Confirmation of Developments?

[_Shulem]

I bet the person who passed this along is only indirectly connected to the institute, probably as friend of a friend.

How much are you willing to bet? I want my $100 back.



Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

No Kish. That would only prove that there was a changing of the guard but it doesn't prove the letters Dr. Scratch posted are genuine. That will come in other ways.

You should have more faith in Dr. Scratch.

Paul O

It would be proof of the most important substance of this. Whether the letter is genuine is another matter. My interest is in the end of attacks on members from BYU campus.

[_Shulem]

My interest is in the end of attacks on members from BYU campus.

And things will get cleaned up before the November elections. Management and policy changes are a natural part of preparation. The church wants to be seen as a happy and friendly organization.

Paul O

[_Kevin Graham]

I agree that locking the blog thread without denial or comment is a clear confirmation.

Wow.

I hope Scratch's informant isn't at risk in some way.

I bet the person who passed this along is only indirectly connected to the institute, probably as friend of a friend.

To me this is unlikely because this "friend of a friend" has been curiously privy to sensitive information on a regular basis. What are the chances of that? Scratch caught wind of these emails almost as quickly as they happened, which suggests to me that it was someone on Dan's list of email recipients. Second and third hand rumoring usually takes a few days to develop, but we have the email evidence in hand the very next day.

[_Fence Sitter]

I agree that locking the blog thread without denial or comment is a clear confirmation.

Wow.

I hope Scratch's informant isn't at risk in some way.

Besides locking two threads on the subject, they have also deleted at least one comment in another thread asking about it.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I agree that locking the blog thread without denial or comment is a clear confirmation.

Wow.

I hope Scratch's informant isn't at risk in some way.

Besides locking two threads on the subject, they have also deleted at least one comment in another thread asking about it.

Some thoughts...

--They aren't going to allow any discussion of this on MDD, and I doubt very much that DCP himself will say anything about it. Right now, he's probably working double-time behind the scenes in an effort to reverse Bradford's decision.

--@Beastie, I hope so, too, though as others have pointed out, this "informant" was quite anxious to see that the information be made public, and I think that measures have been taken to keep everything in the clear. Dan sent the message to close to 20 people, knowing full well that the MI "leaks like a sieve."

--To what extent will DCP's message work as a tactical move? His threat is based mainly on funding, which seems extremely risky to me. I'm sure Bradford thought this through before he issued this "prospectus." I also think that there must be GA support behind all this. I don't think that there is any way that this could have gone down without approval from someone in the upper echelons of Church leadership. Regardless, Dan seems to view Bradford as having "checkmated" him.

--DCP is blowing some things out of proportion. Bradford's message made it clear that he intended to keep Dan closely involved in the changes that were being made. The word "fired" is Dan's--not Bradford's.

--The bit about him being out of the country is interesting. Does it mean that, had he been in Provo, he would have been able to offer up more opposition, or tap into his connections more efficiently?

--Even if all of the information we have so far is true, I don't think it means that Dan is totally finished as an apologist at the MI. I would guess that he's going to try to utilize everything at his disposal to lash out at Bradford and to get the decision reversed. So while it may be tempting for some to rejoice over this "house cleaning," it's still not a done deal. But the thing is, I can't help but think that Bradford was extremely careful here, and he's got basic common sense on his side. All this stuff that DCP is threatening is bad on every level: it's bad for him, it's bad for the donors, it's bad for the MI, it's bad for BYU, and it's bad for the LDS Church.

[_Kevin Graham]

The more interesting thing to me here is the reaction of FAIR.

It has become abundantly clear that Dan Peterson and his ilk have been reprimanded by a General Authority and now a Church owned entity, all within a month's time. Dan's response to the first incident was to go lone wolf on them by having his voice, which they didn't like, published in the form of a Deseret News article.

Is FAIR's mission to defend the Church or is it going to be changing so that it dovetails with Dan and Will's agendas, which seems to have been rejected by the Church? They seem more interested in defending this "old guard" school of apologists more than anything now, when in fact what they should be doing is following the example set by the church they claim to defend, and move towards a more tolerant approach.

[_Shulem]

--Even if all of the information we have so far is true, I don't think it means that Dan is totally finished as an apologist at the MI. I would guess that he's going to try to utilize everything at his disposal to lash out at Bradford and to get the decision reversed. So while it may be tempting for some to rejoice over this "house cleaning," it's still not a done deal. But the thing is, I can't help but think that Bradford was extremely careful here, and he's got basic common sense on his side. All this stuff that DCP is threatening is bad on every level: it's bad for him, it's bad for the donors, it's bad for the MI, it's bad for BYU, and it's bad for the LDS Church.

So true. And see how Dan is not accepting his crucifixion too well! Shall he endeavor to come down from the cross? Nope, his own leaders gave him up. All he can do now is die and resurrect into something else.

Paul O

[_harmony]

Some thoughts...

--They aren't going to allow any discussion of this on MDD, and I doubt very much that DCP himself will say anything about it. Right now, he's probably working double-time behind the scenes in an effort to reverse Bradford's decision.

Is it possible for Bradford to reverse his decision? I think it's not possible, and he would likely be removed himself, were he to cave in.

--@Beastie, I hope so, too, though as others have pointed out, this "informant" was quite anxious to see that the information be made public, and I think that measures have been taken to keep everything in the clear. Dan sent the message to close to 20 people, knowing full well that the MI "leaks like a sieve."

Which means he wanted this out in the open.

--To what extent will DCP's message work as a tactical move? His threat is based mainly on funding, which seems extremely risky to me. I'm sure Bradford thought this through before he issued this "prospectus." I also think that there must be GA support behind all this. I don't think that there is any way that this could have gone down without approval from someone in the upper echelons of Church leadership. Regardless, Dan seems to view Bradford as having "checkmated" him.

Which makes me wonder if there is some flexing being done by someone... maybe Pres Monson?

If there is a chess game going on which Dan just lost, then this is not news to him. Which makes me wonder about the back story.

--DCP is blowing some things out of proportion. Bradford's message made it clear that he intended to keep Dan closely involved in the changes that were being made. The word "fired" is Dan's--not Bradford's.

He's never been afraid of hyberbole. And playing 2nd chair is not his style.

--The bit about him being out of the country is interesting. Does it mean that, had he been in Provo, he would have been able to offer up more opposition, or tap into his connections more efficiently?

Chess game again. And there's a long history of this sort of thing in the church, like when polygamy was announced in general conference, long after there was no chance for the members to leave.

--Even if all of the information we have so far is true, I don't think it means that Dan is totally finished as an apologist at the MI. I would guess that he's going to try to utilize everything at his disposal to lash out at Bradford and to get the decision reversed. So while it may be tempting for some to rejoice over this "house cleaning," it's still not a done deal. But the thing is, I can't help but think that Bradford was extremely careful here, and he's got basic common sense on his side. All this stuff that DCP is threatening is bad on every level: it's bad for him, it's bad for the donors, it's bad for the MI, it's bad for BYU, and it's bad for the LDS Church.

This "I'll take the funding elsewhere" is a kneejerk reaction, and highly illadvised. Downright stupid, actually. It certainly shows that this sort of megasetback has never happened to Dan before. Welcome to the real world.

[_Shulem]

This "I'll take the funding elsewhere" is a kneejerk reaction, and highly illadvised. Downright stupid, actually. It certainly shows that this sort of megasetback has never happened to Dan before. Welcome to the real world.

He's made several critical errors -- fighting against the orders from on high will cost him everything. His letter contained a slew of veiled threats which won't go over too well when the General Authorities take further action against him.

Paul O