Links to the Maxwell Institute

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, Ray. You might be right--I may very well be "remembering badly." If I have, well, then, hey: I apologize for whatever wrongdoing I may have inflicted. That said, it's still clear that DCP feels an ungodly amount of animosity towards The Maxwell Institute and towards Dr. Bradford, so it remains curious/strange why they'd continue to feature a direct link to the MI. Certainly the same thing can't be said of the Mormon Interpreter Web site. Yes: I realize that they've posted links to Mopologist-friendly events on the MI Website, but that's hardly the same was what, say, FAIR has done--actually holding up the Bradford-run MI as an "Affiliate"! You have to admit, that is quite a ringing endorsement. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Scott Gordon feels like he, John Lynch, and the rest of the FAIR crew were given the shaft by way of this new Mormon Interpreter venture. It will be very, very interesting to see whether the links are allowed to remain, or whether they are quietly "removed."

[_RayAgostini]

That said, it's still clear that DCP feels an ungodly amount of animosity towards The Maxwell Institute and towards Dr. Bradford, so it remains curious/strange why they'd continue to feature a direct link to the MI.

I'd say if there is any animosity, it's because of the clandestine way in which he was "relieved of his duties", particularly when he was more than willing to openly discuss the MI's "future directions". But instead of being given a voice about that future, was summarily, secretly and distantly dismissed, rather than in a face to face meeting where he could have been given a chance to make his case. I'd also suggest that the future of the MI is not "set in stone". DCP's articles are still archived there, as well as the Works of High Nibley, and one can only wonder what Nibley would have thought of all the recent goings-on. From my point of view, it's not very hard to guess.

Certainly the same thing can't be said of the Mormon Interpreter Web site. Yes: I realize that they've posted links to Mopologist-friendly events on the MI Website, but that's hardly the same was what, say, FAIR has done--actually holding up the Bradford-run MI as an "Affiliate"! You have to admit, that is quite a ringing endorsement.

Maybe you should go back and read why this might be: because they have different aims and goals. Nevertheless, have you checked out who is on the FAIR Board, and why DCP might link to FAIR?

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Scott Gordon feels like he, John Lynch, and the rest of the FAIR crew were given the shaft by way of this new Mormon Interpreter venture. It will be very, very interesting to see whether the links are allowed to remain, or whether they are quietly "removed."

You've spoken to Scott and John recently? You know how they feel about Mormon Interpreter, or that there's a "rift" between Mormon Interpreter and FAIR?

Can you produce any hard evidence for this, rather than speculation?

[_Kishkumen]

I'd say if there is any animosity, it's because of the clandestine way in which he was "relieved of his duties", particularly when he was more than willing to openly discuss the MI's "future directions". But instead of being given a voice about that future, was summarily, secretly and distantly dismissed, rather than in a face to face meeting where he could have been given a chance to make his case. I'd also suggest that the future of the MI is not "set in stone". DCP's articles are still archived there, as well as the Works of High Nibley, and one can only wonder what Nibley would have thought of all the recent goings-on. From my point of view, it's not very hard to guess.

Ray, your defense of Daniel on this issue shows touching loyalty to your friend, but it is also egregiously obtuse and unfair to Gerald Bradford. There is nothing "clandestine" about a superior in an organization sending an email to relieve an underling of a particular duty. Nothing.

Your idea of Daniel's willingness to discuss future directions is merely an uncritical parroting of Daniel's own claim. You have no idea how willing he was to discuss openly future directions. And, at a certain point, the decision simply wasn't his to make. It's like this, and all of us who have bosses understand this: when an employee shows a certain amount of resistance to an order related to his duties on the job, then he risks losing the duty he is so obstinate about.

I think it is absolutely clear that over time the Maxwell Institute had transformed from a classic-FARMS fiefdom into more of the usual bureaucratic office environment. Daniel's mistake was essentially this: his attitude did not adapt to the changes. As soon as employees of BYU who were not apologists started to be placed in Director positions, the classic-FARMS boys might have, and probably should have, seen that their days of independence were numbered. Bradford tried to be polite about what needed to happen, but Peterson thought that he was in a position to dictate to the organization and his bosses how the Review would be run going forward.

He was mistaken. He was relieved of that duty.

Am I sympathetic to Daniel's plight? Yes. But what happened should not have been unexpected, and he ought not to continue to rail against Gerald Bradford for what amounts to, in the end, his own failure to adapt to a changing Maxwell Institute environment. Still, I can't imagine how shocking and distressing all of this was to him, and, as a fellow human being, I feel badly for his suffering.

