DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

[_lulu]

So it's your position that Bradford, 100% on his own, with absolutely no involvment from anyone above him just up and fired DCP while he was out of the country.

No. As I have been very clear about. Bradford didn't "just up" and do anything. This has been in the works for a while--and perhaps why Dan claimed his wife (who I find much more personable than he) saw happening.

You are really giving Dan far too much credit. He was no giant that needed The Brethren's (TM) approval to slay. He was simply a hindrance to the academic and scholarly goals of Bradford and his colleagues at the MI. Stuff like this is not all that uncommon with journals, academic societies, and such. Academia is a quagmire of egos and politics.

Duck. Did anyone above Bradford authorize the firing?

[_Kishkumen]

Although I mostly agree with the narrator, it is also true that BYU is not just any other academic environment, the MI is not a college or department, and the endorsement of an apostle is an argument raised by Peterson. It is understandable that others would interpret this differently from the narrator.

[_kairos]

Because of his position at the maxwell institute and its predecessor organizations, as editor in charge for 20 years, DCP has been given primetime exposure as the expert apologist for the church- and Dan likes the role and the attention! Taken away he becomes just a professor at BYU with a consulting role in apologetics. No longer the "go to guy" -no longer the defender-no longer the hammer in the field of Mormon apologetics. He is done, and that's why he was so angry and spewing invectives/threats/ you gonna pay remarks-because he has so much to lose.
This is killing his ego!

The church will have to respond as his firing hits the sl trib and the huffington post!

Dan himself loses almost all credibility if he tries to engage as an apologist- People will say "who the hell are you?" as he fires apologetic volleys at critics.

Between the social cam and the firing, I would say DCP has probably experienced the worst two weeks of his life- will he recover? probably not!

just sayin
k

[_beastie]

No. Bradford and his colleagues have simply been attempting to bring the MI from being irrelevant in academic discourse to something of value. This has been a long process. Attempts were made to bring Peterson in-line, but rather than caring about being taken seriously by the broader academic and scholarly world (or even just Mormon studies scholars in general), he was more concerned with his ego and his cult-following of fan-boy apologists. It was decided that for the good of the MI, Peterson had to go.

Peterson was academically irrelevant. That's the driving force.

This rings true to me.

[_Shulem]

Because of his position at the maxwell institute and its predecessor organizations, as editor in charge for 20 years, DCP has been given primetime exposure as the expert apologist for the church- and Dan likes the role and the attention! Taken away he becomes just a professor at BYU with a consulting role in apologetics. No longer the "go to guy" -no longer the defender-no longer the hammer in the field of Mormon apologetics. He is done, and that's why he was so angry and spewing invectives/threats/ you gonna pay remarks-because he has so much to lose.
This is killing his ego!

The church will have to respond as his firing hits the sl trib and the huffington post!

Dan himself loses almost all credibility if he tries to engage as an apologist- People will say "who the hell are you?" as he fires apologetic volleys at critics.

Between the social cam and the firing, I would say DCP has probably experienced the worst two weeks of his life- will he recover? probably not!

just sayin
k

Now that post made a lot of sense. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.



Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

Narrator:

It sounds like you know some of the details of what led up to this. Would you be willing to share what you know?

[_Shulem]

Narrator:

It sounds like you know some of the details of what led up to this. Would you be willing to share what you know?

Yeah, what does Narrator know? Since, according to him, I'm clueless and silly -- I will shutup and let him do the talking.

Now, explain the facts, Narrator. I won't say a word. Am all ears.



Paul O

[_Yoda]

Rollo, according to Dan's word here,

And let's not pretend that the delay in this issue of the Review, or the slowness with which recent issues have appeared, is the justification for this move. You've never raised the matter with me before. In fact, your own actions have significantly contributed to the delay of this most recent issue. (It's substantially complete, though, and the Institute owes my associate editors the proper fees for their services. It's no fault of theirs that you're spiking this issue.)

, the issue, as he states is "substantially complete".

It also is poor form that Brandford never mentioned delays as an issue before.

It sounds to me like Branford was simply going to pull this issue completely, make the announcement, and then proceed to have the new editor and associate editors put together a new review with the new direction in mind. If he had never bothered to tell Dan that delays were a problem, how would Dan have known? And to do all of this while Dan was out of the country was just rotten.

[_the narrator]

Narrator:

It sounds like you know some of the details of what led up to this. Would you be willing to share what you know?

Forgive me if I have come across as being privy to particular first-hand information. Rather, I am just piecing together a few years of second-hand whispers and conversations. It's what happens when you are in close and regular discussion with the many many players involved with attempting to expand the field.

[_lulu]

Am all ears.

Paul O

I love ears.