Jeff Bradshaw giving a fireside on the Masonic temple rites in 8 hours - zoom link

[the_narrator]

"I'm not sure how it implicates the Interpreter Foundation as such -- any more than it implicates all the people of the Great Basin West, or all the people of the United States, where Interpreter is based -- even taking the worst possible view of it."

Excellent point. Why would anyone possibly think that The Interpreter has anything to do with a book published by The Interpreter?

[Doctor Steuss]

You may not have seen that Dr. Peterson has offered some brief comments on his blog. Here's one: "I'm not sure how it implicates the Interpreter Foundation as such -- any more than it implicates all the people of the Great Basin West, or all the people of the United States, where Interpreter is based -- even taking the worst possible view of it."

One of the Interpreter Foundation's authors requested a book under the pretense of writing a review for the Interpreter Foundation, and then used information from that book to publish another book through the Interpreter Foundation.

Implicating the Interpreter Foundation is therefore the same as implicating the entire population of the United States.

The math checks out.

[Tom]

You may not have seen that Dr. Peterson has offered some brief comments on his blog. Here's one: "I'm not sure how it implicates the Interpreter Foundation as such -- any more than it implicates all the people of the Great Basin West, or all the people of the United States, where Interpreter is based -- even taking the worst possible view of it."

One of the Interpreter Foundation's authors requested a book under the pretense of writing a review for the Interpreter Foundation, and then used information from that book to publish another book through the Interpreter Foundation.

Implicating the Interpreter Foundation is therefore the same as implicating the entire population of the United States.

The math checks out.

Damn straight. Bradshaw writes the following in the Acknowledgments section: "I am grateful to the generous donors to the Interpreter Foundation whose support has made this book possible." Irrelevant.

[the_narrator]

The Interpreter has nothing to do with a book by Jeff Bradshaw published by The Interpreter

[the_narrator]

And there are those things that make you go hmmm...

[Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson appears to be throwing Bradshaw under the bus. Here is one of Interpreter’s VPs doing something incredibly slimy, and President Peterson claims to know nothing about it. Well, he knows about it now. What does he *think* about it? As President? Maybe Bradshaw should be removed from the Board?

[Tom]

Bradshaw decided to write a book at the end of May and publication was announced by Interpreter on July 25. When did Bradshaw turn in a manuscript to Interpreter?

I haven’t checked how the content of his 2015 Interpreter article was used in his book: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... rdinances/

[drumdude]

Posting the comment chain from Dan’s blog here before DaN deletes it.

I’m interested, as long as it’s not sponsored by the Interpreter Foundation.
9
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
21 hours ago edited
Lincoln Cannon: "I’m interested, as long as it’s not sponsored by the Interpreter Foundation."

It almost certainly will be, and you have a constitutionally guaranteed right of free association. As do we.

So I'll put you down as "not interested."
2
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
19 hours ago
Sorry to hear it. Mormonism can do better.
9
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
14 hours ago
Lincoln Cannon:. "Sorry to hear it. Mormonism can do better."

Thanks, Lincoln, for dropping by to express your disdain for me and my friends. Much appreciated.
2
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
10 hours ago
Dan, my disdain is for Interpreter Foundation, which allowed use of its platform to misrepresent and disparage my work and the work of my friends. For you and others who were involved in that allowance, I feel disappointment and impaired trust — not disdain. You are all, of course, much more than that, beautiful people in many other ways.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, I warn those who would participate in a conference on Mormonism and science that Interpreter Foundation sponsorship is antithetical to the nominal purpose.
9
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
9 hours ago
Lincoln Cannon: "Dan, my disdain is for Interpreter Foundation, which allowed use of its platform to misrepresent and disparage my work and the work of my friends."

Perhaps you're unaware of the fact, but, unless I'm misremembering, we had invited and expected an essay from someone associated with you in the transhumanist camp. It never materialized.

