DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Disclaimer: if Dan requests that this message be removed, or if Dr. Shades and the moderating team feel that this should be deleted, I'll happily oblige. N.B. also that I am restoring the text of Bradford's message in my other thread. The same caveats re: deletion apply there as well.

Again, I don't know 100% that this is authentic, but if it's not, someone is doing a startlingly precise immitation of DCP:

In any case, here is DCP's reply to Bradford:

From: Daniel Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:18 PM
To: <[M. Gerald Bradford] xxx@xxx.xxx> [18 other recipients, redacted for privacy]
Subject: Re: Charting a new course

Dr. Bradford:

You've achieved your goal. I resign.

I resign as Director of Advancement, effective immediately. You've already fired me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.

I realize now, too, that you've been plotting this for some time, and that, naïve fool that I am, I didn't even realize that I was playing chess before I had been checkmated.

There is nothing you can do to prevent this from being an absolutely spectacular propaganda triumph for those who oppose the Institute and despise me, so don't bother trying. As a matter of fact -- since the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review. They know about it, and they're going to feast on this for years to come.

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works. You could have waited a bit so that that conclusion would be less apparent, but, of course, you haven't. Frankly, I'm not surprised.

With my sacking now, and with what I presume to be the simultaneous dismissal of Lou Midgley and George Mitton and my other associate editors, which follows the utter marginalization of the scholars who once made up the board of directors and the complete ostracism of Jack Welch and, most recently, the re-alienation of Bill Hamblin, the process of driving away those who committed so much of their energy to the creation and building of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute continues apace.

You think it healthy. I do not.

And let's not pretend that the delay in this issue of the Review, or the slowness with which recent issues have appeared, is the justification for this move. You've never raised the matter with me before. In fact, your own actions have significantly contributed to the delay of this most recent issue. (It's substantially complete, though, and the Institute owes my associate editors the proper fees for their services. It's no fault of theirs that you're spiking this issue.)

I regard this as an utterly wrong-headed and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it. And not merely because it will subject me to enormous and quite undeserved public humiliation. It's a betrayal of Elder Maxwell, who explicitly approved of what we were doing. "No more uncontested slam dunks," he said. But now we're returning to the status quo ante, under which there were and will continue to be plenty of "uncontested slam dunks." It's a brazen repudiation of the mandate given to us by President Packer, who, when he spoke at the dinner during which we were officially entrusted with Elder Maxwell's name, praised two specific aspects of the Institute's work: the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and its apologetic efforts. It's a betrayal of the promises we made to our leading donors, who explicitly asked us to do apologetics and, in some substantial recent cases, gave us major donations based on our assurance that we would continue to do so.

You place me in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as I'm supposed to be an advocate for a Maxwell Institute that, in my view, will soon no longer exist, and to maintain good relations with donors to the Institute to whom, in my opinion, we will now prove to have flatly lied. I cannot do that. I don't know what to do about the forthcoming Development Council Turkey trip that I conceived, since several of the people who are slated to participate in it are going, at least partially, because I persuaded them to do so.

I feel obliged to try to make it a good trip and to go, but it will, I think, be my last effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, and I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere. And, though I won't be so disloyal as to solicit funds from them for anything else during the trip to Turkey, I will feel entirely free to do so thereafter. And I'll be vocal about why I no longer regard the Maxwell Institute as an appropriate recipient of their money. I will explain my resignation, and my reasons for it, in a note to members of the Development Council after the conclusion of the Turkey trip but prior to the October PLC meeting. I do not feel that I can do otherwise and maintain my integrity. I've built up a good relationship with the members of the Smith Family Foundation; good luck in maintaining that.

I agreed to give a private tour to the Holy Land -- the trip that I'm currently on -- partially in the hope of interesting a PLC donor in giving to the Maxwell Institute. We're getting along well, but I'm not going to mention the Institute to him any more. Nursing and Athletics are perfectly adequate continuing recipients of his gifts. And I think I can safely predict that, even without my saying much, you will, with my dismissal, instantly lose one very specific annual donation.

Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.

I understand that some contract issues may be affected by my resignation as Director of Advancement. I trust that we can work those out in a civil manner. Pending my dismissal from METI, I will insist that I continue to be compensated as a director in my role, which I will now have more time for, as its editor in chief. I also expect my usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review that you've killed. It was finished and ready to go.

Very seriously yours,

Daniel C. Peterson
Tiberias, Israel


I think it's important that people see this. For one thing, it shows that folks like John Dehlin have been vindicated--even DCP realizes this, and the whole email just demonstrates how "war like" his real mindset actually is. Bradford's message was very polite, and his new plans included Dan continuing to serve in an advisory capacity.

Further, Dan said over and over again that my informants were "bogus," and yet here he openly admits that the Maxwell Institute "leaks like a sieve." Now, I don't think that every last bit of intel I was given was legitimate, but it does mean that he was lying to me when he said I was "getting played."

But there are a lot of remarkable details here, including the bit about Schryver getting shot down while Dan was out of the country. Isn't it ironic that all of DCP's extensive traveling came back to bite him in the butt like this?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _SteelHead »

It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Shulem »

Wow.

Thank you Dr. Scratch for the fine service you have rendered. This is a feather in your cap.

:biggrin:

Paul O
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _The Dude »

SteelHead wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SII-jhEd-a0


You can't sack me! I quit!
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Bond James Bond »

Someone get this printed in Helvetica and framed in oak because I feel it's gravitas.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _SteelHead »

Image

Biblical truisms:
Galatians 6:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.





Proverbs 11:29 New King James Version

He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind, And the fool will be servant to the wise of heart.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jun 17, 2012 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Bond James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 2690
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:21 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Bond James Bond »

On the bright side Dr. Peterson will have more time to travel and blog.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Shulem »

Bond James Bond wrote:On the bright side Dr. Peterson will have more time to travel and blog.


Yes, he can add more fuel to the fire. The Mormon Church is desparate to appear Christian and we see that DCP has seriously hurt the cause. He has damaged his church more than he knows. His days are numbered.

Paul O
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Here's a question. DCP says that he is going to work overtime to turn donors away from the Maxwell Institute. Might that be a risky thing to do? I mean, the MI is a Church institution, so wouldn't the Brethren have a problem with somebody going around and diverting donations away from a BYU institute like this? It seems sort of like telling people that they shouldn't pay tithing.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_3sheets2thewind
_Emeritus
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _3sheets2thewind »

Wait just a darn minute, did dcp admit he.comes here and reads posts even though he pledge.never to return. And since Willie circle jerk schryver pledge his absence on dcp absence, that means Willie is coming back.
Post Reply