The Maxwell Institute (MI) controversy is not–or at least shouldn’t be–a personal feud. It is, rather, a clash about the fundamental vision for the future of the MI. Those who try to turn it into a feud of “good people” verse “bad people”–as the apostates and anti-Mormons are gleefully doing–are doing a disservice to the important issues at stake here.
Bill Hamblin you are pathetic.
All this talk about cowardice and suppression of views is quite amusing coming from a lynch mob that hides out on a forum that "instabans" anyone who dares share a different perspective. By merely pointing out that all you're hearing so far is one side, this results in banning. Numerous people have been banned for daring to agree with Bradford and the Church, even LDS folks like Mike Reed. You should just go ahead and rename that forum, the Dan Peterson Support Group because that's all it has become.
As far as your dishonest claim above, the only people making one side "bad" in this debacle is the cult following of Dan Peterson which consists of nothing more than loyalist apologists. There are no apostates "gleefully" turning this into a "personal fued" nor are they arbitrarily deciding who is "good" or "bad."
The most anyone here has said that could possibly be interpreted that way is a few references to the karma that came Dan's way, given his past history of trying to suppress information from the critics as well as his efforts to damage the name of scholars like Michael Quinn and Robert Ritner. Given his despicable history of low-blows, he is in no position to expect a lot of sympathy from anyone here. I've pointed out that his email proved he once lied to us all when he insisted he didn't get paid to do apologetics. But that's it. No one here is trying to "silence" Daniel Peterson. In fact, I don't know what some critics would do without him.
By contrast, the dead heads sucking up to you and your buddy Dan over at MAD are calling for Bradford's head without reservation. The only cool head over there seems to be Bob Crockett. Just take these few examples of the kind of hateful vitriol that has resulted from the mob you're leading:
why me - "Mr. Bradford needs to be replaced because his conduct in this matter is not the conduct that a temple recommend holder should be engaged in. What is sad about all this is that he betrayed the trust of someone showing a lack of empathy and emotional understanding as one who went about hurting someone by his conduct. This is not okay for a temple recommend holder to do nor someone who should be in charge of a church sponsored orgainization."
selek1 - "My prayers and wishes also to the Maxwell Insitute as Gerald Bradford takes a razor to its throat."
"With a lawyer even half-awake, Dan could destroy both Bradford and the Institute"
The target of our ire is Bradford"
"Firing someone by email is tasteless and cowardly. Looking the other way while criminal acts are commited (even if you disagree with the target) is unconscionable."
Log - I cannot help but think this is extraordinarily bad news. Apostasy in high places, even.
Scott Lloyd - Alma 62:44
Alter idem - Bradford's actions were spinless!
William Schryver - those who are attempting to silence LDS apologetics will be thwarted in their undertaking, and finally recognized for who and what they really are.
And all of these judgments have been passed after hearing only one side of the story.
So Bill, you're the ring-leader of this mob, fueling their hatred and now you want to pretend you have nothing to do with it. As if all this emotion comes from the "apostates" who are passing judgment? When we say we support Bradford, we are saying we support his vision for the Institute. Not because we want Dan Peterson "silenced," but because it is nice to know we have been vindicated. For years we've been telling you and Dan that FARMS engaged in pseudo-scholarship and relies too much on ad hominem. Dan's removal proves it, as does your idiotic ranting. But please, keep it up. I'm sure you're soon to realize just how tiny your support group really is when compared to the Church as a whole. Dan has been needing a serving of humble pie for years, and his pedantic response gave people more reason to view him in a negative light. He acted like a spoiled child who didn't like having one of his favorite toys taken away from him.