What motivates a man like Gerald Bradford

[_Equality]

Makes ya wonder what took them so long. I mean... 20 years? really? Surely someone figured out that the tone wasn't quite... the ideal Mormon?

It takes a long time because there are differing views. This is a religious hierarchy that squabbles and competes in the midst of an avowed ideal of unity in the Quorum. And BYU politics are also involved. FARMS was only brought into BYU in the 90s. Doubtless reassurances were made at that time, deals struck. Over time, the currents shift and cut a new path for the river. One day, a river bed becomes a puddle that evaporates. It can indeed take time for institutional developments to occur.

Which again begs the question, why now? One possibility is that Bradford has been biding his time, looking for the right moment to effect a "changing of the guard" at NAMIRS. He may have wanted to move earlier, but Peterson and Co. had powerful backers up the chain who could (and likely would?) have intervened had Bradford tried to act earlier. The Dehlin hit piece, the photo essay comments, and other missteps by Peterson certainly helped shift the political winds, but I wonder if Romney winning the nomination, along with the COB's desire to wage a PR campaign that Mormons are nice and warm and fuzzy, didn't provide Bradford with the cover he needed. Perhaps he is simply taking advantage of the church's PR position during the Mormon Moment to make his move, believing that whoever in the hierarchy might otherwise have come to DCP's defense will remain on the sidelines in support of the church's larger overarching objective this year to appear benign and harmless to outsiders. So it may not be so much that the PR team is calling the shots at NAMIRS as much as it is that Bradford slyly took advantage of the moment.

[Guest]

It certainly must give one pause that secular humanism continues apace among the proponents of the Restored Gospel

A secular humanist, by definition, cannot be a "proponent of the restored gospel." I have no idea whether Bradford could possibly fall within that catagory or not, but that is the reality of the matter.

while leftist ivory tower types delude themselves into believing that their leftist agenda is compatible with the Gospel in any serious intellectual and philosophical sense.

"Leftism" in both its broadest and deepest senses, is incompatible with civil society in the Western/Judeo-Christian sense. It is incompatible, in other words, with the entire liberal democratic project and the Judeo-Christian moral, social, and ethical ground underlying it. It is incompatible with liberty, prosperity, individual unalienable rights, natural law, property rights, personal individual agency, and the moral boundaries that ultimately determine the structural integrity of human relationships and hence, the viability of an entire social order.

[Guest]

-

[_MCB]

The part of this that rings truest to me is Bradford's interest in Mormonism in its contemporary context. So much more needs to be done in this area. To date, mostly it has been Reorganites who were interested in this kind of thing. People like Dale Broadhurst.

Mormonism must turn self-critical in order to survive. An examination of its history and cultural heritage is part of this, no matter how painful it will be. The result will be to say that Joseph Smith apostatized, and Brigham Young's influence was partially to blame. Honoring such people as William Law and Edward Partridge will then become obligatory.

The American Protestant teachings of the Book of Mormon will be re-interpreted, and later entries from the D&C and Book of Abraham will be used as evidences of the apostasy.

Impatient Mormons might do well to join with the CoC, because the reformed CoJCoLDS will eventually be indistinguishable from it.

Of course, there will always be the absolute rebels, who will become Catholic. They are welcome.

[_Darth J]

7 My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment;
8 And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.
9 Thy friends do stand by thee, and they shall hail thee again with warm hearts and friendly hands.
10 Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job.
11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun;
12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;
13 Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost;
14 That they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off;
15 And not many years hence, that they and their posterity shall be swept from under heaven, saith God, that not one of them is left to stand by the wall.
16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.
17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.
(D&C 121)

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Discussion questions

* Have the class share instances from Church history in which church leaders set their hearts upon the vain things of this world, aspired to the honors of men, covered their sins, gratified their pride or vain ambition, or exercised control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men in any degree of unrighteousness.
* Have class members do the same with reference to current developments in the LDS apologetic community.
* What did the Lord say would happen when those who claim to speak for Him set their hearts upon the vain things of this world, aspire to the honors of men, cover their sins, gratify their pride or vain ambition, or exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men in any degree of unrighteousness? (See verse 38.)

Bear your testimony of the truthfulness of these precepts, and then call upon a class member to give a closing prayer.

