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

[_mercyngrace]

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?
...
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.

I think it's every bit as personally damaging.

The dismissal could have been announced publicly without including the John Dehlin article, the calling in of a GA friend to stop its publication (which could easily be read as a rebuking of Dan's wolf/sheep ideology - a doctrinal interpretation), and without words like "ousted" and "fired". Further John's statement, "I have had enough conversations with general authorities to know," Dehlin said this week, "that they don’t view ad hominem attacks as a constructive way to do apologetics", implies by mere inclusion in the article, that ad hominem is Dan's fare and that his work is rejected by church leaders.

And I'm saying this as one who hopes John Dehlin's words are an accurate assessment of the sentiment among general authorities.

Consider the follow up editorializing after John's statement. The episode exemplified escalating tensions between the two positions — either to answer critics as Peterson advocates or to let well-reasoned scriptural scholarship speak for itself as Bradford hopes.

Dan's approach, implied to be ad hominem attacks on critics, is set up as the antithesis to Bradford's "well reasoned scriptural scholarship" position. And we just read John's quote. GAs are opposed to, what is clearly implied to be, Dan's work.

Reading the article, as an average Jane from nowhere US of A, it comes off as a damning indictment of Peterson's tenure, something the released statement from MI diplomatically avoided.

[_Chap]

If I was a personal friend of DCP I would be thinking of ways to cheer him up after that article, certainly.

But mercyandgrace may perhaps like to think how many benefits the US derives from its long tradition of relatively unfettered journalism about public figures - and a public figure is just what DCP has constructed himself as. He can't have it both ways.

As for the tone of the article: journalists have limited space, and have to paint in well-defined colors in order to get the story across to readers unfamiliar with the background. But basically the opposition between a DCP style Review that allows itself to attack the personalities of 'apostates' and a style of review that concentrates on Mormon studies and avoids apologetic polemic seems accurate enough.

[_mercyngrace]

If I was a personal friend of DCP I would be thinking of ways to cheer him up after that article, certainly.

But mercyandgrace may perhaps like to think how many benefits the US derives from its long tradition of relatively unfettered journalism about public figures - and a public figure is just what DCP has constructed himself as. He can't have it both ways.

As for the tone of the article: journalists have limited space, and have to paint in well-defined colors in order to get the story across to readers unfamiliar with the background. But basically the opposition between a DCP style Review that allows itself to attack the personalities of 'apostates' and a style of review that concentrates on Mormon studies and avoids apologetic polemic seems accurate enough.

I understand all those things, Chap. Kish asked why I had hoped it would remain a rather unpublicized affair and questioned my comparing it to Pace's public rebuke. I was responding to those questions.

It's not lost on me that some will see Dan's skewering in the article as the natural consequence of living by the sword. Whether or not the metaphor fits, I think returning strike for strike only breeds hostility and division. That doesn't mean I expect journalism, or the world in general, to change but I can wish things were different and try to articulate to others why I feel as I do.

[_Chap]

If I was a personal friend of DCP I would be thinking of ways to cheer him up after that article, certainly.

But mercyandgrace may perhaps like to think how many benefits the US derives from its long tradition of relatively unfettered journalism about public figures - and a public figure is just what DCP has constructed himself as. He can't have it both ways.

As for the tone of the article: journalists have limited space, and have to paint in well-defined colors in order to get the story across to readers unfamiliar with the background. But basically the opposition between a DCP style Review that allows itself to attack the personalities of 'apostates' and a style of review that concentrates on Mormon studies and avoids apologetic polemic seems accurate enough.

I understand all those things, Chap. Kish asked why I had hoped it would remain a rather unpublicized affair and questioned my comparing it to Pace's public rebuke. I was responding to those questions.

It's not lost on me that some will see Dan's skewering in the article as the natural consequence of living by the sword. Whether or not the metaphor fits, I think returning strike for strike only breeds hostility and division. That doesn't mean I expect journalism, or the world in general, to change but I can wish things were different and try to articulate to others why I feel as I do.

