Morgan Davis and the "Plot" to Destroy FARMS

[_Kishkumen]

Lemmie,

Thanks for this bringing in this further information. I would be interested to know how you are unpacking all of this. For example, how do you relate Holland’s talk, which the Mopologists hooted and hollered about in a misleading way, to Samuelson’s order to Jerry Bradford to remove DCP from the editorship of the Review? Holland’s talk came long after the ouster of DCP.

Sorry if I have missed or misread something here.

Best,

K

ETA: I need a list of the many letters referred to in all of these exchanges.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Lemmie:

Thank you for the reminder: I did have some of that material in mind, and I definitely think it has a bearing on these new revelations from Morgan Davis. To be honest, I wonder how much of Midgley's commentary is hostile spin-doctoring. Look at this, for example:

One of those employees felt deep remorse for being involved in this plot and wrote a long letter in which he expresses his sorrow and apologizes for what he came to see as some evil and entirely unbecoming one who is a Latter-day Saint.

Is this Midgley's way of describing Davis's email? I wouldn't be surprised if it was. He continues:

This remarkable confession of evil deeds was sent to all those then employed by the Maxwell Institute, and I witnessed a copy being given to the current BYU President, and I have a copy of the letter, as do at least half a dozen others who were not employees of the Maxwell Institute. I mention this because there is no doubt that there was a plot (or conspiracy) to fire Dan Peterson and make a change of directions at the Maxwell Institute. In addition, one of the three who were asked to make an outside review of the Maxwell Institute, which document was quoted by Elder Maxwell [sic] eight or ten times in the scolding/warning he recently issued to the executive director and employees of the Institute, was David Holland, the youngest son of Elder Holland. And David, who is a former student of mine, must have both interviewed the Institute employee who wrote that letter apologizing for being involved in the plot I described, and it is likely that he had read that stunning letter.

It seems that Yakov ben Tov, who I believe is actually an employee of the Maxwell Institute, must be aware of these kinds of details. So his statement about how, "as a historian of religious history" he should not be unaware of this bit of real history, and hence not genuinely confused about what he seems anxious to brush aside as merely "conspiracy theories." If he still does not want to grant that there really was a very stupid plot involving getting Professor Peterson out of the Maxwell Institute and then changing its direction, he must be deeply into what the French call "bad faith"--that is, self-deception.

So, *yes*: there was a "consensus" that DCP and his Mopologist pals--and their antics--needed to be laid to rest. Is it accurate to call this a "plot"? I guess so. I can understand how it would seem that way from their perspective (and it also helps to explain why they've been so reluctant to give their version of events; oh, well--if they stay silent, then this will be the dominant narrative).

It's also interesting that Yakov ben Tov was the one in the middle of this particular kerfuffle: he was the one, you'll recall, who set off Blake Ostler (Ostler broke down and began using profanity) on Faith-Promoting Rumor. In any case, Yakov tells us that:

And when you refer to one of our Christian friends and their letter apologizing to Dr. Peterson (which I have read) you should remember that they never claimed anything evil about what happened but rather remorse that things ended up transpiring the way that they did. That individual also was not aware of the involvement of the upper leadership at BYU, and when they asked to make that letter public the leadership outside of the Maxwell Institute put a stop to it.

Notice that he says "That individual also was not aware of the involvement of the upper leadership at BYU" which would indicate that *this* particular letter did not come from Davis.

Whatever the case may be, with every new piece of information that we get, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Mopologists' version of events simply isn't very accurate.

[_Kishkumen]

Letters/E-mails relating to the “Maxwell Coup”

1. Morgan Davis writes to DCP and Midgley expressing concerns about Smith’s Dehlin piece.

2. Morgan Davis writes Dehlin about his attempt to quash the hit piece; this includes letter to DCP and Midgley.

3. Dehlin sends email about Smith hit piece that reaches apostolic eyes.

4. Samuelson instructs Bradford to quash Smith hit piece; Bradford extracts a letter ordering the quashing of the piece from Samuelson.

