Bill Hamblin: No Apologetics at BYU

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think that you can really blame the collapse of World Table on Pahoran and DCP's comments, or any individual's comments, for that matter. The collapse was due to the poor format and technology of the website itself. The threads were poorly organized and hard to follow. And the website itself was incredibly slow. I think that the bulk of folks attempting to participate there simply got tired of all of the technical glitches. I know that was a big factor in why I quit posting there.

I have to agree with Jesse here. The World Table could have been an apparent success if the technology situation had been in order. Granted, it never would have been the truly civil conversation it had aimed to be, but it would have at least been busier.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I have often wistfully wondered how much neater the ouster of the classic FARMS crew from MI might have been, if, when Hamblin started attacking Bradford on "Enigmatic Mirror" or wherever, the powers that be at BYU, or, better yet, the LDS Church, had explained why it was that a new direction was taken. Ultimately, I think the answer is exactly what David Bokovoy opined: the Church wanted to abandoned the polemical discourse such as one finds in a tiny, persecuted sect. Yet, what would the fallout have been for unequivocally laying that out for all to see?

Agreed.

I think that everyone on both sides of the aisle recognizes that the whole thing was grossly mishandled. Bradford should have waited until DCP returned from his travels and addressed him in person about the changes. Frankly, if that exchange had happened, I think that there might have been a very different outcome. I'm not sure what Hamblin's role would currently be, but I think that Dan would very likely still be the MI editor. It was the fact that all of this was done behind Dan's back that angered him to the point of resigning. Bradford should have had the courage to speak with Dan directly. He never did that. I think that if he had, Dan would have been more open to the new direction.

[_Kishkumen]

I think that everyone on both sides of the aisle recognizes that the whole thing was grossly mishandled. Bradford should have waited until DCP returned from his travels and addressed him in person about the changes. Frankly, if that exchange had happened, I think that there might have been a very different outcome. I'm not sure what Hamblin's role would currently be, but I think that Dan would very likely still be the MI editor. It was the fact that all of this was done behind Dan's back that angered him to the point of resigning. Bradford should have had the courage to speak with Dan directly. He never did that. I think that if he had, Dan would have been more open to the new direction.

I can't imagine a scenario in which someone could have convinced Daniel Peterson to stop publishing things like the Compton and Dehlin hit pieces on a permanent basis.

In a recent conversation with members of the board of a university about its president, I was told that the president looked open-minded and would appear to listen to others but would then proceed to do whatever he wanted regardless of any input anyone else might offer.

There are people who are so singleminded and persistent in pursuing their objectives that they will not be dissuaded, in the long run, from doing what they think is right. There is no compromise for the truly convicted. Although no one has ever opened up to me about this, I would guess that this went down as it did because DCP was not *really* listening, would not compromise, and was prepared to go nuclear if he saw things weren't going his way.

In other words, if there were to be any change, it couldn't be something DCP saw coming.

I can't imagine this happening any other way.

[_Markk]

Dr. Scratch wrote...Ultimately, I think the best answer is that their work is self-serving. They write because they have a deeply embedded anger (about a whole host of things), and they want to feel like "Holy Warriors" who are doing God's will in the form of tearing into people in print. For the most part, they couldn't care less about being "scholars" (though in fairness, some of them actually do care about this--e.g., Brant Gardner) apart from the credibility it gives them.

Hey Doc,

I can totally see this, and I will add that there might be two other factors, that all "who know" deal with...the personal testimony and family. Both need to be protected to openly stay LDS. So while this may be more of a general reason, being aggressive in their "work" takes the pressure off of dealing with these two other factors outright?

All of us here that have openly left, know what pressures these are, and those here that are still in the closet...know more so.