On the other hand, I rejoice that his reign of terror at the Review is over. He has done immense harm to the lives of numerous good people, and I am happy that his bullhorn has been diminished so that, hopefully, the amount of mayhem and carnage he can cause in the lives of liberal Mormons will decrease significantly. Ding, dong, the witch is dead.

[_RayAgostini]

On the other hand, I rejoice that his reign of terror at the Review is over. He has done immense harm to the lives of numerous good people, and I am happy that his bullhorn has been diminished so that, hopefully, the amount of mayhem and carnage he can cause in the lives of liberal Mormons will decrease significantly. Ding, dong, the witch is dead.

"Reign of terror"? "The witch is dead"?

In what ways did he do "immense harm to the lives of numerous good people"?

Did they read one of his books or articles?

Attend one of his lectures?

Follow his blog?

Friend him on Facebook? (Or worse, were deleted by him on Facebook!)

Why all this hatred, Kishkumen? What possesses you to focus on DCP, day in, day out, week after week, and now going on year after year? What is the obsession? Is his thinking and writing a threat to world peace, or something? Does he have more power than the General Authorities to teach gospel doctrine, or determine the direction of the Church?

You said you were happy that he is no longer at the MI, but that happiness seemed to be short lived. Not content with that, you now criticise nearly everything he writes or says. The ink is hardly dry on his articles and you are among the first to fire the barbs and stir the pot of prejudice to someone expressing his opinions and beliefs.

What will make you feel at peace? Perhaps an academic court where he can be tried, and if necessary imprisoned?

L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter

Your sentiments don't seem far off this kind of thinking, Kishkumen.

[_Kishkumen]

"Reign of terror"? "The witch is dead"?

Oh, laugh it up, fun boy, but you were not on the receiving end of one of the many poison-pen letters that were printed in the Review, wherein decent people were ripped to shreds by a pack of bullies in a publication that sits on the shelves of many LDS people. Real damage has been done in the lives of others, real distress that comes with being publicly accused of being "deceived by Satan" or "evil" in a community where that kind of thing is taken very, very seriously.

You are a real piece of work if you think that is all just fun and games for you to shrug off and laugh about. But then, what do you care if Daniel Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgley, Greg Smith and others have spent many hours seeking to damage the reputations of decent LDS people?

Decency is a one way street in your mind, and Daniel Peterson and his friends seem to be the only people on that street who merit your concern.

[_Kishkumen]

You said you were happy that he is no longer at the MI, but that happiness seemed to be short lived.

Um, Ray, you have watched The Wizard of Oz, right? And so you are aware, I would imagine, of the celebratory nature of the lyric, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead!"

Yes, I remain happy, hence the allusion to that particular line in that particular film.

Not content with that, you now criticise nearly everything he writes or says. The ink is hardly dry on his articles and you are among the first to fire the barbs and stir the pot of prejudice to someone expressing his opinions and beliefs.

Ray, that's greatly exaggerating the case and you know it. It is one thing for Daniel to feel sorry for himself, but do you need to join him with such dedication? I imagine he feels sorry enough for himself to cover several people. He hardly needs your assistance.

What will make you feel at peace? Perhaps an academic court where he can be tried, and if necessary imprisoned?

Hey, Ray, I am fine. I am living my life and having a good time at it. You are to be commended for your efforts at making my response to Daniel's attack on me to be the product of my obsession. Well played, like any classic-FARMS apologist would have played it.

[_Gadianton]

Wow! What an interesting testimony. He goes to some lengths to talk about the fact that his academic peers (in the field of Psychology) don't believe in God, angels, and devils, etc. But he does! Those things are real, and he's bearing his testimony of that fact.

Hi Ludd, I don't have an opinion about this specific person, but do you think just because a psychologist says that his peers don't believe in God but he does, that this is really the case?

I'll bet you the peers of such a person wouldn't easily accept a testimony like that at face value. Psychologists are (supposed to be) good at bringing in people with all kinds of crazy "beliefs" and figuring them out

[_Doctor Scratch]

That said, it's still clear that DCP feels an ungodly amount of animosity towards The Maxwell Institute and towards Dr. Bradford, so it remains curious/strange why they'd continue to feature a direct link to the MI.

