Is he really a nobody?

[_kairos]

In the good old days the story goes that the hinckster had d.michael quinn in to talk about the paper he was going to publish on post manifesto polygamy- hink told him it would be better not to publish, but told him to make his own decision. michael sent it off to the presses.
and now you know the rest of the story- hinckster became psr and d. michael is struggling for job.

oh i have an idea- dr bradford i have mike's email if you would like it!

just sayin

k

[_Doctor Scratch]

I will just say that this is what I was told by a BYU professor who is close to Bradford. Chris was told theme same thing. He may come forward with a public defense of Bradford but he said he is hoping Dan or Bill will step up and do the right thing by stopping this public lynching of Bradford. They are aware of more details that puts their rants into proper perspective but so far they're not telling the whole story.

Huh. Well, I hope the whole story gets told eventually.

[_lostindc]

I will just say that this is what I was told by a BYU professor who is close to Bradford. Chris was told theme same thing. He may come forward with a public defense of Bradford but he said he is hoping Dan or Bill will step up and do the right thing by stopping this public lynching of Bradford. They are aware of more details that puts their rants into proper perspective but so far they're not telling the whole story.

so you are stating that DCP et al. are standing on the doorstep of a public rebuking? If this is the case then I would like to state that my prediction is right and that is all that matters.

[_3sheets2thewind]

If the apologist are correct, and Dr. Bradford made this decision to remove Dr. Peterson as editor of the MSR on his own, what does this say about Dr. Peterson's standing? Does this mean he is a non-entity when decisions are made at BYU? As the apologist want us to be, "all he got was an email?"

A former history professor at BYU was asked not to publish a paper he had given at MHA. He says his dean told him it came from "higher authority." I find it interesting that in this example we have a lowly history professor who gets special treatment in being asked to not publish a paper, and yet the self proclaimed "important person" of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson can be removed from his editorship by his immediate supervisor.

If this is all true as the apologists want us to believe, then Dr. Peterson really is a person I should pity. His grandiose self image is truly remarkable if he is not even thought about by people in "higher authority." A truly remarkable situation.

I have asked along the same vein.

How much time must pass, wherein Bradford's rogue singular non-consulated did not get knod of either BYU or the Church to remove Peterson - before it can be concluded that the decision IS IN FACT supported by BYU or at least the BYU will not reverse the decision.

If the decision is so singular as suggested then surely, BYU would have reversed it by now.

[_bcspace]

If the apologist are correct, and Dr. Bradford made this decision to remove Dr. Peterson as editor of the MSR on his own, what does this say about Dr. Peterson's standing? Does this mean he is a non-entity when decisions are made at BYU? As the apologist want us to be, "all he got was an email?"

A former history professor at BYU was asked not to publish a paper he had given at MHA. He says his dean told him it came from "higher authority." I find it interesting that in this example we have a lowly history professor who gets special treatment in being asked to not publish a paper, and yet the self proclaimed "important person" of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson can be removed from his editorship by his immediate supervisor.

If this is all true as the apologists want us to believe, then Dr. Peterson really is a person I should pity. His grandiose self image is truly remarkable if he is not even thought about by people in "higher authority." A truly remarkable situation.

As I've noted before, you're all barking up the wrong tree if you think the Church can be harmed by attacking FAIR/FARMS/MI.

[_Themis]

As I've noted before, you're all barking up the wrong tree if you think the Church can be harmed by attacking FAIR/FARMS/MI.

FAIR/FARMS/MI have been doing that job for decades now, and a fine job they do. I don't know anyone or group that comes close to them in harming the church.

[Guest]

-

[_Joe Geisner]

If Kevin's intel is correct then this is pretty big news

And I would agree.

As others have written, the longer Bradford's decision stands, the more difficult it is for the apologists to claim this was a lone decision. A friend pointed out the mess the University of Virginia is currently going through when you have a board make an unpopular decision. The governor threaten to remove the entire board. We are hearing nothing like this from either Provo or SLC.

I have had no apologist answer me as to why a history professor would get preferential treat with a "higher authority" asking a single paper not be published, but the "Great Doctor" Dan Peterson would have only his immediate superior make such a decision with his removal as editor?