What motivates a man like Gerald Bradford

[_Yoda]

Do you think that if Bradford had come to Dan, and said that he wanted to see the review go in a different direction, and he was interested in having Dan lead that new direction, that Dan would have been on board?

Shouldn't Dan at least have been given that opportunity? Maybe he was?

[_Kishkumen]

Do you think that if Bradford had come to Dan, and said that he wanted to see the review go in a different direction, and he was interested in having Dan lead that new direction, that Dan would have been on board?

Shouldn't Dan at least have been given that opportunity? Maybe he was?

Bradford had given Peterson a prospectus outlining the future direction of the MSR.

[_Yoda]

Do you think that if Bradford had come to Dan, and said that he wanted to see the review go in a different direction, and he was interested in having Dan lead that new direction, that Dan would have been on board?

Shouldn't Dan at least have been given that opportunity? Maybe he was?

Bradford had given Peterson a prospectus outlining the future direction of the MSR.

And what was Dan's reaction?

[_Tobin]

As I've reviewed the e-mail and posts on the forum, I see a number of people taking some delight in seeing DCP dismissed as editor of the Review. I personally don't have an axe to grind here. I like some of the things that DCP has written and dislike a number of things as well. However, I view his dismissal as a competence issue primarily. The job of an editor is to make sure a publication is ready to print. I see that as the primary complaint against DCP here and I feel that removing him from his position as editor is justified because he wasn't getting the job done. His response in the email was childish as a result since he has to admit that the Review wasn't getting out in a timely manner and he bore a large amount of the blame for this.

[_Chap]

Do you think that if Bradford had come to Dan, and said that he wanted to see the review go in a different direction, and he was interested in having Dan lead that new direction, that Dan would have been on board?

Shouldn't Dan at least have been given that opportunity? Maybe he was?

Bradford had given Peterson a prospectus outlining the future direction of the MSR.

And what was Dan's reaction?

For the moment, that is for DCP to know and the rest of us to guess, unless he choses to tell us. But since it seems evident that such a prospectus would have outlined a program for the Review pretty different from that so far followed by DCP, is the guess a very difficult one to make?

Of course, we shall no doubt learn more as time passes.

[_Kishkumen]

As I've reviewed the e-mail and posts on the forum, I see a number of people taking some delight in seeing DCP dismissed as editor of the Review. I personally don't have an axe to grind here. I like some of the things that DCP has written and dislike a number of things as well. However, I view his dismissal as a competence issue primarily. The job of an editor is to make sure a publication is ready to print. I see that as the primary complaint against DCP here and I feel that removing him from his position as editor is justified because he wasn't getting the job done. His response in the email was childish as a result since he has to admit that the Review wasn't getting out in a timely manner and he bore a large amount of the blame for this.

Hey, Tobin-

I am not going to play armchair quarterback for Dr. Bradford, but you do understand that Dr. Peterson had two important pieces prepared for the Review, in two successive years, that were scuttled by Bradford at short notice, right? So, it is vexing from Dr. Peterson's point of view to be called on the carpet by Dr. Bradford for delays in the Review that Dr. Bradford himself caused (again, this being Peterson's point of view). No, Dr. Peterson long did a competent job at the task he believed he was given by apostles and donors. This is abundantly clear from his email. The disagreement is, in my view, actually about the direction of the journal, not the delay. But, hey, that is just my opinion. As I am well aware, two highly intelligent people can look at exactly the same piece of writing, or the same situation, and see two very different things. I don't know what your experience is with divorce, but I lived through my parents' long, acrimonious divorce process. Each had a story that bore little resemblance to the narrative of the other, and yet both were absolutely convinced that his/her version of the story represented what "really" happened.

I don't delight in these developments where they affect Dr. Peterson personally. I think it is good for BYU to improve the academic quality of publications that are generated on BYU campus, but the part of me that enjoyed the high spirits of much of the Review, as well as its idiosyncratic focus as a journal, is pretty bummed. I am hopeful that Peterson, Hamblin, Midgley, Mitton, Smith, and all the gang put together a new foundation using the dollars that Peterson claims he can get from these wealthy LDS donors. Let them publish what they want in that venue, and I hope we all enjoy reading it.

As I have repeatedly said in these final weeks of the Review we have known, but that has now gone the way of all the earth, I decided that the real travesty of the Review as it was being conducted was mostly one of context. A university that trains young people to go out into a competitive job market in the outside, largely non-LDS world should not have to deal with an academic reputation that is bogged down by the baggage of internal sectarian sniping. And the Church connection was problematic as well. When a Church has a lay clergy with the power to excommunicate, publishing slams on them with the implicit blessing of the apostles just looks underhanded and instills an atmosphere of mistrust that is incompatible with the mission of bringing souls unto Christ.

That was my opinion. Hey, I may have been completely wrong; certainly I am fielding emails from BYU faculty that tell me I am a disappointment to my field for daring to conclude such nonsense. But I guess that is all academic (excuse the pun) now, eh?

