Cicero wrote:Everybody Wang Chung wrote:DCP has now clearly crossed the Rubicon into open rebellion. It's only a matter of time before he is hauled into a disciplinary court.
I'll believe it when I see it. I suppose if Samuelson does support Bradford then Dan could be putting his job in jeopardy, but I don't see how it would affect his membership status. What exactly would he be disciplined for?
Based on things Midgley has said, and based on past Church discipline action, I would guess that, if he *were* actually disciplined, he would be hauled in for "insubordination." I suppose the larger questions is: what are the odds that this will happen? There are surely a lot of complicating factors. One is the issue of money and donors; Prof. P. has indicated that he's "juiced in" with some pretty deep pockets in the Mormon world. I'm sure that alone would give the Brethren pause, though obviously they were willing to overlook it in order to remove him from the Maxwell Institute.
Another element of this--perhaps the key one--is the whole Dehlin debacle. (Indeed, it was in speaking on this topic that Midgley used the word "insubordination.") If they went ahead and published the Dehlin "hit piece" in
Mormon Interpreter, I would guess that it would be seen as a clear act of insubordination--a direct contradiction of what they were told to do. Midgley mentioned a "memo" that came down from Church higher-ups and that effectively canceled the Dehlin article, though there seems to be some confusion over the language of this "memo." (And yes: I'd love to see the text of this document--it's apparently a key piece of Mopologetic history.) Apart from this, though, Prof. Peterson has continually assured his readers and fans that they need merely to "have patience" in order to read this Greg Smith article. What does that mean, exactly? That they're waiting for the GA in question to die off? That they're still trying to gauge all the risks? Or is his very act of saying this a form of insubordination? Certainly, he hasn't been very circumspect in his criticism of Gerald Bradford, BYU, and the Maxwell Institute.
Finally, there is the question of which of the GAs was involved in this. If it had been a fully vigorous Elder Packer that they'd pissed off, then yeah: he would probably be on his way out already. I'm pretty sure I know which of the Apostles it was who intervened in all of this. Let's just say that I'm sure that this person's patience is limited, particularly in light of some of the First Presidency's declarations on being more tolerant, loving, and Christ-like. (And no: they are not emphasizing the Jesus who whipped people.)
What you have to remember is that this is the LDS Church; the Brethren can kick someone out for whatever reason they like--they can invent a reason, if they want to.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14