DCP Responds to Getting "Fired" from the Review

[_Stormy Waters]

DCP confirms he wrote the emails.

[_Cylon]

For the banned:

For the record, I did write the response that has been leaked. At least, I assume that what has been leaked accurately represents what I wrote from Jerusalem. I haven't really checked to see.

Another thing I meant to mention: My Malevolent Stalker, who apparently broke this story, has usually been spectacularly wrong in his "intel." Some of it has been outright laughable. I think he has varying sources. One of them, I happen to know (though I don't know who s/he is), has been planting false but delicious stories with the Stalker, of the kind that the Stalker is known to love. He wolfs them down ravenously. This story, though, is more or less accurate -- though the spin that's being put upon it ranges from in the ballpark to completely absurd.

Log, on 21 June 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:
Is this something the BYU Board of Directors might get involved in?

Maybe. I don't know. I don't like being a rabble-rouser and I don't like pestering the Brethren. They have plenty on their plate. It may rise to that level, I suppose, but I'm not lodging an appeal with them.

Brother Pete, on 21 June 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:
I have read your leaked letter, and you are a very different man in that letter than the man you portray yourself to be in this post.

I'm the same man in both. Perhaps you don't know me as well as you imagine.

I'm betting, since you lack the context to properly understand what I wrote, that you're misunderstanding the letter. You're not alone in that; others have, as well. It was written to someone who knew the context precisely; it wasn't intended for message boards.
.

[_harmony]

For the record, I did write the response that has been leaked. At least, I assume that what has been leaked accurately represents what I wrote from Jerusalem. I haven't really checked to see.

Right.

Another thing I meant to mention: My Malevolent Stalker, who apparently broke this story, has usually been spectacularly wrong in his "intel." Some of it has been outright laughable. I think he has varying sources. One of them, I happen to know (though I don't know who s/he is), has been planting false but delicious stories with the Stalker, of the kind that the Stalker is known to love. He wolfs them down ravenously. This story, though, is more or less accurate -- though the spin that's being put upon it ranges from in the ballpark to completely absurd.

Right again. All the rest of them were wrong, except this one, which is more or less right. Like all the rest of them matter, after this one?

Log, on 21 June 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:
Is this something the BYU Board of Directors might get involved in?

Maybe. I don't know. I don't like being a rabble-rouser and I don't like pestering the Brethren. They have plenty on their plate. It may rise to that level, I suppose, but I'm not lodging an appeal with them.

If he doesn't appeal, who will?

Brother Pete, on 21 June 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:
I have read your leaked letter, and you are a very different man in that letter than the man you portray yourself to be in this post.

I'm the same man in both. Perhaps you don't know me as well as you imagine.

Ahhh... the facade continues. The letter does a pretty good job of portraying the real one.

I'm betting, since you lack the context to properly understand what I wrote, that you're misunderstanding the letter. You're not alone in that; others have, as well. It was written to someone who knew the context precisely; it wasn't intended for message boards.
.

[/quote]

Here we go again: you don't understand! How many times have we heard that?

[_Shulem]

I don't like being a rabble-rouser and I don't like pestering the Brethren. They have plenty on their plate. It may rise to that level, I suppose, but I'm not lodging an appeal with them.

Sweet confessions. Daniel may not like being a rabble-rouser but here he admits that he is one. And further, he doesn't like pestering the Brethren, but he does it nonetheless!

I appreciate such honestly on Daniel's part. He scored some points with me.



Paul O

[_ludwigm]

It's nearly 1am here in Oz

Where is Oz? (As You know, I am a miserable non-native-english-speaker...)

[_cafe crema]

It's nearly 1am here in Oz

Where is Oz? (As You know, I am a miserable non-native-english-speaker...)

I think it's slang for Australia.

[_Cylon]

Here's one particularly eloquent voice of reason from the other board:

My thoughts:

I think the way some of this has been handled was unfortunate. I do sincerely wish Dan Peterson the best in his life, and in his pursuits.

However, I see Bradford's desires and intents for the MI, as I've seen them expressed, to be a good ones. The inherent problem with much of the MI/FARMS apologetics is that generally a particular view, or interpretation, or ideology is what is being defended, not simply THE CHURCH, or even its core doctrines and principles. This does lead to alienation of those who do have a desire to see the Church defended, but not differing interprative wings thereof.

I think the absolute best thing being done and the example to set is the work being done by the Church Historian's Press - amazing, groundbreaking documentary editing and textual/contextual notes without being defensive, or trying to justify anything. This is how things are, let the cards be laid out.

The same problem with FARM/MI apologetics was very much the same as was presented in CES course materials - one very specific way of understanding Mormonism and its scriptures was being promulgated and defended, while other very valid and allowable-by-the-current-revelations-and-leadership views we, by omission, marginalized.

I've been a subscriber to MI publications, and have let my subscription to most of them lapse, mainly because of frustration with declarations as fact elements that are not necessary aspects of Mormonism guiding and permeating several of the papers, and their conclusions. (The second issue of Studies of the Bible and Antiquity greatly turned me off of this publication for these very reasons, which I was otherwise quite excited to see begin.)

I think by the way the Church has been handling its newest curriculum (such as the latest Gospel Principles revision), we are seeing an attempt to weed out former speculative assumptions and expositions that had become dogmatic. There's a lot of weeds.

What's fascinating is that the latest Gospel Principles did not narrow the breadth of official interpretive possibilities, but rather quite fascinatingly and subtly widened it.

I feel a continued emphases for the MI on pumping out documents, history, and critiquing history on a scholastic (not dogmatic) level will do far more for the Church in the long run. This way, they will presenting what we know, not just theories and defenses that will need to be disavowed or stepped away from when further information comes to light.

The openness of the Church will be far more faith promoting and confidence-building than constant attempts at damage control of things that, it turns out, don't often really need to, or should be, defended.

The Joseph Smith Papers and the current Church History Department is doing it right. It would be great to see the MI publications continue in the future to follow in this example.

Spot on, David T.

[_Fence Sitter]

Here's one particularly eloquent voice of reason from the other board:

I feel a continued emphases for the MI on pumping out documents, history, and critiquing history on a scholastic (not dogmatic) level will do far more for the Church in the long run. This way, they will presenting what we know, not just theories and defenses that will need to be disavowed or stepped away from when further information comes to light.

The openness of the Church will be far more faith promoting and confidence-building than constant attempts at damage control of things that, it turns out, don't often really need to, or should be, defended.

Spot on, David T.

A noble sentiment that would put many LDS apologist out of work. It seems to be exactly what Bradford wants and for which he is being excoriated at MAD. I wonder how many of those expressing outrage at how DCP has been treated are really angry at what happened not because they care for Dan so much but because they see this action as an authority within the Church repudiating their own boorish behavior?

[_Kishkumen]

For the record, I did write the response that has been leaked. At least, I assume that what has been leaked accurately represents what I wrote from Jerusalem. I haven't really checked to see.

Right.

Yeah, these guys do their usual damage control spin job. It is predictable really. Just like Hamblin's attempt to make the stunning confirmation of the value of Scratch's source some kind of further vindication of their contention that we are all credulous conspiracy theorists. Only those who need to buy into such transparent fictions will. I don't blame them for lying. It's oddly charming.

[_ludwigm]

It's nearly 1am here in Oz

Where is Oz? (As You know, I am a miserable non-native-english-speaker...)

I think it's slang for Australia.

Thanks!!