the one that makes the most sense for him to emphasize in the future, he was released from his position as editor on one journal by the director of the Institute. He was not rebuked for doctrinal irregularities in public by an apostle. I think it will be quite easy for Daniel to put this into a much less significant box. Being publicly rebuked by an apostle seems to me to be a whole different kettle of fish.

Is this bad? Yes. Devastating? Yes. Humiliating? Yes. Brother Pace level? I don't think so. If Daniel Peterson were in Brother Pace's shoes, he might not have so many friends intimating that it is apostasy within the Church that is to blame for these developments. I would think that the whole lot of them would feel much more chastened than they apparently are.

[_Quasimodo]

Lol. We have good reasons for believing that. But, there are sincere believers who think that when the facts are all in, their belief will be justified. My parents, for example.

There's also the "uncorrelated Mormon" crowd to consider. Some Mormons love Mormonism and identify with it without accepting its historical claims. They don't necessarily hold the kinds of beliefs that would be threatened by a closer examination of Mormonism.

An older generation. The younger generation (such as yourself) have more information to weigh. The church denies it, but there has been a real decline in membership in the last few years. Some of the church officials have been honest enough to attribute this to the availability of information on the internet. That will increase with a closer examination of Mormonism.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Most active Mormons will ask "What is Mormon Studies Institute?" and "Who is Daniel C. Peterson??"

Some will Google.

Cue Queen song, "Another one bites the dust"..

I am telling you, us apostates should just sit back and watch the enemy from within at work.

My favorite part of the article: Longtime editor is ousted