Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of the MI

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of the MI

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Bill Hamblin, in his blog, has graced us all with a very interesting entry about the inner workings of FARMS/MI. He describes how and why it was acquired/absorbed by BYU--he actually describes it as akin to a "hostile takeover"--and how and why Dr. Bradford achieved ascendancy therein, among many other things.

It almost amounts to a "man-behind-the-curtain" moment. If you're at all interested in the DCP ousting dust-up, I highly recommend reading it:

What the Maxwell Institute controversy is really about
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Kevin Graham »

The Maxwell Institute (MI) controversy is not–or at least shouldn’t be–a personal feud. It is, rather, a clash about the fundamental vision for the future of the MI. Those who try to turn it into a feud of “good people” verse “bad people”–as the apostates and anti-Mormons are gleefully doing–are doing a disservice to the important issues at stake here.


Bill Hamblin you are pathetic.

All this talk about cowardice and suppression of views is quite amusing coming from a lynch mob that hides out on a forum that "instabans" anyone who dares share a different perspective. By merely pointing out that all you're hearing so far is one side, this results in banning. Numerous people have been banned for daring to agree with Bradford and the Church, even LDS folks like Mike Reed. You should just go ahead and rename that forum, the Dan Peterson Support Group because that's all it has become.

As far as your dishonest claim above, the only people making one side "bad" in this debacle is the cult following of Dan Peterson which consists of nothing more than loyalist apologists. There are no apostates "gleefully" turning this into a "personal fued" nor are they arbitrarily deciding who is "good" or "bad."

The most anyone here has said that could possibly be interpreted that way is a few references to the karma that came Dan's way, given his past history of trying to suppress information from the critics as well as his efforts to damage the name of scholars like Michael Quinn and Robert Ritner. Given his despicable history of low-blows, he is in no position to expect a lot of sympathy from anyone here. I've pointed out that his email proved he once lied to us all when he insisted he didn't get paid to do apologetics. But that's it. No one here is trying to "silence" Daniel Peterson. In fact, I don't know what some critics would do without him.

By contrast, the dead heads sucking up to you and your buddy Dan over at MAD are calling for Bradford's head without reservation. The only cool head over there seems to be Bob Crockett. Just take these few examples of the kind of hateful vitriol that has resulted from the mob you're leading:

why me - "Mr. Bradford needs to be replaced because his conduct in this matter is not the conduct that a temple recommend holder should be engaged in. What is sad about all this is that he betrayed the trust of someone showing a lack of empathy and emotional understanding as one who went about hurting someone by his conduct. This is not okay for a temple recommend holder to do nor someone who should be in charge of a church sponsored orgainization."

selek1 - "My prayers and wishes also to the Maxwell Insitute as Gerald Bradford takes a razor to its throat."

"With a lawyer even half-awake, Dan could destroy both Bradford and the Institute"

The target of our ire is Bradford"

"Firing someone by email is tasteless and cowardly. Looking the other way while criminal acts are commited (even if you disagree with the target) is unconscionable."

Log - I cannot help but think this is extraordinarily bad news. Apostasy in high places, even.

Scott Lloyd - Alma 62:44

Alter idem - Bradford's actions were spinless!

William Schryver - those who are attempting to silence LDS apologetics will be thwarted in their undertaking, and finally recognized for who and what they really are.


And all of these judgments have been passed after hearing only one side of the story.

So Bill, you're the ring-leader of this mob, fueling their hatred and now you want to pretend you have nothing to do with it. As if all this emotion comes from the "apostates" who are passing judgment? When we say we support Bradford, we are saying we support his vision for the Institute. Not because we want Dan Peterson "silenced," but because it is nice to know we have been vindicated. For years we've been telling you and Dan that FARMS engaged in pseudo-scholarship and relies too much on ad hominem. Dan's removal proves it, as does your idiotic ranting. But please, keep it up. I'm sure you're soon to realize just how tiny your support group really is when compared to the Church as a whole. Dan has been needing a serving of humble pie for years, and his pedantic response gave people more reason to view him in a negative light. He acted like a spoiled child who didn't like having one of his favorite toys taken away from him.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Kevin Graham »

So, why am I so vehemently opposed to Bradford’s dismissal of Dan and proposed change of direction for the Mormon Studies Review? Here we come to the crux of the problem. If the University does not want to sponsor apologetics, why in the world did it force FARMS to become part of the University?


Uh, because you were all proving to be an embarrassment for the Church and they had hoped that by taking it over, that they could change that aggressive direction in a gradual way?

I know you, Dan and some of the dead-heads at MAD like to invoke Maxwell's so-called statement (according to Dan) that there be "no more uncontested slam dunks." You seem to think this statement justifies all the attack pieces you've been engaged in. Well, it doesn't.

