DCP Invokes Orwell

[_Kishkumen]

my personal speculation here is the statement makes the false assumption that the Brethren are a coherent group calling these shots. My guess is that one faction approves of taking the MI in a new direction but didn't order it, this is the more powerful faction, and the weaker but younger, and more ambitious faction, is generally supportive of Mopologetics and did not willingly green-light this. They would rather have had it the other way, but not to the extent that they'd take up the cross for it against the rival faction.

Dean Robbers is no doubt correct in observing that the Brethren are not a monolithic group in their opinions on such matters.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Can it be rightly stated that the Brethren approve of Bradfords action, though they may not have ordered it.

Is refusal of a superior to reverse a subordinate's action, approval of the subordinate's action?

Ask yourself this: Did the Brethren approve of what happened to Randy Bott?

Further, I happen to know--thanks to what I was told by an "informant"--that Dan Peterson was given time to "plead his case" to the Brethren. They actually set aside time to meet with him so that he could beg to be given back his position as Editor of the Mormon Studies Review. Now, I don't know which of the Brethren he met with--though it clearly wasn't the entire top 15. Basically, as I understand it, the GAs he met with were sympathetic, but basically told him that there was nothing they could do, and that it was best to simply stand by the decisions that had been made. Obviously, things didn't turn out in DCP's favor.

So, make of that what you will.

[_RockSlider]

Wouldn't it be funny if Dan is Bob Jones.

[_Drifting]

Can it be rightly stated that the Brethren approve of Bradfords action, though they may not have ordered it.

my personal speculation here is the statement makes the false assumption that the Brethren are a coherent group calling these shots. My guess is that one faction approves of taking the MI in a new direction but didn't order it, this is the more powerful faction, and the weaker but younger, and more ambitious faction, is generally supportive of Mopologetics and did not willingly green-light this. They would rather have had it the other way, but not to the extent that they'd take up the cross for it against the rival faction.

I don't see how there can be 'factions' of differing opinion within the circle of the Brethren when they each speak with God who gives them a consistent clear message. Unless of course they don't actually speak with God or if God gives unclear or inconsistent messages to them.

[_Kishkumen]

Further, I happen to know--thanks to what I was told by an "informant"--that Dan Peterson was given time to "plead his case" to the Brethren. They actually set aside time to meet with him so that he could beg to be given back his position as Editor of the Mormon Studies Review. Now, I don't know which of the Brethren he met with--though it clearly wasn't the entire top 15. Basically, as I understand it, the GAs he met with were sympathetic, but basically told him that there was nothing they could do, and that it was best to simply stand by the decisions that had been made. Obviously, things didn't turn out in DCP's favor.

Whoa. I had not heard about that, not that I would expect to have heard anything of the sort. If true, then it is incredible to me that Peterson would persist in complaining of the situation online, so I rather doubt that this actually happened. Would Daniel stand defiant against the decision of the Brethren? It is hard to believe.

[_sansfoy]

Because I can tell you one thing, I would not go to a Ford dealer to learn the virtues of a Chevy, and I won't go to Daniel Peterson or one of his cronies to get a fair assessment of Bradford's decision and its timing.

Save this one, it's a keeper.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Further, I happen to know--thanks to what I was told by an "informant"--that Dan Peterson was given time to "plead his case" to the Brethren. They actually set aside time to meet with him so that he could beg to be given back his position as Editor of the Mormon Studies Review. Now, I don't know which of the Brethren he met with--though it clearly wasn't the entire top 15. Basically, as I understand it, the GAs he met with were sympathetic, but basically told him that there was nothing they could do, and that it was best to simply stand by the decisions that had been made. Obviously, things didn't turn out in DCP's favor.

Whoa. I had not heard about that, not that I would expect to have heard anything of the sort. If true, then it is incredible to me that Peterson would persist in complaining of the situation online, so I rather doubt that this actually happened. Would Daniel stand defiant against the decision of the Brethren? It is hard to believe.

No, not really. That's what he does: probably he assumes on some level that if he whines enough, the Brethren will give him back his pacifier to shut him up. Most LDS are compliant: they quietly do what they're told. (Actually, Quinn discussed this to some extent in his new Vanity Fair article.) DCP is a tough case for them to handle, as I think we've seen: in the wake of his resignation from the MI, his followers were rabidly vicious in their verbal tarring of Gerald Bradford. What would happen if one of the General Authorities stepped forward to publicly excoriate him? Do you think the Bryce Haymonds and "Donkey Lips" Smoots of the world would bow down and obey? Plus, I'm sure the Brethren realize there are advantages to having a loud-mouthed defender like this: "stage managine a grizzly bear," and all of that.

And, of course, as Dr. Robbers has said, we can't forget about the warring "factions" among the Brethren. I think we can be certain that the Mopologists are savvy about these factions, and that they know how to play politics.

[_Kishkumen]

No, not really. That's what he does: probably he assumes on some level that if he whines enough, the Brethren will give him back his pacifier to shut him up. Most LDS are compliant: they quietly do what they're told. (Actually, Quinn discussed this to some extent in his new Vanity Fair article.) DCP is a tough case for them to handle, as I think we've seen: in the wake of his resignation from the MI, his followers were rabidly vicious in their verbal tarring of Gerald Bradford. What would happen if one of the General Authorities stepped forward to publicly excoriate him? Do you think the Bryce Haymonds and "Donkey Lips" Smoots of the world would bow down and obey? Plus, I'm sure the Brethren realize there are advantages to having a loud-mouthed defender like this: "stage managine a grizzly bear," and all of that.

And, of course, as Dr. Robbers has said, we can't forget about the warring "factions" among the Brethren. I think we can be certain that the Mopologists are savvy about these factions, and that they know how to play politics.

Good point, Doctor. I stand corrected. It was rather eye-opening to see in the early hours after the Bradford affair how top-tier Mopologists and their acolytes intimated the possibility of apostasy among the top leaders of the LDS Church. Rather than imagine that they might have been wrong, they seemed fully ready and willing to throw an apostle under the bus. Of course, those MDDB posts were later deleted, but I believe that some enterprising souls on this board saved them for future reference in a thread here.

[_moksha]

I feel for Dr. Peterson. The end stage of every project ends with blame to those first assigned to get it running. Just ask V.I. Lenin how such ingratitude feels and how unfair it can be.

[_3sheets2thewind]

About DCP pleading his case and begging, William S. intimated the Brethern would have a meeting and dicuss the sacking of DCP.