Lincoln Cannon: "I warn those who would participate in a conference on Mormonism and science that Interpreter Foundation sponsorship is antithetical to the nominal purpose."

Even if the Interpreter Foundation were monolithically opposed to "Mormon transhumanism" -- I myself, at the time to which you refer, had some limited but sympathetic interest in what I understood of it, and I both knew and liked the person from whom we expected the essay -- I can't see how Interpreter's sponsorship would be "antithetical" to the theme of a conference on "theism and science" or even "'Mormonism' and science." However enthusiastic one may be about "transhumanism," it's not synonymous with science.

But it will be useful, I guess, to know that you'll be out there "warning" against participation in the conference. I didn't expect anybody to do such a thing, and, frankly, I regard it as a bit odd. But it's good to know.
3
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
8 hours ago
Dan, you know there's much more to the story of the Interpreter Foundation's decision to proceed with publishing a misrepresentation and disparagement of my work. As you point out, someone (not I) had previously offered to write and ended up not providing an article on Mormon Transhumanism. That's regrettable. But that doesn't somehow justify what you published, despite my repeated offers to sacrifice time immediately to provide feedback to ensure that it became at least an accurate criticism of Mormon Transhumanism -- which it is not.

The poorly-informed and maliciously-intended (yes, the author had malicious intent, as evidenced by his comments about Mormon Transhumanism in discussion forums) article that Interpreter Foundation published fuels more antipathy toward Mormon Transhumanism than anything else that has ever been published on the subject. That gets a few clicks for Interpreter Foundation. And it generates negatively prejudiced social interactions for Mormon Transhumanists.

I agree that Transhumanism is not synonymous with science. I haven't and never would claim otherwise. However, Interpreter Foundation chose to publish an article that reflects hostility toward and simplistically mischaracterizes a group of Mormons (even going so far as to call into question their identity as Mormons) who are some of the most enthusiastic proponents of the complementarity between science and Mormonism. And that does indeed reflect poorly on Interpreter Foundation's capacity to be a trustworthy source of information on the subject.
9
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
8 hours ago
LC: "Dan, you know there's much more to the story of the Interpreter Foundation's decision to proceed with publishing a misrepresentation and disparagement of my work."

I don't, actually.

LC: " the author had malicious intent"

He strongly disagrees with Mormon Transhumanism. That's obvious.
2
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
8 hours ago
Dan, do you sincerely claim not to know that there's more to the story? Have you forgotten the numerous emails exchanged on the subject? I'm struggling to believe this. But maybe you've forgotten because it's relatively unimportant to you. After all, it hasn't harmed you much.

The author expressed more than strong disagreement with Mormon Transhumanism. He expressed ridicule of Mormon Transhumanism in public Mormon discussion forums prior to publication of the article. That's the kind of critic to which Interpreter Foundation gave a platform, without relevant peer-review, despite my repeated offers of assistance. And the result was to platform a maliciously-intended misrepresentation of a group of Mormons who are exceptionally enthusiastic about science. I point out, again, that reflects poorly on Interpreter Foundation's capacity to be an effective sponsor of a conference on Mormonism and science.

[drumdude]

science.
9
Reply
−
Avatar
Nathan Whilk Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
Lincoln Cannon writes: "Interpreter Foundation gave a platform, without relevant peer-review, despite my repeated offers of assistance."

I've reviewed a little over one hundred items for the main review site in my academic discipline. As far as I can tell, my reviews were never themselves submitted to peer review. I was contacted by an editor when there was an angry response by an author to one of my reviews, but the editor did not suggest making any changes to my review (nor did he make any). The results of Googling "Should book reviews be peer-reviewed?" suggest to me that that site's policy was not atypical.
3
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
8 hours ago edited
LC: "Dan, do you sincerely claim not to know that there's more to the story?"

Yes.

LC: "Have you forgotten the numerous emails exchanged on the subject?"

Pretty much. I would have to go back and review them.