By "slam dunk" Maxwell was obviously referring to arguments, not people. What you have done is attack people and ignored their arguments. This is what FARMS has done for YEARS. They did it with JP Holding, they did it with Grant Palmer, they did it with Ed Ashment, etc. The phrase makes no sense anyway, since it concedes the fact that there are arguments by critics that are legitimately defined as "slam dunks." That means they scored already and there is no way you can change that.

Dan is disrespecting the memory of Maxwell by trying to tie him into his paranoia-based agenda, where everyone is a potential wolf in sheep's clothing and he gets to attack anyone who doesn't tow the party line. We all know what this is about. It has nothing to do with following Maxwell's advice. It has everything to do with a misguided fringe that has become so extreme and out of control that it is now led by cult master William Schryver, an uneducated hippie from the canyons who is so whacko that he has decided to emulate Porter Rockwell in every way.

Did it ever occur to you that the Church felt that YOU people are more of a threat? The way you dogmatically insist your apologetic ideas are the only way to go and hand more and more people put their trust in you instead of the LDS leadership..
_lostindc
_Emeritus
Posts: 2380
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _lostindc »

Kevin,

Great posts. I agree wholeheartedly. Dr. Hamblin and the rest of the Ousted Maxwell Institute Danites continue to play the victim card while mounting a group of basement dwelling message board posters to lead an assault on Bradford. Hamblin et al. are absolutely livid because they have lost their forum for publication. Now that this good ole boys publication has dried where is Hamblin going to turn for publication? How is he going to continue to build his name as some sort of pillar in the LDS apologetic community?

Truth is, Hamblin et al. got into the business of apologetics for the reasons of building a name as 'warrior defender of the faith.' Often times, involvement in LDS apologetics serves a selfish purpose, hence why we are seeing the OMIDs so upset. It will be rather strenuous to continue their subculture fame without the publication.
2019 = #100,000missionariesstrong
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Shulem »

Bill-boy Hamblin,

The General Authorities sacked Dan. The firing was all approved.

My weegie board says YOU'RE NEXT! Get ready to clean out your office. I can feel wrath stirring against you. You're toast.

Paul O
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Shulem »

Hamblin says:

    1. Those who try to turn it into a feud of "good people" verse "bad people"–as the apostates and anti-Mormons are gleefully doing–are doing a disservice to the important issues at stake here.
    2. Let me be very clear. Gerald Bradford is not a bad person.

But then, Hamblin personally attacks Bradford and his bosses!

    1. I find Bradford to be a less than competent administrator
    2. . . . . disastrous negligence
    3. . . . . absolutely shameful
    4. . . . . fundamental abdication of his responsibility as Director of the MI
    5. And I sincerely believe he is dead wrong
    6. Bradford is fundamentally betraying the tacit agreement the University originally made when it absorbed FARMS
    7. he should not have accepted the position as director of the Institute
    8. This, I believe, is fundamentally immoral
    9. It is fundamentally wrong

Such anger! Such rancor!

:surprised:

Paul O
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _gramps »

I get a warm burning in my bosom watching sabbath sacrament partakers carry on this way!

Keep it up, MADness-ites. ;)
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Stormy Waters

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Stormy Waters »

John Dehlin commented on Facebook about this post:

"Such a fascinating article. My response to Bill Hamblin (and Daniel Peterson): "What if it’s as simple as this: you guys have failed at doing apologetics in a way that LDS church leadership is comfortable with. Clearly Gerald Bradford didn’t act alone. Clearly general authorities were involved. It’s clear to me that LDS church leadership is uncomfortable with your (and Dr. Peterson’s) brand of apologetics. To blame Bradford for this seems like scapegoating. Unfortunately you can’t criticize LDS church leadership and remain an apologist (ouch!)….but it’s not fair to lay the blame on Bradford either. Not fair at all. Try looking in the mirror."
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Fence Sitter »

If the exiled apologist start up their own organization they might want to consider calling their new review the "NAMI Expositor".
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Uther
_Emeritus
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 9:57 am

Re: Dr. Hamblin gives deeper insight into the workings of th

Post by _Uther »

Stormy Waters wrote:John Dehlin commented on Facebook about this post:

"Such a fascinating article. My response to Bill Hamblin (and Daniel Peterson): "What if it’s as simple as this: you guys have failed at doing apologetics in a way that LDS church leadership is comfortable with. Clearly Gerald Bradford didn’t act alone. Clearly general authorities were involved. It’s clear to me that LDS church leadership is uncomfortable with your (and Dr. Peterson’s) brand of apologetics. To blame Bradford for this seems like scapegoating. Unfortunately you can’t criticize LDS church leadership and remain an apologist (ouch!)….but it’s not fair to lay the blame on Bradford either. Not fair at all. Try looking in the mirror."


Spot on.
But spot on can't penetrate a hardened heart.
About Joseph Smith.. How do you think his persona was influenced by being the storyteller since childhood? Mastering the art of going pale, changing his voice, and mesmerizing his audience.. How do you think he was influenced by keeping secrets and lying for his wife and the church members for decades?
Post Reply