And as far as I can see, Dr. Peterson is one of the few people exhibiting any class in the aftermath of all of this. Sure, he fired off an irate email to his boss. People do. It is unfortunate that he circulated it so widely, but he did and that is over. Since that time he has exhibited a pretty philosophical view and seems to be enjoying his travels immensely. I'd have to say that I am very impressed with his reaction since the email. It does more to make me reflect on the wisdom or lack thereof of my many online fights with Dr. Peterson than the petulant emails I am getting from BYU or Ray's bizarre witch hunt to prove that I am Doctor Scratch. All I can say about the latter is that I am relieved that Ray lives on another continent, or he might tie me up and throw me in the river to see whether I float or sink.

[_Tobin]

As I've reviewed the e-mail and posts on the forum, I see a number of people taking some delight in seeing DCP dismissed as editor of the Review. I personally don't have an axe to grind here. I like some of the things that DCP has written and dislike a number of things as well. However, I view his dismissal as a competence issue primarily. The job of an editor is to make sure a publication is ready to print. I see that as the primary complaint against DCP here and I feel that removing him from his position as editor is justified because he wasn't getting the job done. His response in the email was childish as a result since he has to admit that the Review wasn't getting out in a timely manner and he bore a large amount of the blame for this.

I am not going to play armchair quarterback for Dr. Bradford, but you do understand that Dr. Peterson had two important pieces prepared for the Review, in two successive years, that were scuttled by Bradford at short notice, right? So, it is vexing from Dr. Peterson's point of view to be called on the carpet by Dr. Bradford for delays in the Review that Dr. Bradford himself caused (again, this being Peterson's point of view). No, Dr. Peterson long did a competent job at the task he believed he was given by apostles and donors. This is abundantly clear from his email. The disagreement is, in my view, actually about the direction of the journal, not the delay. But, hey, that is just my opinion. As I am well aware, two highly intelligent people can look at exactly the same piece of writing, or the same situation, and see two very different things. I don't know what your experience is with divorce, but I lived through my parents' long, acrimonious divorce process. Each had a story that bore little resemblance to the narrative of the other, and yet both were absolutely convinced that his/her version of the story represented what "really" happened.

I understand that there were other "issues" involved. However, that does not excuse Dr. Peterson. Even though I work in a completely unrelated field, I have often had disagreements with my boss about some of my work and have had to make last minute changes. So I disagree about Dr. Peterson's effort here. Nothing prevented him with sitting down with Dr. Bradford, understanding his position, and reworking the pieces and getting the publication out. I still view this as a competence issue because that is how most people would proceed. If he were unable to proceed, then he should have been able to produce a long email trail of discussions with Dr. Bradford about precisely why he was not able to do his job and get the Review out. That would have been the professional way to respond.

As I have repeatedly said in these final weeks of the Review we have known, but that has now gone the way of all the earth, I decided that the real travesty of the Review as it was being conducted was mostly one of context. A university that trains young people to go out into a competitive job market in the outside, largely non-LDS world should not have to deal with an academic reputation that is bogged down by the baggage of internal sectarian sniping. And the Church connection was problematic as well. When a Church has a lay clergy with the power to excommunicate, publishing slams on them with the implicit blessing of the apostles just looks underhanded and instills an atmosphere of mistrust that is incompatible with the mission of bringing souls unto Christ.

That was my opinion. Hey, I may have been completely wrong; certainly I am fielding emails from BYU faculty that tell me I am a disappointment to my field for daring to conclude such nonsense. But I guess that is all academic (excuse the pun) now, eh?

I don't disagree. I have never viewed BYU as being a place with academic freedom and the appropriate place to do things like this. In fact many people have had a problem with BYU and expressing their ideas. Eugene England, for example, had a terrible time with BYU and the Church and finally retired and worked with Utah Valley University instead on courses in Mormon Studies before his death.

[_Chap]

...

And as far as I can see, Dr. Peterson is one of the few people exhibiting any class in the aftermath of all of this. Sure, he fired off an irate email to his boss. People do. It is unfortunate that he circulated it so widely, but he did and that is over. Since that time he has exhibited a pretty philosophical view and seems to be enjoying his travels immensely. I'd have to say that I am very impressed with his reaction since the email. It does more to make me reflect on the wisdom or lack thereof of my many online fights with Dr. Peterson than the petulant emails I am getting from BYU ...

I am a bit puzzled as to the ways in which DCP has exhibited 'class' or 'a pretty philosophical view', apart from the fact that he has apparently decided to wait till he is back in Provo before commencing a counter-attack. That just seems a wise tactical decision, without any obvious moral component that we need to talk about.

The Reverend's willingness to praise DCP whenever possible, to characterize his less well-judged actions as "all over"and to beat his own chest while muttering "mea culpa" may, I suspect, stem from advice from his confessor. Perhaps there is a cilice somewhere in the picture too? Each of us must seek salvation as we can. I follow a different path ...