LC: "But maybe you've forgotten because it's relatively unimportant to you."

I confess that it is. We've published hundreds and hundreds of articles, and it's been years since this matter.

LC: "that reflects poorly on Interpreter Foundation's capacity to be an effective sponsor of a conference on Mormonism and science."

My goal for the conference is simply to invite interesting people to speak and to provide them a platform for saying potentially interesting things. If you're out there campaigning against the conference, though, that might create some obstacles.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
7 hours ago
Need a safe space?
1
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon The Last Danite
7 hours ago
You have here illustrated one of the behaviors that Interpreter Foundation cultivates. Unfortunately, that reflects poorly not only on Interpreter Foundation but also on our shared religion. Maybe someday Dan will lead Interpreter Foundation in demonstrating greater integrity, refusing to serve passively as a platform for misrepresentation and ridicule.
6
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
7 hours ago
LC: "You have here illustrated one of the behaviors that Interpreter Foundation cultivates."

???????

LC: "Unfortunately, that reflects poorly not only on Interpreter Foundation"

???????

So far as I'm aware, "The Last Danite" not only doesn't represent the Interpreter Foundation but isn't even affiliated with it. Nor is this blog affiliated with the Interpreter Foundation.

So how a comment by The Last Danite posted on this blog reflects poorly on the Interpreter Foundation eludes me.

LC: "but also on our shared religion."

???????

LC: "Maybe someday Dan will lead Interpreter Foundation in demonstrating greater integrity, refusing to serve passively as a platform for misrepresentation and ridicule."

We offered your organization a platform. Your organization didn't use the opportunity. And now, years later and quite out of the blue, you're publicly attacking us and publicly attacking me.

I'll be honest: I find your behavior exceedingly strange.

I won't, though, say that it reflects poorly on Mormon Transhumanism, nor on our shared religion. It's just you.
2
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
6 hours ago
Dan, it reflects poorly because you've ignored his poor behavior, as you ignored the poor quality of the article that you approved at Interpreter Foundation. And these aren't the only cases. I've observed you ignoring similar things for many years. I think it's disingenuous to feign such surprise.

I'm criticizing you and Interpreter Foundation for providing a platform for a maliciously-intended and poorly-informed publication targeted at me. And I'm also criticizing you and Interpreter Foundation for passively engaging in similar behavior over the years. It's a pattern, beyond my experience with you. So, no, it's not just me -- unfortunately.
6
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
LC: "Dan, it reflects poorly because you've ignored his poor behavior, as you ignored the poor quality of the article that you approved at Interpreter Foundation."

Articles on controversial topics arouse controversy. Authors whose works are negatively reviewed are very often indignant.

It goes with the territory. We offered your camp the opportunity to publish an essay in our pages. Your camp did not avail itself of the offer. And now, years later, out of the blue, you show up to attack and insult. It's very odd.

LC: "And these aren't the only cases. I've observed you ignoring similar things for many years. "

Articles on controversial topics arouse controversy. Authors whose works are negatively reviewed are very often indignant.

LC: "I think it's disingenuous to feign such surprise."

I've been very indulgent toward you. But I think that I'm about to declare an end to the thread-jack.

LC: "I'm criticizing you and Interpreter Foundation for providing a platform for a maliciously-intended and poorly-informed publication targeted at me. And I'm also criticizing you and Interpreter Foundation for passively engaging in similar behavior over the years. It's a pattern, beyond my experience with you. So, no, it's not just me -- unfortunately."

Have a nice day, Lincoln.

I intend to go forward with my idea for a conference on science and religion. If you want to try to scuttle it, feel free.
2
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
6 hours ago
Dan, I have criticized your integrity. I have offered grounds for the criticism. And I have explained how that's relevant to the concern I expressed. If that's an insult, so be it. In the meantime, you're allowing much more obvious, much less grounded, and much less relevant insults to continue against me.
6
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago edited
LC: "Dan, I have criticized your integrity."