5. Bradford emails DCP in Israel relieving DCP of editorial duties.

6. DCP writes Bradford blistering email in response. (Samuelson berates Bradford for manner in which this change was made.)

7. Later, a Maxwell employee writes letter apologizing for how ouster transpired.

8. David Holland, son of Elder Holland, part of committee evaluating Maxwell; apologists try to use this against post-FARMS MI.

9. Elder Holland gives address at Maxwell Institute and Mopologists reinterpret it as a rebuke the new MI.

Please correct this where it errs.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Please correct this where it errs.

Glad to give it a shot! Here goes:

Letters/E-mails relating to the “Maxwell Coup”

1. Morgan Davis writes to DCP and Midgley expressing concerns about Smith’s Dehlin piece.

2. Morgan Davis writes Dehlin about his attempt to quash the hit piece; this includes letter to DCP and Midgley.

3. Dehlin sends email about Smith hit piece that reaches apostolic eyes.

I don't think this item is "inaccurate," exactly, but I think it downplays what actually happen. A key piece of all of this, to my mind, is that a consensus among influential people had been established. It wasn't just Davis; it wasn't just Bradford; it wasn't even just Samuelson. There was apparently a whole crew of people who came together to make this happen, including (evidently) Marlin Jensen. Midgley mentioned "3 Maxwell Institute employees." One of these was Davis; probably another was Bradford. Who was the 3rd?

Whatever the case may be, I think it's important to point out that this wasn't something that happened on the basis of one person's "whim." This went through all the appropriate channels, and it really shows how many enemies the Mopologists had made over the years. It is important to point out these facts because the Mopologists' version of the story tends to place all of the blame on Bradford, and/or on one or two "apostate moles" in the MI. That isn't accurate, though: displeasure with their antics, as Davis's messages clearly show, went all the way up to the very highest echelons of Church leadership and authority. They have denied that up and down (notably DCP), but it just isn't true, or, at least, they've failed to provide convincing evidence that it's true. We are all expected to just accept Peterson's claims on the basis of his say-so and nothing more. Emails or something of that nature would go a lot further in terms of making his claims at least a little bit persuasive.

4. Samuelson instructs Bradford to quash Smith hit piece; Bradford extracts a letter ordering the quashing of the piece from Samuelson.

5. Bradford emails DCP in Israel relieving DCP of editorial duties.

6. DCP writes Bradford blistering email in response. (Samuelson berates Bradford for manner in which this change was made.)

What's the basis for believing that Samuelson "berate[d] Bradford"? Is that really what happened?

7. Later, a Maxwell employee writes letter apologizing for how ouster transpired.

8. David Holland, son of Elder Holland, part of committee evaluating Maxwell; apologists try to use this against post-FARMS MI.

9. Elder Holland gives address at Maxwell Institute and Mopologists reinterpret it as a rebuke the new MI.

So, I would make adjustments/corrections to those two portions of your timeline, Reverend, but I think everything else (to the best of my/our knowledge) is correct.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think this item is "inaccurate," exactly, but I think it downplays what actually happen. A key piece of all of this, to my mind, is that a consensus among influential people had been established. It wasn't just Davis; it wasn't just Bradford; it wasn't even just Samuelson. There was apparently a whole crew of people who came together to make this happen, including (evidently) Marlin Jensen. Midgley mentioned "3 Maxwell Institute employees." One of these was Davis; probably another was Bradford. Who was the 3rd?

Whatever the case may be, I think it's important to point out that this wasn't something that happened on the basis of one person's "whim." This went through all the appropriate channels, and it really shows how many enemies the Mopologists had made over the years. It is important to point out these facts because the Mopologists' version of the story tends to place all of the blame on Bradford, and/or on one or two "apostate moles" in the MI. That isn't accurate, though: displeasure with their antics, as Davis's messages clearly show, went all the way up to the very highest echelons of Church leadership and authority. They have denied that up and down (notably DCP), but it just isn't true, or, at least, they've failed to provide convincing evidence that it's true. We are all expected to just accept Peterson's claims on the basis of his say-so and nothing more. Emails or something of that nature would go a lot further in terms of making his claims at least a little bit persuasive.

