FAIR Conference Highlights: DCP & Hamblin Slam B. Hodges

[_Tavares Standfield]

You have done an admiral job ...

That's funnier than Blixa's quip.

Vice or rear?

Appreciate you catching that, Ludd.

[_consiglieri]

To me, the absolutely least important aspect of this affair is whether Blair called Dan a coward before or after Dan told Blair to go to hell.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Blair is probably not long for BYU.

And neither is Dan................

[_Ludd]

Blair is probably not long for BYU.

And neither is Dan................

I think you are more than likely right, Everybody Wang Chung. I admit I have no "insider" information. (I know some folks who used to be in a position to know about such things, but are no longer at BYU.) But if I were to predict what the Q15 and BYU admin are likely to do it would be to get rid of the WHOLE problem, as in getting rid of Peterson and Hamblin and probably the entire MI. BYU went for decades without an MI or anything like it. If I'm not mistaken, there was nothing like the MI when Oakes was President at BYU, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to just get rid of every vestige of what has now become a constant source of trouble (and bad PR) for them.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Blair is probably not long for BYU.

And neither is Dan................

How do you figure that? He is on a paid sabbatical. Those aren't normally offered to professors on thin ice.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Blair is probably not long for BYU.

I'm not familiar with BYU or academia really. It wouldn't surprise me if Blair was reprimanded. But what I do know of the church, and church culture, they don't like when people make the dirty laundry public.
If they didn't like the private confrontation by Blair, they certainly won't appericate Hamblin's pubic confrontation.
If they are bothered by Blair Hodges calling Daniel Peterson a coward in a private conversation, I'm sure they are more bothered by it being made public, and by the continued public criticism of the MI. Even questioning their belief in the relevance of scripture.

[_Nevo]

But if I were to predict what the Q15 and BYU admin are likely to do it would be to get rid of the WHOLE problem, as in getting rid of Peterson and Hamblin and probably the entire MI. BYU went for decades without an MI or anything like it. If I'm not mistaken, there was nothing like the MI when Oakes was President at BYU, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to just get rid of every vestige of what has now become a constant source of trouble (and bad PR) for them.

I don't think it's accurate or fair to characterize the Maxwell Institute as "a constant source of trouble (and bad PR)" for BYU and/or the Church. The Maxwell Institute is positioning itself as a leading player in the emerging field of Mormon Studies and, by and large, is doing great credit to the university. It is not an embarrassment at all. I think its credibility and respectability has only increased since it divested itself of bare-knuckle apologetics/polemics.

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't think it's accurate or fair to characterize the Maxwell Institute as "a constant source of trouble (and bad PR)" for BYU and/or the Church. The Maxwell Institute is positioning itself as a leading player in the emerging field of Mormon Studies and, by and large, is doing great credit to the university. It is not an embarrassment at all. I think its credibility and respectability has only increased since it divested itself of bare-knuckle apologetics/polemics.

You mean increased credibility and respectability outside the church don't you? Because I believe that within the church, for those that even pay attention to what the MI is doing, they are not increasing their standing, especially to anyone over 40.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Didn't Hamblin and, perhaps, DCP a while back get in trouble with their superiors at BYU for publicly attacking the new MI and Bradford, in particular?

You're probably thinking of this.

The directors of the Maxwell Institute complained to the administration about my public criticisms of their new policies. The administration, without giving me a chance to see or respond to those complaints, told me to stop criticizing the Maxwell Institute’s new direction.

Based on this latest debacle (initiated on Hamblin's blog and continued by DCP's comments on that blog, as well as his own ridiculous post about Caudle), aren't these two risking another 'call to the principal's office'? I thought they were supposed to shut up about the new MI (formally affiliated with their employer, BYU)?

Hamblin was definitely given a warning, but it's unclear to me whether Prof. Peterson was, too or not. (I believe that he denied that this ever happened.) Still, DCP's description of his "sabbatical" and its terms (must complete two books!) has always sounded pretty suspect to me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I want to state for the record that while I personally trust Brad Kramer and Blair Hodges more than I trust Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin, I am not accusing anyone of being a liar. I believe that people construct narratives that align with their interests, just as people choose to believe those whose interests align better with their own. I am biased.

I would also like to make it clear that I do not believe that Daniel Peterson is a fundamentalist who cowers in fear of Religious Studies and Mormon Studies. Daniel Peterson and his views should not be confused with others and their views on these points.

Hmmm. Sounds like an unsolicited email might have been received by someone. LOL @ "fundamentalist who cowers in fear of Mormon Studies."