DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

[_Rollo Tomasi]

for what it's worth, back last year during Schryvergate, my informant told me that this was basically the same argument that they used to defend Schryver: i.e., that failing to publish his stuff would be caving in to "anti-Mormon blackmail." I'm sure that DCP is hoping that this line of argument will work this time around as well. What he doesn't seem to realize is that not everyone shares his "Holy War" POV.

My good doctor, I neglected to mention this earlier -- all this time that DCP and his ilk have claimed that you were "being played" and getting loads of garbage from supposed "informants," and here it turns out you were right all along. CONGRATULATIONS! You have been completely vindicated. I believe this latest episode will change official Mormon apologia for the better, and you should be thanked for that. The Church, whether right or wrong, should take the 'high road' in apologia and tackle the issues head-on, rather than inflict the typical personal attacks on the messenger. The Midgley Method has been repudiated (far too long in happening, in my opinion), and, I believe, overall, Mormons and non-Mormons alike will benefit. Well done, Scratch, and thank you.

[_Doctor Scratch]

for what it's worth, back last year during Schryvergate, my informant told me that this was basically the same argument that they used to defend Schryver: i.e., that failing to publish his stuff would be caving in to "anti-Mormon blackmail." I'm sure that DCP is hoping that this line of argument will work this time around as well. What he doesn't seem to realize is that not everyone shares his "Holy War" POV.

My good doctor, I neglected to mention this earlier -- all this time that DCP and his ilk have claimed that you were "being played" and getting loads of garbage from supposed "informants," and here it turns out you were right all along. CONGRATULATIONS! You have been completely vindicated. I believe this latest episode will change official Mormon apologia for the better, and you should be thanked for that. The Church, whether right or wrong, should take the 'high road' in apologia and tackle the issues head-on, rather than inflict the typical personal attacks on the messenger. The Midgley Method has been repudiated (far too long in happening, in my opinion), and, I believe, overall, Mormons and non-Mormons alike will benefit. Well done, Scratch, and thank you.

Those are some awfully kind words, Rollo. I hope that apologia changes, too, though I don't think that I can take credit for anything beyond sharing the messages that I've been sent. (And in truth, I've often doubted their authenticity myself.) I will say that, regardless of where the debris finally settles, there is really no way that the "Midgley Method" Mopologists can get away from what has happened here. Their smear campaigns and hit pieces have been formally, officially rebuked, and from here on out, they will have to bear this in mind any time they try to craft a fresh argument.

[_Kishkumen]

It's not "lying to donors" when an charity changes direction, unless the basic underlying mandate is changed midstream. Donors expect growth and change in the charity; that is the norm. Stagnant unwillingness to change is not the norm.

Hey, I am just sharing my take on his email. I won't attempt to hold up his end of that argument.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In any case, here is DCP's reply to Bradford:

From: Daniel Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:18 PM
To: <[M. Gerald Bradford] xxx@xxx.xxx> [18 other recipients, redacted for privacy]
Subject: Re: Charting a new course

Dr. Bradford:

You've achieved your goal. I resign.

...

Very seriously yours,

Daniel C. Peterson
Tiberias, Israel

This may have been mentioned already, but I just caught it. Was DCP's sign-off above -- "very seriously yours" (emphasis mine) -- a Freudian slip (i.e., "seriously" instead of "sincerely"), or a direct threat toward Bradford? It's a very odd way to conclude a message, and I'm just trying to guess at what Dan meant by it.

[_bcspace]

Any confirmation yet that any of this is true, especially the emails?

Have you any specific reason to believe it isn't true?

Scratchy's own admissions for one; that there is no confirmation.

[_Chap]

Scratchy's own admissions for one; that there is no confirmation.

Suddenly we are all plunged into an agony of doubt! How could we have been such fools?

[_Eric]

Are we sure that this decision has nothing to do with the penis video that DCP watched and shared with his Facebook friends?

[_Tim]

I think his emailed response is far more embarrassing than the news that he's out at the Review.

[_Yoda]

What I find unfortunate is that Bradford did not give Dan an opportunity to at least show him what had been put together for the newest review edition. If he had conducted previous conversations with Dan about the Review going in a new direction, maybe Dan was attempting to do just that, which was why there was a delay. Dan mentioned in his response that the new edition was almost ready to go. Why did Bradford not simply wait until Dan was back from traveling? Or, better yet, ask Dan to email him a copy of what he had already put together for the review, and find out how close it was to being executed? If Dan's new edition, had, indeed, "met the mark" of going this new direction, maybe the editorial change was unnecessary. Maybe Dan was hoping to prove this with the new edition that, as Dan said, was close to being ready.

To come to this type of decision while Dan was away was, I think, a low blow for Bradford. As Bradford, himself, pointed out, this has been "Dan's baby" for the past 20 years. He wanted Dan's continued involvement and a smooth transition. Maybe if Bradford had given Dan a chance to prove that he could adjust to the new change, it would have saved everyone a lot of headache. It sounds like there was a huge breakdown in communication, which was exacerbated by the fact that Dan was out of the country when this decision was hastily made.

[_Kishkumen]

What I find unfortunate is that Bradford did not give Dan an opportunity to at least show him what had been put together for the newest review edition. If he had conducted previous conversations with Dan about the Review going in a new direction, maybe Dan was attempting to do just that, which was why there was a delay. Dan mentioned in his response that the new edition was almost ready to go. Why did Bradford not simply wait until Dan was back from traveling? Or, better yet, ask Dan to email him a copy of what he had already put together for the review, and find out how close it was to being executed? If Dan's new edition, had, indeed, "met the mark" of going this new direction, maybe the editorial change was unnecessary. Maybe Dan was hoping to prove this with the new edition that, as Dan said, was close to being ready.

To come to this type of decision while Dan was away was, I think, a low blow for Bradford. As Bradford, himself, pointed out, this has been "Dan's baby" for the past 20 years. He wanted Dan's continued involvement and a smooth transition. Maybe if Bradford had given Dan a chance to prove that he could adjust to the new change, it would have saved everyone a lot of headache. It sounds like there was a huge breakdown in communication, which was exacerbated by the fact that Dan was out of the country when this decision was hastily made.

I think it is impossible to tell exactly what is behind Bradford's decision. We can speculate, opine, and second guess all we like, but the whole of it is undoubtedly not contained in his email to Daniel.