DiscussMormonism.com

William Schryver wrote:I'm not aware of a single "venting rant" to ever appear in the Mormon Studies Review or its predecessors. Are you?

Bob Crockett wrote:Yes. Plenty, and I've read and enjoyed them and have published a couple of my own. But, BYU obviously does not want to support apologetics and the tone that it brings to a university-sponsored publication. Call it ranting, or call it something less descriptive, that is what seems to me to be going on.

Frankly, I'm surprised that it has gone on this long.

And, let me point out that I have been a supporter; last year I was at the Platinum level, I believe, if I remember the dollar levels. This year I won't contribute because I see no need for another banal journal that publishes articles maybe 10 people will read, and because I supported Dr. Peterson's work.

But really now, I hope that you can see it BYU's way and urge you not to demonize poor Bro. Bradford. I wouldn't have done it by email but I can assure you that lots of folks avoid difficult confrontation by a resort to email. And I certainly wouldn't have responded by email the way it was done; the remedy was worse than the injury, but again, it is common to say things in email to put one's position "on the record." Goodness knows, I've said things in emails I'd like to retrieve.

But, I don't see it as a despicable thing that it was done when Dr. Peterson was thousands of miles away. I have employees who work for me on a daily basis who are thousands of miles away; there is no impediment to communication. The two obviously weren't talking to each other, and it appears from the exchange that there was understandable denial going on on both parts.

But, give BYU and its administration the benefit of the doubt here. As much as I admired and supported Dr. Peterson, my love for BYU is much greater. Apologetics is a very controversial area. Dr. Peterson was and is a lightning rod, with sharks swimming beneath him. BYU didn't want that any more. Or so it appears.

Bob Crockett wrote:I was Jack Welch's very first research assistant when he came to BYU. The FARMS of that day is different than the MI of today.

I was in a small gathering of about forty Saints in Los Angeles to hear Elder Holland's first address as an apostle, when he fulfilled an obligation he had made when he was a lesser light. I wish I could recall all that he said, but he pointed out FARMS specifically and said, "FARMS is doing many wonderful things." He listed them; none were apologetic in nature.

Since then, FARMS has gone from a small almost-hobby-horse of specialized Book of Mormon studies and the publisher of papers and a review to a widely-read and controversial semi-annual often taking huge potshots at very controversial pieces and people. The John Dehlins of the world are going to call their favorite general authority, and eventually somebody's going to say, where there's smoke, there must be no light.

Bob Crockett wrote:I am sure it was "BYU" because Bradford is an administrator there. That he went off the deep end and off on a lark might have occurred, I suppose, but the first assumption when an institution acts is that it is the institution that is acting. Ockham's Razor is the nerd term for it; there is a legal presumption as well. The more time passes without Dr. Peterson announcing that he's been vindicated means more and more that the presumption becomes conclusive.

Again, I don't buy the "while away" nonsense. Not in today's world. A tenured professor is always on the clock.

Bob Crockett wrote:But, it is time to triumph in academics rather than in turf wars. BYU owns the turf.

why me wrote:I actually could not understand bob's take on it over on the MDD. But I do think that he is wrong.

why me wrote:I actually could not understand bob's take on it over on the MDD. But I do think that he is wrong.

lulu wrote:“I hope that you can see it BYU's way and urge you not to demonize poor Bro. Bradford”

“But, give BYU and its administration the benefit of the doubt here.”

“last year I was at the Platinum level, I believe, if I remember the dollar levels. This year I won't contribute”

He's talking out of both sides of his mouth here.

Kishkumen wrote:
I don't believe so. He is saying that he contributed to MI for the apologetics, but there is no point in doing that now. And if the sacking of Daniel sticks, he is right. At the same time, he prefers to uphold the academic integrity of BYU to seeing the reign of Daniel at the Review continue. I find all of that perfectly consistent and sensible.