I don't recall the article as any kind of personal attack on DCP. It was about what one might have expected from any Utah-based journalist reporting on controversial events associated with a BYU institution, where someone gets the sack.

Embarrassing for DCP, certainly. My point is not at all that he suffered the consequences of 'living by the sword'. Rather, he sought a public career at a much higher profile level than your average Professor of Arabic.

When such a career comes unstuck and that gets reported, it feels uncomfortable. How else could it be, in a country where prominent persons are deliberately not protected from press scrutiny? If public figures were not made to feel uncomfortable from time to time, I would begin to worry about the way US society was trending.

[_mercyngrace]

How else could it be, in a country where prominent persons are deliberately not protected from press scrutiny?

You mean we don't all have executive privilege?

[_Chap]

How else could it be, in a country where prominent persons are deliberately not protected from press scrutiny?

You mean we don't all have executive privilege?

Nope. And a good thing too.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it's every bit as personally damaging.

The dismissal could have been announced publicly without including the John Dehlin article, the calling in of a GA friend to stop its publication (which could easily be read as a rebuking of Dan's wolf/sheep ideology - a doctrinal interpretation), and without words like "ousted" and "fired". Further John's statement, "I have had enough conversations with general authorities to know," Dehlin said this week, "that they don’t view ad hominem attacks as a constructive way to do apologetics", implies by mere inclusion in the article, that ad hominem is Dan's fare and that his work is rejected by church leaders.

And I'm saying this as one who hopes John Dehlin's words are an accurate assessment of the sentiment among general authorities.

Consider the follow up editorializing after John's statement. The episode exemplified escalating tensions between the two positions — either to answer critics as Peterson advocates or to let well-reasoned scriptural scholarship speak for itself as Bradford hopes.

Dan's approach, implied to be ad hominem attacks on critics, is set up as the antithesis to Bradford's "well reasoned scriptural scholarship" position. And we just read John's quote. GAs are opposed to, what is clearly implied to be, Dan's work.

Reading the article, as an average Jane from nowhere US of A, it comes off as a damning indictment of Peterson's tenure, something the released statement from MI diplomatically avoided.

Speaking as a regular guy who has watched this world for some years, I would say that a Peggy Fletcher Stack article in which John Dehlin claims that the GAs felt some way about Peterson's methods really is not anything like an apostolic rebuke. In the LDS world, the source of a statement makes a huge difference. Stack has long been considered in the critics' camp by a number of LDS folk. John Dehlin is the guy the article was about! So, the bias of this crew is pretty clear, and their words come nowhere close to the authority of an LDS apostle.

Furthermore, much of the ammo spent in this article was provided by none other that Dr. Peterson himself, when he wrote a blistering email to Bradford and cc'ed it to 18 people. Had he not done so, this article may never have happened, and it certainly would not have had the force it did without his own words backing up its assertions. Peterson made enemies, and he was pretty careless about others' feelings. I don't say this to judge him. It's just a fact. Maybe, had he not been so cavalier about the feelings of those with whom he disagreed, and even fellow Mormons, there would have been no leak, or any reason for leaking. He traded on leaking insider information; he was humbled by the leaking of insider information. Still, McConkie it ain't.

Because he has not been openly rebuked by an apostle, I still contend that his future prospects are much better than Pace's. Also, this is Daniel we are talking about. Brother Pace would be scrupulously searching his soul for what he himself had done wrong. Brother Peterson and his friends don't think like that. They are finding ways to blame others. In their minds, Bradford, Dehlin, and possibly even the GAs involved are apostates! I see little or no evidence of Brother Pace's humble introspection. For this reason, I have no doubt that Daniel will recover emotionally.

[_Kishkumen]

It's not lost on me that some will see Dan's skewering in the article as the natural consequence of living by the sword. Whether or not the metaphor fits, I think returning strike for strike only breeds hostility and division. That doesn't mean I expect journalism, or the world in general, to change but I can wish things were different and try to articulate to others why I feel as I do.

I see what you are saying m&g. I wish all parties involved were being bigger people about this, and in this I include myself, although I am a bystander. My only point was that I doubt Peterson's personal reaction will be as debilitating as Pace's was.

