DCP revisits Dehlin hit piece and MI purge ...

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't know that we have heard Gerald Bradford's version of how events transpired. Dan can put his spin out there knowing that Bradford won't respond in public. I suspect there is more to the story than has been told. For all we know, Bradford may have handled it the best way possible.

Firing someone by email is pretty crappy, if you ask me.

I think your comment is out of line, Runtu: it's a distortion of what actually happened (even per the facts we actually have), and it seems like a rather over-the-top swipe at Bradford--particularly given that we don't have his side of the story. At no point was the word "fired" ever used by Bradford, nor any of its synonyms. Bradford said:

I remain convinced that the time has come for us to take the Review in a different direction, along the lines of the prospectus I gave you. But I now realize it was wrong of me to ask you to accept and execute my editorial vision in place of your own. I value you as an academic colleague and I respect your right to pursue the research and publication projects you find inspiring and valuable. I will continue to support you in this regard. But what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen. I plan to begin the process of finding a new editor right away. At the same time, I would welcome your continued involvement as a member of its soon-to-be-formed editorial advisory board. I believe you will continue to find much in it to commend, and it will be a better publication for your involvement.

Compare this with DCP's own recent account:

Toward the very end of May 2012, I had a lengthy meeting (roughly four hours long, perhaps a bit more) in his office with the director of the Maxwell Institute. He indicated that he would like the Institute to focus on “Mormon studies.” (He had himself received a Ph.D. in “religious studies” from the University of California at Santa Barbara.) I replied that, if he meant by that altogether to replace expressly committed-LDS, faithful scriptural and apologetic scholarship, I could not in good conscience support such a change. Such unabashedly Mormon writing had been the mainstay and raison d’être of FARMS, and of its successor organization the Maxwell Institute, since its founding in the late 1970s. Replacing it with a more or less secular “religious studies” approach would, I told him, be a clear betrayal of the intentions of those who had established and built the organization and of the donors who had generously supported it.

(emphasis added)

If you're Gerald Bradford, and you hear language like this: "This would be a betrayal!" "I cannot in good conscience support such a change!" what are you supposed to think? That DCP wants to stay on board and help with the transition? I think the worst you can fault Bradford for is in trying to handle this diplomatically. I would imagine that he didn't want to come right out and say, "Look: we can't do the hostile and polemical apologetics anymore." Dr. P. essentially told Bradford that if he even so much as suggested that, it would be seen as a "betrayal." In spite of what seems like (to me, at least) pretty inflammatory language, Bradford was still courteous and collegial--still inviting DCP to stay on board and participate. Based on this new commentary from Prof. P., I think that he essentially said, "Do it my way, or I'm out."

So do we say that DCP said, "Do it my way or I quit?" Or that Bradford "fired" him? Based on reading these two texts, what's the more accurate way of describing the situation?

[_Runtu]

You are wrong. Those intimately involved with BYU know that nearly every major decision and even some minor decisions are reviewed by the BOT. Ask the athletic director what he thinks about BOT involvement. There's absolutely no way something as big as FARMS/MI reorganization would happen with BOT mandate or approval.

It's clear the GAs were involved. What I doubt is that some GA mandated that Dan be fired immediately, that it couldn't wait and had to happen now.

[_Paloma]

You are wrong. Those intimately involved with BYU know that nearly every major decision and even some minor decisions are reviewed by the BOT. Ask the athletic director what he thinks about BOT involvement. There's absolutely no way something as big as FARMS/MI reorganization would happen with BOT mandate or approval.

It's clear the GAs were involved. What I doubt is that some GA mandated that Dan be fired immediately, that it couldn't wait and had to happen now.

Is it possible that there was a sense of urgency because of the Romney run for president?

You guys would know better, but I did hear from a couple of Utah friends that their understanding was the LDS church was taking all possible measures to eliminate any whiff of controversy during Romney's campaign.

Could it be that there were some folks "higher up" who were very aware of how Mormon apologetics could be viewed in a negative light and wanted to just avoid any official connection?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Is it possible that there was a sense of urgency because of the Romney run for president?

You guys would know better, but I did hear from a couple of Utah friends that their understanding was the LDS church was taking all possible measures to eliminate any whiff of controversy during Romney's campaign.

Could it be that there were some folks "higher up" who were very aware of how Mormon apologetics could be viewed in a negative light and wanted to just avoid any official connection?

As I recall, Steve Benson wrote a post on RfM wherein he claimed to have heard from a Maxwell Institute "insider" that the Romney campaign was a significant reason as to why this change took place. And, of course, we know what happened to another controversial figure--Randy Bott--during this time period.

But in all honesty, I think the real reason is more complex, and that it involved personality conflicts, university politics, pressure from the GAs, and a sense that classic-FARMS apologetics was just fundamentally wrong on a lot of levels, among other things.

[_Paloma]

As I recall, Steve Benson wrote a post on RfM wherein he claimed to have heard from a Maxwell Institute "insider" that the Romney campaign was a significant reason as to why this change took place. And, of course, we know what happened to another controversial figure--Randy Bott--during this time period.

But in all honesty, I think the real reason is more complex, and that it involved personality conflicts, university politics, pressure from the GAs, and a sense that classic-FARMS apologetics was just fundamentally wrong on a lot of levels, among other things.

