DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_cacheman
_Emeritus
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _cacheman »

the narrator wrote:Journal's generally have a pretty quick rotation of editors anyways.

Assuming that the posted emails are real, I don't believe this is a typical 'changing of the guards' scenario for a journal. Of course, this is not an area of study that I'm familiar with, so I may be mistaken. Is this type of editorial personnel change common in this field of study?
_the narrator
_Emeritus
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:07 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _the narrator »

Kishkumen wrote:A reasonable guess that at BYU someone higher up than Bradford would have been consulted concerning Daniel's sacking from the Review is not a conspiracy theory. It is a reasonable speculation. That doesn't mean it is right, but to call such a conspiracy theory cheapens the term conspiracy.


I'm not calling that a conspiracy. I'm calling the theories that Peterson's replacement was ordered from the top-down an unnecessary conspiracy.


With that said, I better bow out of this discussion to avoid being a liability to others professionally or academically.
You're absolutely vile and obnoxious paternalistic air of intellectual superiority towards anyone who takes issue with your clear misapprehension of core LDS doctrine must give one pause. - Droopy
_signal2noise
_Emeritus
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:42 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _signal2noise »

Sorry if this is a bit of a derail, but what is the difference between MSR and BYU Studies? Isn't there quite a bit of overlap? Does BYU really need two publications dealing with Mormonism and apologetics?
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Drifting »

Let's pause for a moment and ponder on what the Review is losing...

Other characteristics of the Review that were apparent even in the first issue included its editor's very laissez-faire attitude toward review lengths. I sought out people who I thought were qualified to have something interesting to say about the books they had been asked to review, and then I stood out of their way. I didn't tell them what approach to take nor whether to be positive or negative. I didn't even tell them how many words they had to make their points. It was probably a bit unnerving to some of them, but when they asked how long their reviews should be, I simply said that their reviews should be as long as they needed them to be in order to say what they wanted to say. Given such free rein, the Review has, over the years, published some quite lengthy essays. I'm happy about that.

And many of them have been my own. From the start, although my maiden effort came to only six pages,5 I (and occasionally others) have written substantial editor's introductions to each issue of the Review. I didn't ask permission to do so, and nobody came forward to stop me. It has been a bully pulpit for more than two decades now. (DCP's editorial introduction of the 2011 Review)
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_lulu
_Emeritus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _lulu »

the narrator wrote: In terms of broader academic Mormon studies, DCP is irrelevant.

I agree.


the narrator wrote:No. They really aren't about PR. The Mormon (formerly LDS) Newsroom doesn't ever point to the MI or Review. Instead they go to Bushman, Givens, Flake, and others who are much more credentialed and taken seriously in the broader academic world.

There's more to Mormon PR than what gets posted on Mormon newsroom. DCP has filled a niche.
the narrator wrote:Of course he's not completely autonomous. (Who is?) However, Bradford already had plenty of reasons to replace Petersen. There is no need to jump to conspiracies.


What Kish says above.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _harmony »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
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.

I resign as Director of Advancement, effective immediately. You've already fired me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.

I realize now, too, that you've been plotting this for some time, and that, naïve fool that I am, I didn't even realize that I was playing chess before I had been checkmated.

There is nothing you can do to prevent this from being an absolutely spectacular propaganda triumph for those who oppose the Institute and despise me, so don't bother trying. As a matter of fact -- since the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review. They know about it, and they're going to feast on this for years to come.

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works. You could have waited a bit so that that conclusion would be less apparent, but, of course, you haven't. Frankly, I'm not surprised.

With my sacking now, and with what I presume to be the simultaneous dismissal of Lou Midgley and George Mitton and my other associate editors, which follows the utter marginalization of the scholars who once made up the board of directors and the complete ostracism of Jack Welch and, most recently, the re-alienation of Bill Hamblin, the process of driving away those who committed so much of their energy to the creation and building of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute continues apace.

You think it healthy. I do not.

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.)

I regard this as an utterly wrong-headed and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it. And not merely because it will subject me to enormous and quite undeserved public humiliation. It's a betrayal of Elder Maxwell, who explicitly approved of what we were doing. "No more uncontested slam dunks," he said. But now we're returning to the status quo ante, under which there were and will continue to be plenty of "uncontested slam dunks." It's a brazen repudiation of the mandate given to us by President Packer, who, when he spoke at the dinner during which we were officially entrusted with Elder Maxwell's name, praised two specific aspects of the Institute's work: the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and its apologetic efforts. It's a betrayal of the promises we made to our leading donors, who explicitly asked us to do apologetics and, in some substantial recent cases, gave us major donations based on our assurance that we would continue to do so.