[_mercyngrace]

Speaking as a regular guy who has watched this world for some years, I would say that a Peggy Fletcher Stack article in which John Dehlin claims that the GAs felt some way about Peterson's methods really is not anything like an apostolic rebuke. In the LDS world, the source of a statement makes a huge difference. Stack has long been considered in the critics' camp by a number of LDS folk. John Dehlin is the guy the article was about! So, the bias of this crew is pretty clear, and their words come nowhere close to the authority of an LDS apostle.

Furthermore, much of the ammo spent in this article was provided by none other that Dr. Peterson himself, when he wrote a blistering email to Bradford and cc'ed it to 18 people. Had he not done so, this article may never have happened, and it certainly would not have had the force it did without his own words backing up its assertions. Peterson made enemies, and he was pretty careless about others' feelings. I don't say this to judge him. It's just a fact. Maybe, had he not been so cavalier about the feelings of those with whom he disagreed, and even fellow Mormons, there would have been no leak, or any reason for leaking. He traded on leaking insider information; he was humbled by the leaking of insider information. Still, McConkie it ain't.

Because he has not been openly rebuked by an apostle, I still contend that his future prospects are much better than Pace's. Also, this is Daniel we are talking about. Brother Pace would be scrupulously searching his soul for what he himself had done wrong. Brother Peterson and his friends don't think like that. They are finding ways to blame others. In their minds, Bradford, Dehlin, and possibly even the GAs involved are apostates! I see little or no evidence of Brother Pace's humble introspection. For this reason, I have no doubt that Daniel will recover emotionally.

I hope you are right about his prospects and I agree that Pace and Peterson are two very different individuals. My comments were limited to ugliness of public humiliation at the hands of an institution/ideology to which one has deep ties.

I do concede that Peterson will likely dismiss Dehlin's comments.

[_Uther]

Speaking as a regular guy who has watched this world for some years, I would say that a Peggy Fletcher Stack article in which John Dehlin claims that the GAs felt some way about Peterson's methods really is not anything like an apostolic rebuke. In the LDS world, the source of a statement makes a huge difference. Stack has long been considered in the critics' camp by a number of LDS folk. John Dehlin is the guy the article was about! So, the bias of this crew is pretty clear, and their words come nowhere close to the authority of an LDS apostle.

Furthermore, much of the ammo spent in this article was provided by none other that Dr. Peterson himself, when he wrote a blistering email to Bradford and cc'ed it to 18 people. Had he not done so, this article may never have happened, and it certainly would not have had the force it did without his own words backing up its assertions. Peterson made enemies, and he was pretty careless about others' feelings. I don't say this to judge him. It's just a fact. Maybe, had he not been so cavalier about the feelings of those with whom he disagreed, and even fellow Mormons, there would have been no leak, or any reason for leaking. He traded on leaking insider information; he was humbled by the leaking of insider information. Still, McConkie it ain't.

Because he has not been openly rebuked by an apostle, I still contend that his future prospects are much better than Pace's. Also, this is Daniel we are talking about. Brother Pace would be scrupulously searching his soul for what he himself had done wrong. Brother Peterson and his friends don't think like that. They are finding ways to blame others. In their minds, Bradford, Dehlin, and possibly even the GAs involved are apostates! I see little or no evidence of Brother Pace's humble introspection. For this reason, I have no doubt that Daniel will recover emotionally.

I hope you are right about his prospects and I agree that Pace and Peterson are two very different individuals. My comments were limited to ugliness of public humiliation at the hands of an institution/ideology to which one has deep ties.

I do concede that Peterson will likely dismiss Dehlin's comments.

The thing that strikes me in all of this is:

This is a situation that surely feels terrible in many aspects to Dan. And his mind is already heavy with the loss of his brother.
I really feel sad for that. I have first hand experience in losing loved ones and friends.
An I also have first hand experience in losing a testimony.

I have the feeling that Dan never understood that for many people who lose their faith in the LDS church, that are churning through the accompanying emotional hell, can experience feelings similar to losing a loved one.