Thanks, Scratch!

Interesting to hear Steve Benson's input.

And I agree with you that there's probably a lot more complexity involved!

[_Nightingale]

I am sure you see the irony in this situation.

How often are ex Mormons just told to get over it, how often do members wonder why they "just can't leave it alone?"

This is a very good point.

I do understand how people don't really get something until it happens to them. Still, too bad that many can't seem to summon up a bit of empathy now and again. For example, my MD told me once that he saw many patients with joint pain and went through the usual motions of sympathy but didn't really get how it felt until he injured his own knee and was limping around. It's like how you can express condolences to a friend whose mother just passed away but it's only when your own parent dies that you really feel how the grief feels (of course).

So it must be with the "can't leave it alone" mantra. So easy to say when it's someone else. Then when something happens to them and they feel an array of emotions and the need to talk about it and analyze it long past the time the dust has settled for everyone else maybe they will get it - that events in our lives that have impact, especially negative impact, hurt and disappoint and cause grief and feelings of loss and need to be talked about. And we have a need to justify ourselves, and that's not a bad thing.

A little bit of fellow feeling/compassion. That's all that's needed in so many instances.

[_moksha]

Based on this new commentary from Prof. P., I think that he essentially said, "Do it my way, or I'm out."

DCP might not have known the genesis of the request to pursue a new path. Had he known he may not have been so adamant. It is one thing to rail against the wind and but still want to duck for cover knowing a category five storm is minutes away.

[_beastie]

I posted this on the irony thread but perhaps is more appropriate here:

Having the luxury of time to waste this morning, I read DCP's blog entry that he linked to his Eastasia post. I think wheatwoman nailed DPC's problem.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 1086749794

I'm not a scholar, just a member who loves church history. I read the leaked emails and then read the article by Gregory Smith. I am convinced that the article by Smith was a perfect example of why a change was sought in the leadership at the Maxwell Institute. It sounded like it was written by a bratty, precocious BYU coed, not a scholar who is intelligently defending the faith. As I stated, I'm just a mom out in the midwest. But I read. Your own words make it very clear to me that the change at Maxwell Institute is a good one. I am tired of the defensive, sarcastic, divisive tone that dominates almost everything you people write - and this very article is no different.

The tone of your response is exactly what I expected. I follow and read what you write, Mr. Peterson. I read your articles, I read your responses to other people’s articles, and I read your responses to criticism. It’s astounding to me that a scholar such as you bristles and reacts so swiftly to criticism – any criticism from any person. You become dismissive and overwrought. Even of someone like me – a harmless fuzzball you don’t even know. I responded to your article and the article you referenced by Greg Smith. There was nothing sarcastic in my comment. You can take or leave my opinions, but it seems leaving an opposing opinion is notoriously difficult for you.


I happen to agree with many of the things you and Greg Smith say, but have serious reservations with your and his manner. I don’t live in Utah. I live in Detroit. Where I’m from, Mormons can’t afford to be insulting and dismissive of people who disagree with them. We try our level best to create connections with people we have literally nothing in common with. And when we are attacked publicly or in the newspaper, we don’t respond with sarcasm. We take them a plate of brownies and make peace. As the person in charge at the Maxwell Institute, how could you devote even one ounce of energy to publishing a paper that tears down another member of our church? It doesn’t make a particle of difference what you think of John Dehlin’s politics or his approach to the gospel. The idea of this kind of paper being published at the Maxwell Institute itself is offensive. Would to God that you had only published articles like the ones you referenced.

As an aside, I read “Nephi and his Asherah” over and over and sent to it to my entire extended family. It is one of my very favorite
articles. But, if I thought it was ridiculous and wrote to you saying I thought this, I can’t help wondering how you would respond. That is the issue.

There is a world of difference between sarcasm and criticism. I did criticise Greg Smith's piece. I read it and it sounded to me like it was written by a bratty BYU coed and I said so. I realize you and others completely disagree with my criticism, but do you really not understand the difference?

I'm neither a scholar nor an apologist. I'm a reader who has responded to an article that I think was poorly written. I disagree with the author's conclusions. Attacking me for criticizing the author accomplishes two things - neither of them good for apologetics - it makes the author and editor seem insecure, and it casts a shadow on any other articles they might have in the works. I will probably never read another article by Greg Smith or Daniel Peterson again. It's thoroughly demoralizing to observe their online behavior here and elsewhere on the internet.

As to whether the present Maxwell Institute is better equipped; intelligently defending the faith requires more than just sound scholarship. To be effective, there has to be humility and respectful responses to people who disagree with or criticize your work.

This is what DCP has just never been able to understand. He has become a target and a symbol for what is wrong with the church's (at least former) apologetic tactics because of his thin-skinned inability to let any criticism pass without engaging in a satirical response. Even worse, he engages in these tactics in response to members who aren't trying to criticize so much as to find a way to resolve the truly perplexing and problematic issues facing LDS belief. I always thought it would only take one grandchild of one GA to receive the DCP (or other apologists) treatment online for changes to be made.

Wheatwoman brought out another point I don't think DCP appreciates. Reacting so defensively and sarcastically to any perceived slight makes him look insecure indeed. Scholars who are secure in their process and conclusion don't fly off the handle when criticized. They simply show how they are correct, because they can.