DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

[_degaston]

in my opinion one of the biggest problems that the apologists caused themselves in them helping so many church members abandon the church and their former tithepaying ways was when they abandoned the teachings of the Brethren and church members historically on the origins of the Native Americans. It's important to remember that the primary source for all of the traditional views of Mormons on the Native Americans was from a character we know from church teachings as being the great resurrected God-Angel Moroni. According to LDS history this Moroni spent mortality as the son of a great prophet-historian named Mormon and he himself had access to all the records, wrote much himself, hid them up in the earth, and spent the next 14 centuries protecting these records from a third of the hosts of heaven (i.e. those who followed Lucifer) and somewhere along the line he was resurrected and became an Angel and also a god (assuming he got his endowments, sealings, and exaltation). If anyone would know about the history of the Native Americans then it would be Moroni, assuming he was a real character. But the apologists have let the world believe that Moroni's teachings and those of others who inspired LDS traditions on this must have been clueless. in my opinion they are anti-Moronis ;) The apologists have made many other mistakes. But this one in my opinion takes the cake. Either the so-called scientists in disciplines such as genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics are wrong and the LDS brethren (i.e. origins of teachings from Moroni) were correct. They can't both be. And the LDS apologists just shoot themselves in the foot thinking they can somehow claim the scientists are correct and so are the Brethren on this. It will be interesting to see which way the LDS apologetics community goes now. Will they continue down the path of anti-Moronisms? Or will they accept at face value what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Southwest Kimball and others have taught?

[_Tobin]

in my opinion one of the biggest problems that the apologists caused themselves in them helping so many church members abandon the church and their former tithepaying ways was when they abandoned the teachings of the Brethren and church members historically on the origins of the Native Americans. It's important to remember that the primary source for all of the traditional views of Mormons on the Native Americans was from a character we know from church teachings as being the great resurrected God-Angel Moroni. According to LDS history this Moroni spent mortality as the son of a great prophet-historian named Mormon and he himself had access to all the records, wrote much himself, hid them up in the earth, and spent the next 14 centuries protecting these records from a third of the hosts of heaven (i.e. those who followed Lucifer) and somewhere along the line he was resurrected and became an Angel and also a god (assuming he got his endowments, sealings, and exaltation). If anyone would know about the history of the Native Americans then it would be Moroni, assuming he was a real character. But the apologists have let the world believe that Moroni's teachings and those of others who inspired LDS traditions on this must have been clueless. in my opinion they are anti-Moronis ;) The apologists have made many other mistakes. But this one in my opinion takes the cake. Either the so-called scientists in disciplines such as genetics, archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics are wrong and the LDS brethren (i.e. origins of teachings from Moroni) were correct. They can't both be. And the LDS apologists just shoot themselves in the foot thinking they can somehow claim the scientists are correct and so are the Brethren on this. It will be interesting to see which way the LDS apologetics community goes now. Will they continue down the path of anti-Moronisms? Or will they accept at face value what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Southwest Kimball and others have taught?

Rarely is the truth that stark and black and white. However, I do agree with the view that apologists often are wasting their time. If apologists wish to explore the truth and discover the details, that is just fine. But Mormonism doesn't need the apologist defenders and in many ways the approach apologists take is not helpful. The apologists should be open to discussing things, but should not draw lines in the sand about what may or may not be true - especially when many of the details of what happened so long ago is rather murky. And if people are really interested in the Mormonism, they can speak to God about it. This has always been the Mormon position and has worked just fine so far.

[_gramps]

If this is all true, I imagine the value of old Reviews may skyrocket.

Collectors items they may become. This can only make Ray feel better, I imagine.

[_Chap]

... if people are really interested in the Mormonism, they can speak to God about it. This has always been the Mormon position and has worked just fine so far.

Ummm ... and what were living prophets supposed to be for? Could somebody remind me? I mean, if the Mormon deity is permanently in online chat mode, why bother listening to anybody but him?

Maybe that's why they are cutting back on the 'chat with a missionary' facility'? People are finding that they just don't need it?

[_Chap]

by the way, has anybody yet remembered to say

"This is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics"?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I thought he wasn't getting paid to conduct Mopologetics? There seems to be an awful lot of concern over money if this was just an altruistic past time of his...

- VRDRC

[_r_t]

I thought he wasn't getting paid to conduct Mopologetics? There seems to be an awful lot of concern over money if this was just an altruistic past time of his

Money will be a serious issue for Mr. Peterson. He's about to lose everything he has invested in professionally and he knows it. Unless he has any marketable skills not related to Mormonism, he'll be flippin' burgers soon. Not a pretty prospect.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The purported original message.

On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:43 AM, [M. Gerald Bradford] xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote:

Dear Dan:

I trust all goes well with your travels. I was hoping to hear from you on the Review before you left. Given how far behind it is, we need to decide its future and address our breach of expectations with its subscribers. Our front office staff are even now soliciting subscription renewals for a periodical that is now two issues behind schedule. And I'm unwilling to publish 23:2 as it stands.

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.

I plan to announce that the Review will be on hiatus until this process is completed. In the interim, we will settle things up with our current subscribers. I want to make this announcement as soon as possible and word it the right way.

I’m sensitive to the fact that there are those who would love nothing better than to make something of a change in editors and I’m concerned that we not give them any grounds to do this. I would appreciate any ideas you have along these lines that I might include in this announcement. Please be assured that, while brief, it will be positive and will highlights the important things that the Review has achieved under your helm during the past two decades plus. It will also indicate that the recently christened Mormon Studies Review is going to chart a new course, with a new editorial team, one that will bring it explicitly in-line with the scholarly agenda of the Institute, that will ensure that it clearly complements the Journal and Studies, and that will further enable it to make solid, scholarly contributions to Mormon studies.

Please let me hear from you in the next week or so. I’ll make the announcement sometime around the first of the month.

All the best,

Jerry

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) Since many of you seem to feel that my friendship with Dan affects my Moderating decisions, I am opting out of moderating this thread and Scratch's corresponding thread. I have, however, brought both of these threads to the Moderator Forum's attention. If any action is taken in either thread, it will not be done by me.

[_The Dude]

The basic story has been posted to exmormon.org (although they won't link here for *insert exmormon.org board owner's reason*) so that might account for our increase in traffic which is at a record high today.

And Dehlin posted a link to this thread on his Facebook page.