I'd say if there is any animosity, it's because of the clandestine way in which he was "relieved of his duties", particularly when he was more than willing to openly discuss the MI's "future directions". But instead of being given a voice about that future, was summarily, secretly and distantly dismissed, rather than in a face to face meeting where he could have been given a chance to make his case. I'd also suggest that the future of the MI is not "set in stone". DCP's articles are still archived there, as well as the Works of High Nibley, and one can only wonder what Nibley would have thought of all the recent goings-on. From my point of view, it's not very hard to guess.

Prof. P. hasn't been very honest about any of the events surrounding his dismissal. The fact is that he just hasn't told the truth about the extent to which General Authorities were involved in the discussions leading up to this, and he isn't being honest about the extent to which he and the other Mopologists were told to "tone it down."

The thing is, Ray: you seem to be awfully gullible when it comes to accepting everything DCP says on this matter. Consider the fact that he was shown to have lied--repeatedly, for over half a decade--about getting paid to do apologetics. What do you make of that? Do you think that a lie of that magnitude is irrelevant? How do you explain it away?

Certainly the same thing can't be said of the Mormon Interpreter Web site. Yes: I realize that they've posted links to Mopologist-friendly events on the MI Website, but that's hardly the same was what, say, FAIR has done--actually holding up the Bradford-run MI as an "Affiliate"! You have to admit, that is quite a ringing endorsement.

Maybe you should go back and read why this might be: because they have different aims and goals. Nevertheless, have you checked out who is on the FAIR Board, and why DCP might link to FAIR?

They "have different aims and goals"? Really? What is the difference? And I haven't claimed anywhere that "DCP [has linked] to FAIR." Rather, I've pointed out that FAIR-owned entities have linked to the Maxwell Institute, and that, all things considered, this seems like a slap in the face to DCP. If the links stay up, one can't help but view this as a gesture of hostility towards Prof. P., and a vote in favor of Dr. Bradford.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Scott Gordon feels like he, John Lynch, and the rest of the FAIR crew were given the shaft by way of this new Mormon Interpreter venture. It will be very, very interesting to see whether the links are allowed to remain, or whether they are quietly "removed."

You've spoken to Scott and John recently? You know how they feel about Mormon Interpreter, or that there's a "rift" between Mormon Interpreter and FAIR?

Can you produce any hard evidence for this, rather than speculation?

The mere existence of the links on FAIR-owned pages is evidence in and of itself. (They list the MI as an "Affiliate." That descriptor alone speaks volumes.)

[_RayAgostini]

You are a real piece of work if you think that is all just fun and games for you to shrug off and laugh about. But then, what do you care if Daniel Peterson, Bill Hamblin, Lou Midgley, Greg Smith and others have spent many hours seeking to damage the reputations of decent LDS people?

Decency is a one way street in your mind, and Daniel Peterson and his friends seem to be the only people on that street who merit your concern.

I wasn't laughing at anyone's misfortunes, just at your assessment that a review journal, led by its editor, conducted a "Reign of Terror". lol. Hyperbole is definitely one of your strong points.

On the other hand, I rejoice that his reign of terror at the Review is over. He has done immense harm to the lives of numerous good people, and I am happy that his bullhorn has been diminished so that, hopefully, the amount of mayhem and carnage he can cause in the lives of liberal Mormons will decrease significantly. Ding, dong, the witch is dead.

Anger and finger-pointing isn't going to bring any justice for "liberals". What you are seeking isn't justice, but revenge, and this is apparent in your acid language and hyperbole. It's an understatement to say that you have a chip on your shoulder. It's more like a boulder.

If you want to take a more balanced "liberal" approach to Mormonism, I suggest reading Richard Poll's History and Faith: Reflections of a Mormon Historian, and getting rid of some of the loose-cannon anger. When you get rid of the PTSD, you might even be able to use reason to achieve what you want, whatever that is. The way you're going on now, charging down every thread blasting apologetics and apologists (with a special emphasis on the former editor of The Review) is more like an Ian Paisely approach than a Martin Luther King approach.

Maybe you should chuck in a reverse and try the latter?

I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up against our most bitter opponents and say: We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you.... But be assured that we'll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves; we will appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.

-- Martin Luther King Jr., A Christmas Sermon for Peace on Dec 24, 1967.

Good luck with that, Kishkumen.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Wow! Did I read the above post correctly?!

Did Ray actually lecture Kishkumen about not being angry or bitter??!!!?!

Truth really is stranger than fiction.