DCP Reveals More About His "Ousting" from the MI

[_Doctor Scratch]

Markk helpfully provided a link on his current thread to this blog posting, which, I've come to learn, has actually been blowing up (some 70+ comments) over the course of the past few days, such that it's achieved a kind of "meltdown" quality, replete with DCP censoring posters and writing new comments over the censored remarks. But this posting was especially fascinating:

I think it absolutely clear that the director of the Maxwell Institute, and two or three others now involved in the Maxwell Institute, engineered a coup because they didn’t like my approach. (I was, essentially, the last of the early leaders of FARMS, the forerunner of the Maxwell Institute, to be purged. The plan was deftly executed over a lengthy period of time.)

The General Authorities had nothing to do with it. Nor, so far as I can tell, did the Internet or message boards.

I think that the plotters didn’t expect me to resign as director of advancement (fundraising). They simply wanted me out as editor of the Review. I concluded, however, that I could not — as either a practical or an ethical matter — raise money for a redefined Maxwell Institute.

(underline added)

First of all, it's not at all true that the GAs weren't up-to-speed on what was happening at the Maxwell Institute. Dr. Peterson simply isn't telling the truth when he claims that "The General Authorities had nothing to do with it." They may not have directly pulled the plug; they may not have put anything in writing, but it just isn't accurate--not at all, not by a long shot--to claim that they had "nothing to do with it."

Second, it's interesting that he describes this as a "coup" that was executed by newcomers to the MI. Check this out:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/about/a ... ration.php

Notice anything different? I do. Two (arguably three) names seem new:

1) Joe Bonyata, the "Director of Publications"
2) Carl Griffin, "Director of Operations"

and (3) John Gee, who is now listed as in a special research capacity.

So, were Bonyata and Griffin involved in the "coup"? It's tough to say. I rather suspect that Kristen Heal and Paul Hoskisson had something to do with this, based on things that Bill Hamblin wrote in his blog. Further, I believe both Hoskisson and Heal have ties to the Religious Education department, and as we know, these folks aren't exactly on friendly terms with the Mopologists.

Interesting to see more pieces of the puzzle, in any case.

[_bcspace]

venomous gasbag

AD&D monster?

Further, I believe both Hoskisson and Heal have ties to the Religious Education department, and as we know, these folks aren't exactly on friendly terms with the Mopologists

I've not been too thrilled with some of the folks coming out of CES.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I think it absolutely clear that the director of the Maxwell Institute, and two or three others now involved in the Maxwell Institute, engineered a coup because they didn’t like my approach. (I was, essentially, the last of the early leaders of FARMS, the forerunner of the Maxwell Institute, to be purged. The plan was deftly executed over a lengthy period of time.)

I would like to know the reasons why DCP feels he was fired from the MI. Does he discuss this somewhere?

[_Bond James Bond]

You know the one time in life I got fired is not something I ever want to re-live. I guess not all people are like that.

(Alright "laid off" is a better term but still. )

[_lulu]

Why does DCP think Bradford still has his job but he doesn't?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think it absolutely clear that the director of the Maxwell Institute, and two or three others now involved in the Maxwell Institute, engineered a coup because they didn’t like my approach. (I was, essentially, the last of the early leaders of FARMS, the forerunner of the Maxwell Institute, to be purged. The plan was deftly executed over a lengthy period of time.)

I would like to know the reasons why DCP feels he was fired from the MI. Does he discuss this somewhere?

Well, as he notes in the passage you've cited, he thinks it was because "they didn't like [his] approach." Elsewhere, he has blamed the whole thing on "petty politics." But all of this is undermined by his admission, in his email to Dr. Bradford, that his removal as Editor of the Review would be seen as a "rebuke." Notice that he says that "The plan was deftly executed over a lengthy period of time." This doesn't mean that somebody made a snap judgment, and it very, very seriously erodes DCP's claim that this was "petty politics." In order to get rid of him, Bradford and Co. would have had to build a pretty significant case. You don't unseat a longstanding person like that in a "petty" way. Blaming "petty politics" is the excuse of a person who simply isn't liked: politics tend to work out in your favor if you haven't alienated, offended, or otherwise pissed off the people who are engaged in the politicking.