Yes, Lincoln, you have. Publicly and baselessly. And, yes, I've been disappointed and shocked by your behavior. It's caused me to revise my opinion of you.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
6 hours ago
I have offered reasons for the criticism. So it's not baseless, by definition. Whether one should agree with the reasons or not is another matter, worthy of debate.
4
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago edited
LC: "I have offered reasons for the criticism."

Reasons that I reject.

LC: "Whether one should agree with the reasons or not is another matter, worthy of debate."

And you took it upon yourself to decide that a debate should occur, that my blog is where the debate should take place, and that this particular thread was the one that you should hijack in order to achieve your purpose.

Well, enough is enough. I'll allow your thread-jack two more comments. Choose your words well, to inflict maximum damage, because I won't permit more than two additional comments from you here, on this topic. Even my laissez-faire attitude has its limits. I suppose it's why, although I'm sympathetic to libertarianism, I've never been able to bring myself to join the Libertarian Party.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
Seatimer Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
As a neutral observer, but frequent commenter on this blog, I must say, Lincoln, that from all outward appearances, you have an axe to grind and you're attempting to do so without much success inasmuch as your logic, your attacks and your platform, all appear faulty.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
The wonderful aspect of your anarchist relationship with Dr. Peterson and the Interpreter foundation is you can simply choose to leave them alone.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
I am not part of the Interpreter Foundation. I merely enjoy having fun.
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon The Last Danite
6 hours ago
... engaging in ridicule on Dan's platform, without his response. And anyone who has observed his blog over the years, as I have, knows that this is not an exception. It's also emblematic of the concern that I have expressed here to Dan, as his leadership of Interpreter Foundation has resulted in passive allowance of use of their platform to publish poorly-informed and maliciously-intended work.
6
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago edited
LC: "engaging in ridicule on Dan's platform, without his response."

The comments section here is "run" largely on laissez-faire principles. If commenters haven't been obscene or slanderous, I tend to leave them alone. For example, I've permitted you to hijack this thread, insulting me, maligning the Interpreter Foundation, and irrelevantly clogging up a space for which I had other intentions. You evidently want me to censor others or face your further denunciation. Please stop it.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
6 hours ago
I disagree with your characterization of my comments here. I responded to your question, and explained my reasons for my response. You have characterized my reasons as insults and malignments, while allowing others to use your platforms to insult and malign me in much more obvious ways. I don't want you to censor others. I've suggested that you could respond to others.
6
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
LC: "I disagree with your characterization of my comments here."

And I disagree with you.

But I've tolerated your thread-jack long enough. I'll allow you two more comments in which, if you choose, you can attack me and Interpreter, and then I'll close the door on the matter. So choose your arrows wisely.

LC: "You have characterized my reasons as insults and malignments"

Yup.

LC: "while allowing others to use your platforms to insult and malign me in much more obvious ways."

As I've explained, this is pretty much a laissez-faire space. The Last Danite will be the first to admit that he has posted a large number of comments here expressing political views for which I have, to put it mildly, absolutely no sympathy. I haven't moved to stop him from doing so.

LC: "I don't want you to censor others. I've suggested that you could respond to others."

I feel absolutely no obligation to respond to every comment here. I choose when and where I want to respond. Just more proof of my lack of integrity, I suppose.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
6 hours ago
Dan, thanks for allowing me to post my thoughts here, despite our disagreements. You're always welcome to comment on my blog and share criticisms of my ideas and actions there, as long as you don't engage in ridicule or demonization.

If you or anyone else engages in ridicule or demonization, including when it's directed at you, I will respond. And I'll require that it end. If it does not end, I'll end it, even if it's directed at you -- or anyone else who disagrees with me. If I don't do this perfectly, call my attention to it. And I'll aim to rectify the situation and do better.