[_Kishkumen]

I understand that there were other "issues" involved. However, that does not excuse Dr. Peterson. Even though I work in a completely unrelated field, I have often had disagreements with my boss about some of my work and have had to make last minute changes. So I disagree about Dr. Peterson's effort here. Nothing prevented him with sitting down with Dr. Bradford, understanding his position, and reworking the pieces and getting the publication out. I still view this as a competence issue because that is how most people would proceed. If he were unable to proceed, then he should have been able to produce a long email trail of discussions with Dr. Bradford about precisely why he was not able to do his job and get the Review out. That would have been the professional way to respond.

Well, I am just trying to get across something of how I imagine Dr. Peterson must view things based on his email. You can disagree with him, sure. I am not interested in arguing for or against these various interpretations of what he did. All I can say is that I have a measure of sympathy and understanding, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with what he does. If I were of one mind with Dr. Peterson, we probably would not have had so many clashes over the years. Of course, I am not alone in that, but there you have it.

I don't disagree. I have never viewed BYU as being a place with academic freedom and the appropriate place to do things like this. In fact many people have had a problem with BYU and expressing their ideas. Eugene England, for example, had a terrible time with BYU and the Church and finally retired and worked with Utah Valley University instead on courses in Mormon Studies before his death.

I was present for Dr. England's upset over the Rodin exhibit. I went to a meeting in which he and other faculty complained to representatives of the university and the art museum. It was a discouraging scene in my view. In any case, BYU is what it is, and I can tell you, having taught there as a graduate student, that in some ways it is a nice place, particularly in the dearth of student disciplinary issues, but that "niceness" comes with a fairly steep price tag, depending on your point of view. I would say that if you are a faithful, intelligent LDS person who desires above all to cultivate the next generation of faithful LDS members, then you just may be very happy working there. A lot depends, of course, on individual circumstances. There is a freedom to bring your personal spirituality in the classroom that does not exist in other environments. Those who thirst for such an opportunity may thrive in their BYU experience. I don't denigrate their lofty aspirations or their freedom to pursue them at BYU.

But I am also a BYU alumnus. I hold two BYU degrees, a bachelors and a masters. As a student I did not like the internal politics in departments, particularly in the Humanities (speaking in terms of disciplinary areas, not departments), that seemed to revolve around issues of religious orthodoxy, political orientation, and personal worthiness. While I treasure my BYU experience, I believe it would have been a markedly better experience without the political infighting on spiritual grounds. But maybe that is just the way it is. You have these Droopyesque mentalities who are all about extirpating the evils of secularism and socialism at BYU. On the other hand you have some folk who believe they are really enlightened because they are not "yokels" who believe in fairy stories--another unkind and unproductive point of view. This is an ongoing battle that leads back all the way to the early 20th century. I may be oversimplifying and exaggerating in certain ways. But I firmly believe that attacks on John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks are just the latest iteration.

I respect the heartfelt belief that some have about John Dehlin being a corrosive influence. I actually totally understand that, whether I agree with them in all the particulars or not. And yet I think it is pretty silly to deny that there are problems John Dehlin has addressed in ways that the LDS Church failed to. I am not saying these are failures of content, but a failure to be responsive to members who are experiencing genuine spiritual crises. The moment the problems that constitute a personal expression of the crisis are brought up, apologists tend to lay the blame on the sufferers. "Hey, there was an article on that in the Ensign once!" or "I never experienced that in my awesome ward!" Anyone who is the least bit familiar with customer relations knows that this is a completely boneheaded way to cultivate customer loyalty. It is a marvelous way to alienate people and lead them to post bad reviews of your business on the internet. And while I generally hate market and corporate metaphors as applied to religion, I think this translates fairly well in thinking about this real problem.

So, in some respects I think that FARMS was not working well for the LDS Church. They did their best to do what was asked of them traditionally, but times and approaches have changed. The LDS Church wants a strong BYU voice in Mormon Studies. However that transition was handled, or however we feel about it, that is what is going on, in my view. The experiment of bringing FARMS onto BYU campus failed in some ways, but was successful in others. Other non-BYU organizations like FAIR and perhaps a new organization headed by Dr. Peterson will carry the torch of going toe to toe with the meaner anti-Mormons and of crying "witch" against internal secularists and lefties. And so it continues.

[_Kishkumen]

I am a bit puzzled as to the ways in which DCP has exhibited 'class' or 'a pretty philosophical view', apart from the fact that he has apparently decided to wait till he is back in Provo before commencing a counter-attack. That just seems a wise tactical decision, without any obvious moral component that we need to talk about.

The Reverend's willingness to praise DCP whenever possible, to characterize his less well-judged actions as "all over"and to beat his own chest while muttering "mea culpa" may, I suspect, stem from advice from his confessor. Perhaps there is a cilice somewhere in the picture too? Each of us must seek salvation as we can. I follow a different path ...

Well, Ray will tell you that you are reading me all wrong. In his view, you should see this as me beating my chest in triumph cruelly at the expense of Dr. Peterson because I am the single biggest and most nefarious liar to ever curse the internet with my presence. In any case, we can all take issue with my lack of wisdom and understanding, as well as my twisted motivations and evil intentions.

Wait... maybe I am really... Daniel Peterson!!!