Morgan Davis and the "Plot" to Destroy FARMS

[_WMLdeWette]

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.

Dr. Scratch, you are correctly reading YbT's comments. The letter that Midgley loves to return to was not written by Morgan Davis but by a different employee at the Maxwell Institute. And the person who wrote the letter was not sad or remorseful about "an evil deed." They don't believe that what happened was an even deed, although they do think that it could have been handled better. They were sad about the loss of friendship that occurred in the aftermath of the shift. That is clear from the letter that they wrote.

[Guest]

... and it really shows how many enemies the Mopologists had made over the years.

Framing what happened this way only encourages the false narratives that Peterson and Midgley have been successfully selling over the last seven and a half years. The people in positions of power over the Maxwell Institute were not enemies of Peterson. They were actually friends. They believed that after the failures of attack-style apologetics in the 1990s and 2000s that Peterson would see the error of his ways, that he would take counsel appropriately and maturely, and that he would make the correct decision. He made it clear that he was incapable of doing so, so some of his longtime friends and admires stepped in to stop him from self-destructing and, more importantly, doing further damage to the Institute and the University.

When the changes were made Peterson was still fully an employee at the Institute. The only thing that changed for him was what assignments he was tied to. His ego got in the way of continuing his work and, instead of telling the truth, made it sound like he had been fired from the Institute when he had not. He has stated in the past that his work on METI was impinged because of the others on the project (Morgan Davis included) but that is also not true. He had not been heavily involved in METI for several years at that point and took his loss of the editor position as a direct attack on his person. Instead, he started Interpreter because he wanted to be able to control the narrative, funding, and what kind of scholarship was published. He went against the counsel he received from his leaders and, instead, has allowed his closest circle of friends (especially Midgley) to claim that there was a coup and that the leaders were the ones at fault.

[_WMLdeWette]

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.

We should probably keep in mind that this information is coming from Midgley. I assume that Samuelson was not happy with how releasing Peterson from his assignment went down because of how Peterson popularized it and easily spun the narrative right after it happened. Samuelson wanted Peterson removed from the journal, there is no doubt about that, but shifting an employee's assignment in a division are not that important. Maybe Samuelson didn't want it in an email, I have no idea, but I don't think that Samuelson or Bradford were thinking at the time about whether there would be a paper or e-paper trail documenting this. It was supposed to be a switch out of an assignment for an employee who would continue working at the Institute but that they knew would not be happy about the switch.

[_WMLdeWette]

This is purely my interpretation, and nothing else.

Lemmie, this is a fascinating reading and I can see how you came to the conclusion. You followed several dots and connected them, but unfortunately no, Morgan Davis was not the letter writer that Peterson and Midgley have long claimed showed Peterson was in the right.

[_Kishkumen]

Dr. Scratch, you are correctly reading YbT's comments. The letter that Midgley loves to return to was not written by Morgan Davis but by a different employee at the Maxwell Institute. And the person who wrote the letter was not sad or remorseful about "an evil deed." They don't believe that what happened was an even deed, although they do think that it could have been handled better. They were sad about the loss of friendship that occurred in the aftermath of the shift. That is clear from the letter that they wrote.

It must be very disappointing to the person who wrote the letter to see it routinely misrepresented and misused by others. Such behavior does nothing to repair the damage that occurred but only compounds the rift and alienation. It seems that a sincere expression of regret about the impact of circumstances on a friendship is being treated as a confession for the purposes of Midgley and others. That is more than regrettable.

[_Kishkumen]

Framing what happened this way only encourages the false narratives that Peterson and Midgley have been successfully selling over the last seven and a half years. The people in positions of power over the Maxwell Institute were not enemies of Peterson. They were actually friends. They believed that after the failures of attack-style apologetics in the 1990s and 2000s that Peterson would see the error of his ways, that he would take counsel appropriately and maturely, and that he would make the correct decision. He made it clear that he was incapable of doing so, so some of his longtime friends and admires stepped in to stop him from self-destructing and, more importantly, doing further damage to the Institute and the University.