Strong disagreements expressed in reasoned criticism aren't in themselves ridicule or demonization, as far as I'm concerned. So, again, please do feel welcome to share them in comments on my blog, if ever you so desire.
3
Reply
−
Avatar
Seatimer Lincoln Cannon
5 hours ago
This is incredible, but from my perspective, LC, invites Dr P to comment on his supposed blog, but then uses the opportunity to insinuate that somehow Dr P will most probably (my words not his, but obviously his intent) ridicule or demonize him.

Only a jerk or a creep would transition wholly without substance like he just did, and that seems to be his whole motivation today (Your pick: to be a jerk and/or to cast aspersions without evidence.)
1
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
LC: "Dan, thanks for allowing me to post my thoughts here, despite our disagreements. You're always welcome to comment on my blog."

I most likely won't.

I've been saddened by this exchange with you, and very disappointed.

Have a good day.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
Lincoln Cannon DanielPeterson
6 hours ago
Sure. I understand the feeling. For several years, each time someone googles "Mormon transhumanism," I've been reminded of feeling sad and disappointed by you and Interpreter Foundation. In the words of Gandalf, what a lot of things you use "have a good day" for! So I think that's my two-comment limit.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago edited
LC: "So I think that's my two-comment limit."

It is.

It's unfortunate that your "side" didn't avail itself of the.offer of publishing something with Interpreter. We were more than willing. It was a missed opportunity, and now, it seems, that missed opportunity has generated a surprisingly great amount of heretofore unsuspected bitterness.

LC: "In the words of Gandalf, what a lot of things you use "have a good day" for!""

I meant that I hoped that you would have a good day.

It's really liberating not to read malice into everything that one's chosen opponent says and does.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
6 hours ago
Pushing your buttons is quite enjoyable. Stop taking everything so seriously.
Reply
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
The gnashing of teeth over something so trivial is amusing.
1
Reply
−
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
8 hours ago
Reply
−
Avatar
The Last Danite Lincoln Cannon
11 hours ago
Such as?

[drumdude]

It seems more than obvious to me that if Loyd Ericson had an issue with Jeff Bradshaw and/or Interpreter, he should talk to Jeff Bradshaw and/or Interpreter. "Litigation by tweet" doesn't seem very productive.
3
Reply
−
Avatar
Sledge Kiwi57
19 minutes ago
I agree. He tagged the Interpreter Twitter account. No response.
Reply
−
Avatar
Patrick Sledge
19 hours ago edited
If true, this would be highly unethical and unprofessional for both The Interpreter and Brother Bradshaw.

On Brother Ericson’s Twitter feed there is a lively discussion and several scholars are already condemning both Bradshaw and The Interpreter.

-Professor Benjamin Park said, “This is atrocious.”

-Professor Taylor Petrey simply said, “Yikes.”

Megan Stanton, PhD wrote, “This is very concerning.”

-Brother Ostler said, “I seem to recall a question that is important to us LDS people, "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?"

-Brother Dinger, “I'm having trouble deciding who is worse, Interpreter or Mormonr. What a week for theft.”
2
Reply
−
Avatar
DanielPeterson Patrick
14 hours ago
Patrick, I can sense your delight in this story. But I'm not sure how it implicates the Interpreter Foundation as such -- any more than it implicates all the people of the Great Basin West, or all the people of the United States, where Interpreter is based -- even taking the worst possible view of it.

As I mentioned to Sledge, I had never heard of the issue nor of Mr. Ericson's tweet until he, Sledge, mentioned them here.

I should probably also point out that, if this becomes a feeding frenzy here (as I can well imagine it becoming), I'll probably delete both your comment and his (as well as Lincoln Cannon's odd drive-by expression of general contempt for the Interpreter Foundation). I wrote the blog post above for a specific purpose, seeking expressions of possible interest in a particular kind of conference, and I don't want such expressions to be lost amid declarations of hostility and indignation as the result of a threadjack.