Jeff Bradshaw giving a fireside on the Masonic temple rites in 8 hours - zoom link

[drumdude]

Virtual Fireside on Freemasonry and the Origins of Latter-day Saint Temple Ordinances

Sorry I missed that. Is there a link to the audio?

If you find it let me know...

[Kishkumen]

Although I had not planned to continue discussing this matter, someone contacted me in regards to the question of Interpreter's knowledge of Bradshaw's use of the advance review copy of Method Infinite. I have been directed to a statement on Sic et Non, which I now quote:

the offense, if such there actually was, . . . lies, if it lies anywhere, in the manner by which Jeff Bradshaw -- not Interpreter -- obtained an Advance Reader Copy of the book, which he then used, to some degree at least, in completing his own book, which was then submitted to the Interpreter Foundation for eventual publication. And of that topic I know essentially nothing beyond Loyd Ericson's claims. I hadn't heard of any complaint in this regard, let alone of Mr. Ericson's claims about it, until very late last night.

So, there you have it. DCP had not heard about it. So, if anyone over at Interpreter was aware of this, other than Bradshaw himself, DCP excludes himself from the parties who were aware.

The point I made to this someone is that the track record of FARMS/NMI/Interpreter in dealing with decent people who have written decent books is such that people are bound to be suspicious and even think the worst. If Bradshaw is the only one who knew what he was planning to do, then it is he who should be blamed for not thinking through the way his actions would inevitably appear to others who already have a poor opinion of FARMS/NMI/Interpreter in this regard. After all, Interpreter's reviewers have been openly cavalier in their poor treatment of the responsibility and privilege of reviewing highly regarded scholarly books in the past.

Who can forget Prof. Susan Easton Black's disgraceful hatchet job on Ben Park's Kingdom of Nauvoo?:

Putting aside the cares of the day, I blocked out an afternoon and sat down to read.

I asked myself why this author, with an academic background from Brigham Young University and a bright academic future, aligned himself with scholarship that degrades a prophet of God. I came up with no answer.

I could waste my time going through the substance-free disgrace in detail, but that would do far, far more justice to her "review" than she did to a serious and important work of historical scholarship.

I see no value in such reviews and can't for the life of me understand why people who want to be taken seriously in any way would publish such garbage. So, with this and many other poorly executed and insulting reviews under the Interpreters' belts, can anyone be blamed for thinking that Bradshaw deliberately acted in bad faith?

Not in my view.

[Doctor Scratch]

Thanks for posting that, Reverend. It's interesting and revealing. For example, it suggests that Dr. Peterson is essentially and "absentee President" who is clueless about what's actually going on in the organization he (allegedly?) oversees. Did he not know that Bradshaw was working on this book? Or that Interpreter was planning to publish it? Do they not talk about forthcoming publications at their Board Meetings?

Meanwhile, now that he knows, what's he going to do about it? My guess: nothing, which amounts to tacit approval of the behavior. Unless he's going to come out and condemn Bradshaw's actions--or, even better, discipline him in some way, such as demoting him from the board--then I think we can assume that he regards the whole thing as "no big deal."

[the_narrator]

....which was then submitted to the Interpreter Foundation for eventual publication.

Lovely phrasing considering that DCP later admits that it was intentionally published the same week as Method Infinite.

[Moksha]

May I remind everybody that the Interpreter is not bound by the standards of academic publishing or any of the codes of ethics arising from the philosophies of men. What men would call bad practice or unethical simply does not apply to an organization being threatened by an angel with a drawn sword.

[Kishkumen]

Thanks for posting that, Reverend. It's interesting and revealing. For example, it suggests that Dr. Peterson is essentially and "absentee President" who is clueless about what's actually going on in the organization he (allegedly?) oversees. Did he not know that Bradshaw was working on this book? Or that Interpreter was planning to publish it? Do they not talk about forthcoming publications at their Board Meetings?

Meanwhile, now that he knows, what's he going to do about it? My guess: nothing, which amounts to tacit approval of the behavior. Unless he's going to come out and condemn Bradshaw's actions--or, even better, discipline him in some way, such as demoting him from the board--then I think we can assume that he regards the whole thing as "no big deal."

Exactly. My view is that if he indeed was essentially checked out from the entire process, only knowing a couple of details of what was going on—and, mind you, this is a relatively small and insignificant cottage operation—then he really ought to be angry with himself. But, if, like most people, he would rather be angry with others—who hasn’t wanted to shift the blame now and then?—would not Bradshaw himself be the most obvious target of his anger? Why would the Interpreters be angry with us for noting what everyone who has followed the FARMS saga already knows—that these guys have a long history of engaging in various shenanigans, biting commentary, and other questionable activities in the quest to stick it to the critics?

They are famous for it.

Interestingly, or, rather, predictably, they are angry with us for joining the chorus of Loyd Ericson, Nick Literski, an Cheryl Bruno—people rather more in the know than we are—in observing that this looks really bad. Who buys that the publication date of this book is mere coincidence and that there was no plan to counter the publication of one book with the release of the other? In these days of electronic publication, you wait until you see the one’s projected release date, and you line up your publication accordingly. It would be much easier in the world of digital publication than it was in the past.

I don’t think they actually care. And I would prefer that they just admit that they don’t, instead of getting upset with people who disagree with them regarding the ethical problems, or even just the lack of wisdom, in doing what they did. The essential facts are not in dispute. The only question is the degree to which Bradshaw informed his friends of his plan to ask for an advance review copy, use it to write his book, and then not produce his promised review until AFTER his book had been published, if ever. Maybe they knew. Maybe they didn’t.