Yes, I was sticking to organizing a list of communications as arranged in what seemed to be the order in which they transpired. There is no doubt that Bradford, Davis and others were not supportive of the FARMS crew’s hijinks at Maxwell. Subsequent communications seem to indicate that others at the Institute who were not fans were probably Carl Griffin and Kristian Heal.

I think it is also safe to say that an apostle, Elder Jensen, and Cecil Samuelson were in accord in the matter of quashing the Dehlin hit piece. What is less clear to me is the issue of removing DCP from the Review. Was that part of the same communication? A separate order? Did Bradford take the initiative in removing DCP from his editorship?

Midgley writes:

I explained to Jerry that firing Dan had reduced my wife to tears. He told me that his wife had also been reduced to tears by the thrashing he had received from Samuelson for using email to fire Dan. He had been admonished never to put anything in an email or in writing in a file.

He claims that Bradford told him Samuelson came down on him like a ton of bricks for firing DCP by email. But are we certain he was instructed by Samuelson to remove DCP as editor, and that his mistake was to do it in an email? I can see how that email caused all kinds of trouble, as it was broadcast very widely. That seems to have been the problem.

That leaves me thinking Samuelson was responsible for DCP’s removal, and that he was smart enough not to commit anything about that removal to email, etc. There should be, in other words, no documentation of Samuelson’s role in DCP’s removal. Unfortunately, that also leaves us without hard evidence of his role.

[_Philo Sofee]

Why is nobody prepared to publish “the letter” that is being subjected to claims of being significant in its support of one side or the other?

In apologetics, the less evidence when the going gets tough, the better. Just assure everyone that there is no problem, since it is this method Mormons have been "educated" into thinking is viable. Remember, we don't want the actual truth, just enough to make ones view plausible...

[_Rosebud]

Why is nobody prepared to publish “the letter” that is being subjected to claims of being significant in its support of one side or the other?

In apologetics the less evidence when the going gets tough, the better. Just assure everyone that there is no problem, since it is this method Mormons have been "educated" into thinking is viable. Remember, we don't want the actual truth, just enough to make ones view plausible...

ExMormonism is much the same. “Just assure everyone that there is no problem, since it is this method Mormons have been ‘educated’ into thinking is viable. Remember, we don’t want the actual truth, just enough to make one’s views viable....”

The truth is almost always more complicated than any small portion that can be reduced into a myth and then spun for a willing audience.

ExMormons are very much still Mormons.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't think this item is "inaccurate," exactly, but I think it downplays what actually happen. A key piece of all of this, to my mind, is that a consensus among influential people had been established. It wasn't just Davis; it wasn't just Bradford; it wasn't even just Samuelson. There was apparently a whole crew of people who came together to make this happen, including (evidently) Marlin Jensen. Midgley mentioned "3 Maxwell Institute employees." One of these was Davis; probably another was Bradford. Who was the 3rd?

Whatever the case may be, I think it's important to point out that this wasn't something that happened on the basis of one person's "whim." This went through all the appropriate channels, and it really shows how many enemies the Mopologists had made over the years. It is important to point out these facts because the Mopologists' version of the story tends to place all of the blame on Bradford, and/or on one or two "apostate moles" in the MI. That isn't accurate, though: displeasure with their antics, as Davis's messages clearly show, went all the way up to the very highest echelons of Church leadership and authority. They have denied that up and down (notably DCP), but it just isn't true, or, at least, they've failed to provide convincing evidence that it's true. We are all expected to just accept Peterson's claims on the basis of his say-so and nothing more. Emails or something of that nature would go a lot further in terms of making his claims at least a little bit persuasive.

