DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What I find unfortunate is that Bradford did not give Dan an opportunity to at least show him what had been put together for the newest review edition. If he had conducted previous conversations with Dan about the Review going in a new direction, maybe Dan was attempting to do just that, which was why there was a delay. Dan mentioned in his response that the new edition was almost ready to go. Why did Bradford not simply wait until Dan was back from traveling? Or, better yet, ask Dan to email him a copy of what he had already put together for the review, and find out how close it was to being executed? If Dan's new edition, had, indeed, "met the mark" of going this new direction, maybe the editorial change was unnecessary. Maybe Dan was hoping to prove this with the new edition that, as Dan said, was close to being ready.

To come to this type of decision while Dan was away was, I think, a low blow for Bradford. As Bradford, himself, pointed out, this has been "Dan's baby" for the past 20 years. He wanted Dan's continued involvement and a smooth transition. Maybe if Bradford had given Dan a chance to prove that he could adjust to the new change, it would have saved everyone a lot of headache. It sounds like there was a huge breakdown in communication, which was exacerbated by the fact that Dan was out of the country when this decision was hastily made.

I understood from the emails that the issue was ready but that Bradford has seen it and was "unwilling to publish [it] as it stands." And DCP responded that Bradford was "spiking this issue [i.e., of the Review]." So I think there was nothing "to wait for" -- the volume wasn't going to get published (probably due to the Dehlin dust-up). As for Bradford doing this while DCP was far away, I agree that this was a poor way of handling it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

His reputation has a taken a serious hit, and his response to Bradford comes across very badly, in my opinion (i.e., threats, etc.).

I don't see it.

My eyes roll at the silly little spats academics have, public and private, where they claw for territory and funding. It happens everywhere. I can see for myself the knock-down drag-outs Michael Coe describes in his own works with fellow Mayanists, where they tear at each others' reputations. I can see in Theodore Roosevelt's various bios the spats and disputes he had with biologists and botanists who tried to tear his academic reputation apart.

And it doesn't really matter that it happens at the Lord's university, either.

I did some research into Earl Wilkenson's spats with Lou Midgley, Richard Wirthlin (the future G.A.) and J. Kenneth Davies in anticipation of a paper some day which will never be written. Ridiculous territorial and political dispute, but that particular dispute helped propel Reagan to the presidency, as Wirthlin was ousted from BYU, never came back, and founded the polling companythat guided Reagan's election bid.

So I see these two emails, which if accurate, as so predictable and common; the bureaucratic administrator trying to say things as soft was possible but still getting his digs in, holding open a reduced position, on the one hand, and the talented and high-strung academic superstar (well, in BYU's little circle) lashing back without much restraint. And, yes, funding is always the part of what an academic does; don't be foolish about it and think that they work for free.

These two guys shouldn't have done things by email; that was pretty dumb. But many of my trials are won and lost on silly things said in emails by billionaires.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't see it.

We obviously view the emails differently. Bradford fired Peterson from something Dan had been doing for over 20 years -- that's pretty significant. And Peterson's response ... i.e., blowing a gasket and spewing threats ... was also monumental. This was quite a bit more than a "silly spat" between academics -- I think it'll have a direct effect on Dan's livelihood (not the least of which were the fees he apparently was paid for his work on the Review and other work at the Institute), as well as his professional reputation (since he chose to so publicly take on the mantle of apologist-in-chief).

[_Wilma Fingerdoo]

Are we sure that this decision has nothing to do with the penis video that DCP watched and shared with his Facebook friends?

ROFL

[_Eric]

But many of my trials are won and lost on silly things said in emails by billionaires.

Is that what happened to Todd C. Summers? Interesting...





*
(please excuse my derail, but I find this lawyer's comment funny, as if he's in the business of representing billionaires and not sexual predators in cults.)

[_lulu]

But many of my trials are won and lost on silly things said in emails by billionaires.

Thanks for keeping your personal life of off the board.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But many of my trials are won and lost on silly things said in emails by billionaires.

Is that what happened to Todd C. Summers? Interesting...

Ouch!!!

[_lulu]

What I find unfortunate is that Bradford did not give Dan an opportunity

I think it's unfortunate that the Brethern made Bradford move immediately.

But I guess the Mormon Moment is like that.

[_Shulem]

I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere

I totally agree, with Dr. Peterson. Just watch the Maxwell Institute starve for funds! Even deeper budget cuts will be forthcoming. All this will make for more slam dunks as elder Neal A. Maxwell rolls in his grave!

Poor Maxwell, he has been betrayed by the brethren. But isn't that what happens in Mormonism? Yes, the Presidencies change the doctrine and policy to move with the times and suit their own needs. How many Mormon prophets have been thrown under the bus by their successors? They are all traitors!



Mormonism is a GODDAMN trainwreck. ("slam dunk")

Paul O

[_the narrator]

What I find unfortunate is that Bradford did not give Dan an opportunity

I think it's unfortunate that the Brethern made Bradford move immediately.

But I guess the Mormon Moment is like that.

I doubt that The Brethren (TM) had much to do with pushing Peterson out. FARMS used to be the darling of Mormon scholarship, but has fallen into irrelevance with the rise of Mormon studies as a growing scholarly field. The Maxwell Institute--and especially the Review--had become a joke among many, if not most, Mormon studies scholars. (That the Review was newly Christian The Mormon Studies Review was especially frustrating to many who wished to see Mormon studies recognized as a genuine academic field and not merely a cover for apologetics). Bradford and some of his colleagues at the MI were quite aware of this and wanted to take the MI away from petty apologetics and into contemporary scholarly and academic dialogue. As long as Peterson was heading the MSR, it would be a hindrance to this goal. As such, Peterson had to go in order to legitimize the MI.

The Dehlin fiasco was merely, perhaps, the straw that broke the camel's back. If it had not happened, Peterson would have been let go eventually either way.