It's Now Even More Official

[_Polygamy-Porter]

What does this closing sentence imply?

For those of you who may be managers in either the public or private sector, a word of counsel: Don’t treat your employees this way.

[Guest]

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.

DCP said

I was notified by the Maxwell Institute director, Dr. M. Gerald Bradford, of his desire for a change in the direction and approach of the Review slightly more than two weeks ago, just prior to my departure for Israel. He and I spoke for several hours, as I attempted to figure out precisely what he had in mind. I had some very substantive concerns, and was still rather uncertain about exactly what he was saying. However, he said nothing at that time about dismissing me as editor.

Seems to me that Bradford was "feeling Dan out" with this conversation and came to the conclusion, right or wrong, that Dan was unwilling to come one board with the new direction. Mr. Peterson does not strike me as someone who would roll over and go along with something he disagreed with. No doubt he made it quite clear in the conversation with Mr. Bradford that he disagreed with the direction indicated, just as he clearly stated his reservations in his blog. If Kish from his interactions with Peterson can see an unwillingness to abandon his agenda and follow another, how much more would Bradford see in his interactions with Peterson.

As to his blog post it seems rather petulant and decidedly lacking in graciousness.

[_Shulem]

What does this closing sentence imply?

For those of you who may be managers in either the public or private sector, a word of counsel: Don’t treat your employees this way.

A disgruntled employee loading his assault rifle with Will Schryver with special rounds ready to make an attack on temple square. Call ABC, NBC, and CBS news now!

Holy Jesus, people are dying!!

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

DCP is using his Patheos pulpit to call you a "liar," the narrator:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

[_Equality]

Someone needs to buy the portly professor an irony meter.

[_TrashcanMan79]

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.

DCP is using his Patheos pulpit to call you a "liar," the narrator:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

the narrator responded in the comments section of Dan's blog (strange that Dan hasn't disabled comments yet -- perhaps he lacks the administrative ability now that his blog is being hosted at Patheos....):

Dan, before you are quick to call me a liar, you should see what your apparently lying friend Bill said:

This is the culmination of a long-term struggle between radically different visions for the future of the Institute. Peterson wishes to continue the traditional heritage of FARMS, providing cutting edge scholarship and apologetics on LDS scripture. Bradford wants to move the Institute in a different direction, focusing on more secular-style studies that will be accessible and acceptable to non-Mormon scholars. Bradford is especially opposed to LDS apologetics, which he wants to terminate entirely as part of the mission of the Institute. He feels apologetics should be done by FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ ) or other groups.

Throughout the past two years Bradford has censored several articles that Dan planned to publish, thereby delaying publication of the Review. Bradford finally concluded that he refuses to publish the most recent issue of the Review, which has been essentially ready to go to press for six months. He plans to seek a new editor for the Review to move it in the entirely new direction he envisions.

http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/my-assessment-of-the-situation-at-the-maxwell-institute/

[_the narrator]

(strange that Dan hasn't disabled comments yet -- perhaps he lacks the administrative ability now that his blog is being hosted at Patheos....)

To Dan's credit, I believe he has moderation control of comments and posted mine.

[_RockSlider]

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

What do you base this on? I assume his unwillingness to let the Dehlin thing go (i.e. his son's of mosiah article, continued public relationship with Will at solar eclipse, as well as his Sunday school lesson, from which the article resulted). I assume that the powers to be have been trying to tone Dan down for a very long time (by curtailing his online persona/activity).

, 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.

Likely because he reported the results of those conversations to his superiors and they responded with, no way in hell … (likely remembering the recent sting of the Time photo essay fiasco and realizing Dan is not going to change).

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.

Yep, and even more so that the chain of command seems willing to let Bradford take the heat for this.

Lying for the Lord is one thing, taking a bullet for the Lord shows a whole new level of dedication.

[_Samantabhadra]

I can't say I have much sympathy for his exegetical project but I feel really, really sorry for Dan. Just looking at his picture on the blog makes me feel sad.

[_sock puppet]

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

What do you base this on? I assume his unwillingness to let the Dehlin thing go (i.e. his son's of mosiah article, continued public relationship with Will at solar eclipse, as well as his Sunday school lesson, from which the article resulted). I assume that the powers to be have been trying to tone Dan down for a very long time (by curtailing his online persona/activity).

, 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.

Likely because he reported the results of those conversations to his superiors and they responded with, no way in hell … (likely remembering the recent sting of the Time photo essay fiasco and realizing Dan is not going to change).

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.

Yep, and even more so that the chain of command seems willing to let Bradford take the heat for this.

Lying for the Lord is one thing, taking a bullet for the Lord shows a whole new level of dedication.

Rock, I think you are dead on target with your take here about DCP having had many opportunities to have gotten in line with the new direction, but he took advantage of none of those opportunities.