Yes, I was sticking to organizing a list of communications as arranged in what seemed to be the order in which they transpired. There is no doubt that Bradford, Davis and others were not supportive of the FARMS crew’s hijinks at Maxwell. Subsequent communications seem to indicate that others at the Institute who were not fans were probably Carl Griffin and Kristian Heal.

I think it is also safe to say that an apostle, Elder Jensen, and Cecil Samuelson were in accord in the matter of quashing the Dehlin hit piece. What is less clear to me is the issue of removing DCP from the Review. Was that part of the same communication? A separate order? Did Bradford take the initiative in removing DCP from his editorship?

Ah: that's a good question. It seems that, in part, it came down to whether or not DCP could be trusted to stop with the smear campaigns and "hit pieces." This *was* probably one of those details that he was simply expected to take care of, since he was the administrator in charge of the MI at the time.

Midgley writes:

I explained to Jerry that firing Dan had reduced my wife to tears. He told me that his wife had also been reduced to tears by the thrashing he had received from Samuelson for using email to fire Dan. He had been admonished never to put anything in an email or in writing in a file.

He claims that Bradford told him Samuelson came down on him like a ton of bricks for firing DCP by email. But are we certain he was instructed by Samuelson to remove DCP as editor, and that his mistake was to do it in an email? I can see how that email caused all kinds of trouble, as it was broadcast very widely. That seems to have been the problem.

That leaves me thinking Samuelson was responsible for DCP’s removal, and that he was smart enough not to commit anything about that removal to email, etc. There should be, in other words, no documentation of Samuelson’s role in DCP’s removal. Unfortunately, that also leaves us without hard evidence of his role.

Hmm. I don't know. Certainly, the outcome that the Powers-that-Be wanted was achieved. But I agree with you that Bradford's main "mistake" seems to have been that he put this in writing--in an email. That type of communication isn't protected by, e.g., attorney-client privilege, and so it is fair game if it gets "leaked," and indeed, that's exactly what happened. The email was first made public right here on MormonDiscussions: it makes a lot of sense that Samuelson would have been pissed off about that. If Bradford had fired DCP face-to-face, or via a phone call, it might have prevented a lot of the drama. Then again, this is DCP we're talking about, so there would have been some kind of bellyaching. Failing to put it in writing would have opened the door to a lot more lying and spin-doctoring. So, it's a wash in the end.

[_Lemmie]

Lemmie,

Thanks for this bringing in this further information. I would be interested to know how you are unpacking all of this. For example, how do you relate Holland’s talk, which the Mopologists hooted and hollered about in a misleading way, to Samuelson’s order to Jerry Bradford to remove DCP from the editorship of the Review? Holland’s talk came long after the ouster of DCP.

Sorry if I have missed or misread something here.

Best,

K

ETA: I need a list of the many letters referred to in all of these exchanges.

Good point, I obviously am late to the game, only being here and reading this stuff since about 2015, so I’ll try to explain what it looked like to me.

From your list:

Letters/E-mails relating to the “Maxwell Coup”

1. Morgan Davis writes to DCP and Midgley expressing concerns about Smith’s Dehlin piece.

2. Morgan Davis writes Dehlin about his attempt to quash the hit piece; this includes letter to DCP and Midgley.

3. Dehlin sends email about Smith hit piece that reaches apostolic eyes.

4. Samuelson instructs Bradford to quash Smith hit piece; Bradford extracts a letter ordering the quashing of the piece from Samuelson.

5. Bradford emails DCP in Israel relieving DCP of editorial duties.

6. DCP writes Bradford blistering email in response. (Samuelson berates Bradford for manner in which this change was made.)

7. Later, a Maxwell employee writes letter apologizing for how ouster transpired.

As far as I know, the only reason number 7 occurs later is because Peterson implied it did. So when Midgley started commenting, it seemed to me, based on Yakov Ben Tov’s comments, that it was possible no one had later apologized, but that the first Davis email was being misused. I based that on these, from my earlier post:

Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 6 hours ago

I wouldn't ever consider a series of comments a crime, but the way you have used Holland's speech (similar to how you have used your friend's email) is not necessarily very kind...