You place me in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as I'm supposed to be an advocate for a Maxwell Institute that, in my view, will soon no longer exist, and to maintain good relations with donors to the Institute to whom, in my opinion, we will now prove to have flatly lied. I cannot do that. I don't know what to do about the forthcoming Development Council Turkey trip that I conceived, since several of the people who are slated to participate in it are going, at least partially, because I persuaded them to do so.

I feel obliged to try to make it a good trip and to go, but it will, I think, be my last effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, and I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere. And, though I won't be so disloyal as to solicit funds from them for anything else during the trip to Turkey, I will feel entirely free to do so thereafter. And I'll be vocal about why I no longer regard the Maxwell Institute as an appropriate recipient of their money. I will explain my resignation, and my reasons for it, in a note to members of the Development Council after the conclusion of the Turkey trip but prior to the October PLC meeting. I do not feel that I can do otherwise and maintain my integrity. I've built up a good relationship with the members of the Smith Family Foundation; good luck in maintaining that.

I agreed to give a private tour to the Holy Land -- the trip that I'm currently on -- partially in the hope of interesting a PLC donor in giving to the Maxwell Institute. We're getting along well, but I'm not going to mention the Institute to him any more. Nursing and Athletics are perfectly adequate continuing recipients of his gifts. And I think I can safely predict that, even without my saying much, you will, with my dismissal, instantly lose one very specific annual donation.

Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.

I understand that some contract issues may be affected by my resignation as Director of Advancement. I trust that we can work those out in a civil manner. Pending my dismissal from METI, I will insist that I continue to be compensated as a director in my role, which I will now have more time for, as its editor in chief. I also expect my usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review that you've killed. It was finished and ready to go.

Very seriously yours,

Daniel C. Peterson
Tiberias, Israel


Some questions:

1. have Mitton and Midgley and the other editors been dismissed?

2. What is Packer's response?

3. What does PLC stand for?

4. Have there been any changes in the METI yet?

5. What does a Director of Advancement do? Why would there be contractual issues for Director of Advancement but not for Editor of Review?

6. What is the Smith Family Foundation and who is the contact who will now be pulled like a rubber band in other directions?

7. What is the Development Council and who are the members of that body?

8. What institution is he referring to when he says "an institutional rebuke of me and all my works"? MI? or the larger BYU?

9. What is BYU's role in all of this?

10. What happened, to realienate Bill Hamblin, prior to this email?What happened to alienate him prior to this current alienation? (incidently, there are 92 words in that one sentence paragraph)

11. What happened between "It's substantially complete" and " It was finished and ready to go"? There's a vast difference between "substantially complete" and "finished".

12. Maxwell is dead and Packer is almost dead. Doesn't he have anyone younger whose names he could drop as supporters?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Kishkumen »

harmony wrote:12. Maxwell is dead and Packer is almost dead. Doesn't he have anyone younger whose names he could drop as supporters?


You put your finger on the problem right there.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _harmony »

Kishkumen wrote:
harmony wrote:12. Maxwell is dead and Packer is almost dead. Doesn't he have anyone younger whose names he could drop as supporters?


You put your finger on the problem right there.


And it only took me 12 questions to get there!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Kevin Graham »

On Kerry's Facebook post Kevin Barney verified that this isn't a hoax, and one LDS respondent named Riley said "Dehlin's ego must be masturbatory."

It amazes me how quickly they are to forget that the Church reprimanded Dan Peterson, not John Dehlin. Why make excuses as to why that is so? Why not just accept it and follow your Church's decision? Is their love of Dan greater than their love for the Church? Are we going to hear now that the General Authority was just acting as a man?
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

Post by _Kishkumen »

Kevin Graham wrote:On Kerry's Facebook post Kevin Barney verified that this isn't a hoax, and one LDS respondent named Riley said "Dehlin's ego must be masturbatory."

It amazes me how quickly they are to forget that the Church reprimanded Dan Peterson, not John Dehlin. Why make excuses as to why that is so? Why not just accept it and follow your Church's decision? Is their love of Dan greater than their love for the Church? Are we going to hear now that the General Authority was just acting as a man?


You very well know the answer to those questions. Listen, this is a war. John Dehlin is the enemy, and if some GA can't get with the program, he is either worse than useless or an enemy too. I think we all know the drill.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Post Reply