I incline to think that some folks at Interpreter surely knew. Did he not say, “hey, I got an advance copy of the Masonry book,” to anyone at Interpreter in the months before Method Infinite was published? What did he say about it? Wouldn’t it be a little funny for him to get a copy if he had no ostensible reason to have one? Would he not claim that the authors asked him to comment on it before the proof stage? Or that he was doing a review of it? Why would he only say, “Gee, I got a copy!”? And these guys, who have been at this for decades, take no further interest, especially when they have taken special pains to provide apologetics on this topic in the past? I just do not buy that they (some of them at least) did not know.

Whatever the case may be, anger at those who notice these things is clearly misdirected. “My friend committed the crime, sir, and you had the bad manners both to notice and to say something about it!”

Anyhow, this is just a tempest in a teapot, and also another farce in the long slapstick history of Mopologetics. Classy it is not. But my boo-boo ouchie is more than healed by the knowledge that Method Infinite is the kind of work of lasting value that changes the conversation, while Bradshaw’s publication of the moment will be forgotten, much as Brian Hales’ polygamy apologetics will be largely forgotten, even though he honestly paid his researcher, Don Bradley (and truly got his money’s worth and then some), whereas Bradshaw just, ahem, "appropriated" the research of Bruno, Literski, and Swick. Hales is far more honest, as annoying as he can be in other ways.

[Tom]

I came across Dr. Bradshaw's fireside presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhMb-CmPOB0

[Philo Sofee]

May I remind everybody that the Interpreter is not bound by the standards of academic publishing or any of the codes of ethics arising from the philosophies of men. What men would call bad practice or unethical simply does not apply to an organization being threatened by an angel with a drawn sword.

I have always LOVED your humor, and I see this as funny, but actually, it is very near the actual truth! WELL SAID my feathered friend...

[Philo Sofee]

Thanks for posting that, Reverend. It's interesting and revealing. For example, it suggests that Dr. Peterson is essentially and "absentee President" who is clueless about what's actually going on in the organization he (allegedly?) oversees. Did he not know that Bradshaw was working on this book? Or that Interpreter was planning to publish it? Do they not talk about forthcoming publications at their Board Meetings?

Meanwhile, now that he knows, what's he going to do about it? My guess: nothing, which amounts to tacit approval of the behavior. Unless he's going to come out and condemn Bradshaw's actions--or, even better, discipline him in some way, such as demoting him from the board--then I think we can assume that he regards the whole thing as "no big deal."

Exactly. My view is that if he indeed was essentially checked out from the entire process, only knowing a couple of details of what was going on—and, mind you, this is a relatively small and insignificant cottage operation—then he really ought to be angry with himself. But, if, like most people, he would rather be angry with others—who hasn’t wanted to shift the blame now and then?—would not Bradshaw himself be the most obvious target of his anger? Why would the Interpreters be angry with us for noting what everyone who has followed the FARMS saga already knows—that these guys have a long history of engaging in various shenanigans, biting commentary, and other questionable activities in the quest to stick it to the critics?

They are famous for it.

Interestingly, or, rather, predictably, they are angry with us for joining the chorus of Loyd Ericson, Nick Literski, an Cheryl Bruno—people rather more in the know than we are—in observing that this looks really bad. Who buys that the publication date of this book is mere coincidence and that there was no plan to counter the publication of one book with the release of the other? In these days of electronic publication, you wait until you see the one’s projected release date, and you line up your publication accordingly. It would be much easier in the world of digital publication than it was in the past.

I don’t think they actually care. And I would prefer that they just admit that they don’t, instead of getting upset with people who disagree with them regarding the ethical problems, or even just the lack of wisdom, in doing what they did. The essential facts are not in dispute. The only question is the degree to which Bradshaw informed his friends of his plan to ask for an advance review copy, use it to write his book, and then not produce his promised review until AFTER his book had been published, if ever. Maybe they knew. Maybe they didn’t.

I incline to think that some folks at Interpreter surely knew. Did he not say, “hey, I got an advance copy of the Masonry book,” to anyone at Interpreter in the months before Method Infinite was published? What did he say about it? Wouldn’t it be a little funny for him to get a copy if he had no ostensible reason to have one? Would he not claim that the authors asked him to comment on it before the proof stage? Or that he was doing a review of it? Why would he only say, “Gee, I got a copy!”? And these guys, who have been at this for decades, take no further interest, especially when they have taken special pains to provide apologetics on this topic in the past? I just do not buy that they (some of them at least) did not know.

Whatever the case may be, anger at those who notice these things is clearly misdirected. “My friend committed the crime, sir, and you had the bad manners both to notice and to say something about it!”

Anyhow, this is just a tempest in a teapot, and also another farce in the long slapstick history of Mopologetics. Classy it is not. But my boo-boo ouchie is more than healed by the knowledge that Method Infinite is the kind of work of lasting value that changes the conversation, while Bradshaw’s publication of the moment will be forgotten, much as Brian Hales’ polygamy apologetics will be largely forgotten, even though he honestly paid his researcher, Don Bradley (and truly got his money’s worth and then some), whereas Bradshaw just, ahem, "appropriated" the research of Bruno, Literski, and Swick. Hales is far more honest, as annoying as he can be in other ways.

What a useful and well thought out overview... THANK YOU for this!

[Philo Sofee]

Ahh, I see. So Bradshaw did this outside the purview of the Interpreter Foundation.

I repeatedly and directly asked Bradshaw if DCP or anyone else with The Interpreter knew that he had asked for and received an advance reading copy for the purpose of writing a review for The Interpreter. He refused to give an answer. Take from that as you will.

Taking one for the team, gives them all plausible deniability.