--
Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 2 hours ago

What "friend's email" have I used?

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • an hour ago

The email/letter that you keep saying was sent to all Maxwell Institute employees and then the current president.

So, when I read this, from Morgan to Dehlin, about sending his email to Dan, but also circulating it, it seemed related:

Dear John:

Here [I assume he means the attachment to this email, which rosebud says was the letter sent to Peterson] is what I submitted earlier this week and have circulated to other sympathetic parties throughout the week. I see it not only as addressing the immediate problem we face, but the larger question of what kind of discourse we should be about as a community. J i m * F a u l c o n e r was one I shared it with, and after witnessing Louis's performance last night, Jim wrote a letter of his own to Jerry Bradford, our director, urging that something be done.

But the clincher was your phone call. It followed the path that I suggested it would, with the addition of an unnamed member of the Twelve (I'm guessing Elder Holland) added in. Jenson called him, he called Samuelson, and Samuelson called Jerry, who was ready for the call because of the discussions we've been having,

Further, a circulated letter was referred to by Midgley, and based on YbT’s response, seems to fit Morgan’s letter:

Midgley:

One of those employees felt deep remorse for being involved in this plot and wrote a long letter in which he expresses his sorrow and apologizes for what he came to see as some evil and entirely unbecoming one who is a Latter-day Saint.

This remarkable confession of evil deeds was sent to all those then employed by the Maxwell Institute, and I witnessed a copy being given to the current BYU President,

I don’t see how Midgley would know about this letter and that it was circulated to MI employees, plus seen by him to go to Samuelson, if he’s referring to a letter (your number 7) that was sent later, AFTER he left.

And YbT’s further comments, disagreeing with Midgley’s (and possibly Peterson’s) assessment of the letter:

Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 23 minutes ago

I mentioned earlier that I have read the letter and it is not as much of a bombshell as you pretended. I alluded to several aspects of the letter earlier in our conversations, but maybe those allusions eluded you?

--
Louis Midgley > Yakov ben Tov • 18 minutes ago • edited

The letter that was packed with apologies for being involved in evil deed unbecoming a Latter-day Saints.....

--
Yakov ben Tov > Louis Midgley • 13 minutes ago

It has one line where he mentions feeling bad for wanting to see a change in direction (which if you ask him now he’s extremely happy with the direction the university took things).

So, when I read the Davis letter to Peterson, this seemed to fit YbT’s comments about Midgley’s misinterpretation:

Davis [according to Rosebud]:

....I don’t remember exactly what I said to my friend, but I did not characterize the Institute as a paranoid, ultra-conservative place, nor the forthcoming article as a hit piece. Those are his terms. I hadn’t seen the article and only knew that it was focused on a critique of Dehlin. I did say that if it was overly personal or negative that I would try to convince you not to publish it.

After having spent the better part of an hour on the phone with me this morning, Dan kindly arranged for me to have a look at the article and requested that I submit any comments I have. He said he does not want the piece to be harmful to others, and I have never doubted Dan’s sincerity....

And this comment, which seems related to YbT’s point about one line where author felt bad:

Davis:

If I have been persuasive at all, I will have created a problem about what to do with this very lengthy piece that is the core of the next issue of MSR, which is already over-due. I apologize I didn't find my voice sooner. But if the arguments in this memo carry any merit, then it is more important that the piece on Dehlin not be published in its current form than almost anything else—including missed deadlines and other inconveniences.

[all my excerpts are from the links in my first two posts in this thread, bolding added by me]

So that’s what I was seeing. Also, the fact that Peterson has several times referred to this “apology” letter, that he still has and will publish at some point but not yet, which he asserts (without providing evidence) will exonerate him, just smacks too much of his protestations about the existence and content of the second Watson letter.

This is purely my interpretation, and nothing else.

[_Rosebud]

A chronological list of relevant documents, dates any leaks were made public, and any relevant contributing factors WITH LINKS would help anyone who is really interested in a more accurate picture make sense of what happened.