The real truth that DCP doesn't want to admit is that they had been told for years by the Brethren to "tone it down." I've heard this dozens of times from multiple sources. Prof. P. is either flat-out lying when he says that the GAs had "nothing to do with this," or he is opting to focus only on the praise that the Mopologists got from Hinckley, Packet, et al. Yes: Hinckley did invite them to join BYU; yes: Packer has been laudatory towards them; yes: Elder Oaks (among others) has spoken at their annual dinner. But so what? This doesn't change the fact that they were *also* told, again and again and again, that they were out of line. This isn't really all that hard to understand: we might praise the performance of a River Phoenix type at the same time that we want to tell him to knock off all the partying and drug use. Just because we like the one part of the thing doesn't mean we like every last aspect.

[_Racer]

Do you think Mitt Romney's Presidential bid was a catalyst or hastened the new direction of the MI? I don't mean Mitt or his campaign had anything personal to do with it; I mean a Mormon in a highly public spotlight. The church puts image above everything, and FARMS style scholarship doesn't help the church's desired "normal" image they are gunning for.

[Guest]

Well, as he notes in the passage you've cited, he thinks it was because "they didn't like [his] approach." Elsewhere, he has blamed the whole thing on "petty politics." But all of this is undermined by his admission, in his email to Dr. Bradford, that his removal as Editor of the Review would be seen as a "rebuke." Notice that he says that "The plan was deftly executed over a lengthy period of time." This doesn't mean that somebody made a snap judgment, and it very, very seriously erodes DCP's claim that this was "petty politics." In order to get rid of him, Bradford and Co. would have had to build a pretty significant case. You don't unseat a longstanding person like that in a "petty" way. Blaming "petty politics" is the excuse of a person who simply isn't liked: politics tend to work out in your favor if you haven't alienated, offended, or otherwise pissed off the people who are engaged in the politicking.

The real truth that DCP doesn't want to admit is that they had been told for years by the Brethren to "tone it down." I've heard this dozens of times from multiple sources. Prof. P. is either flat-out lying when he says that the GAs had "nothing to do with this," or he is opting to focus only on the praise that the Mopologists got from Hinckley, Packet, et al. Yes: Hinckley did invite them to join BYU; yes: Packer has been laudatory towards them; yes: Elder Oaks (among others) has spoken at their annual dinner. But so what? This doesn't change the fact that they were *also* told, again and again and again, that they were out of line. This isn't really all that hard to understand: we might praise the performance of a River Phoenix type at the same time that we want to tell him to knock off all the partying and drug use. Just because we like the one part of the thing doesn't mean we like every last aspect.

To me, the reason is two fold. First,I can't think of a more "conservative" leadership of any organization than that of the LDS church. DCP is arguably the most looked up too "non authoritative" leader the church has, at least online, With DCP calling people names, arguing with the likes of us, calling people liars and alike...he was/is not only an embarrassment, but a liability.

But the second reason, which I have stated here, is that "they" (LDS Internet apologist) were defining LDS thought, in that GHB "brethren" were silent...and Monson had to get control back. Simply put... scholars defining LDS thought, was getting out of control, and in order for them to gain control DCP, had to go.

[_moksha]

I think it absolutely clear that the director of the Maxwell Institute, and two or three others now involved in the Maxwell Institute, engineered a coup because they didn’t like my approach. (I was, essentially, the last of the early leaders of FARMS, the forerunner of the Maxwell Institute, to be purged. The plan was deftly executed over a lengthy period of time.)

How sad that a small cabal of dissident Maxwellites could stage such a coup. Some guards on watch at the FAIR tower probably were duped into drinking from the flagon with the dragon rather than the vessel with the pestle which had the world's most correct brew and therefor would have maintained Dr. Peterson in his role as guardian of the Lanterns.

"In darkest day,
in brightest night, let
no Malevolent Stalkers
escape my sight.
Let those who worship
evil's might,
beware my powers
apologetic light."

Where is Duracell when you need it the most?

[_TAK]

First of all, it's not at all true that the GAs weren't up-to-speed on what was happening at the Maxwell Institute. Dr. Peterson simply isn't telling the truth when he claims that "The General Authorities had nothing to do with it." They may not have directly pulled the plug; they may not have put anything in writing, but it just isn't accurate--not at all, not by a long shot--to claim that they had "nothing to do with it."

Yup..
The brethren may not agree with the Meldrums and Dehlins of the faithful .. But I doubt they want an arm of the corporation attacking and dividing. They absolutly knew and supported this change. It would not surprise me the DCP was warned to stop the attacks on members and he ignored their wishes.

DCP deserved the be kicked to the curb..