When the changes were made Peterson was still fully an employee at the Institute. The only thing that changed for him was what assignments he was tied to. His ego got in the way of continuing his work and, instead of telling the truth, made it sound like he had been fired from the Institute when he had not. He has stated in the past that his work on METI was impinged because of the others on the project (Morgan Davis included) but that is also not true. He had not been heavily involved in METI for several years at that point and took his loss of the editor position as a direct attack on his person. Instead, he started Interpreter because he wanted to be able to control the narrative, funding, and what kind of scholarship was published. He went against the counsel he received from his leaders and, instead, has allowed his closest circle of friends (especially Midgley) to claim that there was a coup and that the leaders were in the ones at fault.

That sounds accurate to me. When further ramifications of the incorporation of FARMS within BYU finally manifested, the real commitments of some within the Maxwell Institute were clearly shown by their reaction to the evolution of MI into a more academic part of the university system.

[_WMLdeWette]

It must be very disappointing to the person who wrote the letter to see it routinely misrepresented and misused by others. Such behavior does nothing to repair the damage that occurred but only compounds the rift and alienation. It seems that a sincere expression of regret about the impact of circumstances on a friendship is being treated as a confession for the purposes of Midgley and others. That is more than regrettable.

Yes, you are exactly right. The way that Peterson and Midgley have abused that letter has not helped anything.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thank you very much for filling in some of the details, WMLdeWette. I think the truth is finally beginning to emerge in a more holistic way. Of course, it would help a lot if we were all able to take a gander an this second letter, but I can understand why people might be hesitant to share it.

I did have a few follow-up questions for you. You write:

The people in positions of power over the Maxwell Institute were not enemies of Peterson. They were actually friends. They believed that after the failures of attack-style apologetics in the 1990s and 2000s that Peterson would see the error of his ways, that he would take counsel appropriately and maturely, and that he would make the correct decision. He made it clear that he was incapable of doing so, so some of his longtime friends and admires stepped in to stop him from self-destructing and, more importantly, doing further damage to the Institute and the University.

Could you elaborate on this? Specifically, what were the "failures of attack-style apologetics in the 1990s and 2000s" that people like Holland, Bradford, Samuelson, Jensen, et al. would have had in mind? "Metcalfe is Butthead"? SHIELDS? Something else? As I'm sure you know, DCP and the Mopologists have always insisted that no one amongst the "Powers that Be" had any problem whatsoever with their smear tactics and whatnot; they insist, instead, that this sort of behavior was practically a commandment from Elder Maxwell.

You also write that:

he started Interpreter because he wanted to be able to control the narrative, funding, and what kind of scholarship was published. He went against the counsel he received from his leaders and, instead, has allowed his closest circle of friends (especially Midgley) to claim that there was a coup and that the leaders were the ones at fault.

Wow, so "Interpreter" is basically one big, extended act of insubordination? Do you have any sense of what Church leaders think of "Interpreter"? Back during their reign at the Maxwell Institute, I had heard multiple rumors about leaders warning them to "tone it down." Has this pattern continued now that they've shifted over to "Interpreter"?

[_Dr Exiled]

WMLdeWette:

This happened in 2012 right around the time of Romney's nomination. Is there a connection between the two? The church at the time was obviously trying to put on its best face and having loose cannons in a public role could have harmed the P.R. goals?

[_Lemmie]

This is purely my interpretation, and nothing else.

Lemmie, this is a fascinating reading and I can see how you came to the conclusion. You followed several dots and connected them, but unfortunately no, Morgan Davis was not the letter writer that Peterson and Midgley have long claimed showed Peterson was in the right.

Thank you for your comment! I don’t mind being shown wrong at all, and thank you for the new information, utterly fascinating.

I agree with Doctor Scratch and Kishkumen that is must be sad and a little disturbing for the actual letter writer in question to see their comments misconstrued by Peterson and Midgley.