[_ludwigm]

"Leftism" in both its broadest and deepest senses, is incompatible with civil society in the Western/Judeo-Christian sense. It is incompatible, in other words, with the entire liberal democratic project and the Judeo-Christian moral, social, and ethical ground underlying it. It is incompatible with liberty, prosperity, individual unalienable rights, natural law, property rights, personal individual agency, and the moral boundaries that ultimately determine the structural integrity of human relationships and hence, the viability of an entire social order.

And leftists have stinking feet.

[Guest]

-

[_RayAgostini]

One thing I like about you is that your intent is so clear. No BS.

[_Equality]

Thanks for this Equality, I think at this point we are all left to speculate and I'm open to the very likely possibility that the way viewing this is completely wrong. I believe that there were two, but the second one Daniel Peterson and co didn't recognize as an area authority so they left his name in the header when they released the email whereas they excluded the name of the Elder xxx who John sent the message to. The area authority seventy was Hans Mattsson from the Europe Central Area. He's friends with John Dehlin on Facebook and some of his likes include the Book of Mormon Musical, the Power of Myth with Joseph Campell and Barack Obama so that gives you a good idea of his interests. He also spoke at the Swedish Mormon Stories Conference. I suspect the main email was sent to Elder Jensen but I could be wrong about that and as far as I know no one has said who it was so it's just an informed guess.

I get the feeling that there have been difficulties between Jerry and Dan that have been building since he got the position. He was appointed in 2008 and if you look at the number of issues since that appointment there seems to be a very sharp decline. I think DCP said he was unaware of any GA involvement in the Dehlin issue not being published simply that Bradford had told him said it needed work and so it wasn't published. Even with the email I actually believe him on that one. It is obvious that DCP viewed the review (including the Dehlin hit piece) as being postponed rather than cancelled and if one of the Brethren had said not to publish it, then I'm quite sure he would view the piece as dead. A lesser GA with no direct oversight over the Maxwell Institute? It is difficult to say how DCP would view that and especially so if they didn't directly consult him.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Thanks for the clarification. Mattsson was the guy I was thinking of. I had forgotten there was a "mystery GA" included on the email.

[_Darth J]

It certainly must give one pause that secular humanism continues apace among the proponents of the Restored Gospel

A secular humanist, by definition, cannot be a "proponent of the restored gospel." I have no idea whether Bradford could possibly fall within that catagory or not, but that is the reality of the matter.

But given that his apparent wish is to abandon an apologetic bent in favor of "scholarly" study of the Restored Gospel, we know that where there is smoke there is fire, even as the children of Israel were led by a column of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, which secular humanists reject as they drink the Kool-Aid of Freud and Kinsey and want to impose a welfare state where the poor are given pornography and heroin paid by ever-increasing taxes, whilst the free marketplace of ideas is left to rot because leftists use the Socratic method in court to impose their agenda contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers who showed their devotion to righteousness by appearing as ghosts in the temple and having their posthumous temple work done for them vicariously, which probably will be dismissed as folklore by the secular humanist bent of Mormon Studies which rejects faithful scholarship qua scholarship as the Maxwell Institute lets go of the iron rod to appease the taunts and jeers of the critics and apostates, every one of whom is either a homosexual or approves of the homosexual agenda.

while leftist ivory tower types delude themselves into believing that their leftist agenda is compatible with the Gospel in any serious intellectual and philosophical sense.

"Leftism" in both its broadest and deepest senses, is incompatible with civil society in the Western/Judeo-Christian sense. It is incompatible, in other words, with the entire liberal democratic project and the Judeo-Christian moral, social, and ethical ground underlying it. It is incompatible with liberty, prosperity, individual unalienable rights, natural law, property rights, personal individual agency, and the moral boundaries that ultimately determine the structural integrity of human relationships and hence, the viability of an entire social order.

Indeed, the inhabitants of Renaissance Italy, Byzantium under Justinian, the Holy Roman Empire, feudal Europe, England under Oliver Cromwell, all would have had the same concept of the prosperity gospel and Tea Party tropes as the religious right does today, given that the foregoing examples were all based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, which leftists try to subvert with their politically correct reinterpretation of history that is at odds with classical liberalism because it conflicts with their bowing down at the altar of Freud and Keynes and Kinsey, who together with the hippies in the 1960's are responsible for the vast worldwide conspiracy against the eternal truths revealed through the Church, while critics continue apace and it certainly must give one pause that apostates qua apostates brew in the filthy bile of their own beds which they have made and now have to lie in because they can't have their cake and eat it too.