- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve stumbled across a brewing Bloggernacle Controversy that goes back about a month. Apparently, John Dehlin heard a rumor about a “hit piece” on him was to be published in BYU Review. John contacted Daniel Peterson about it, as well as a GA to get it suppressed. This was back in May. If you’ve got a lot of time to read the messages (I read 6 of 29 pages), here is the background. http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24378 Then, Daniel Peterson resigned from the review, and his resignation/fired email has been published here. (Also quite lengthy, but not as bad as it is just a few days old.) It sure seems like the issues might be related, but it sure is based on a LOT of rumor.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57768-greg-smith-dan-peterson-john-dehlin-lou/ Anybody have any insights? (It feels a lot like the Mormon Matters implosion–glad I’m a spectator this time.)
It’s sad – very sad. I think it was totally different than MM in that they had no existing relationship. This was Peterson being a big dumb bully, IMO. John appealed to the authority of his high level supporters even in the Q12, which was a masterstroke reply as all Peterson had was his self-righteousness and his straw man argument. IMO, John didn’t deserve any of this. The MM sitch was a difference of opinion on the direction of the blog, and a miscommunication about admin policy, and perhaps a bit of coup-staging and knee-jerk reacting. I felt John was overreaching, and I wasn’t comfortable with activism, but he has a great heart, and I love the guy. I had heard about the “hit piece” months ago in back channels. I didn’t really pay much attention. I remember Mormon Stories folks saying they were going to work with various friendly people of influence to get the article suppressed. Those kinds of articles really aren’t helpful to the overall community anyway. It wasn’t going to argue Gospel, doctrine or history, but instead just be a tabloid style smear of personal information. I do not believe there was any intention to cause this level of trouble for Dr. Peterson. I don’t even really remember him being mentioned. It was someone else writing the article. And the only goal was to ask him not to do that sort of thing. What struck me was that I had just listened to the Peterson interview on Mormon Stories. They seemed to get along fine. But then Peterson refers to John as “the Stalker”, and it was astonishing to me the bad blood between the two. They played nice for the podcast. I haven’t listened to everything that Peterson has ever said, but he seems pleasant to me (I know others disagree.) As with John, I love his work, but the MM implosion was really handled badly. It seems these two are a combustible mixture. I’m still trying to figure out if the hit piece and subsequent resignation of Peterson are related. I feel it could be one piece of the puzzle, but not the whole puzzle.
I don’t actively follow DCP’s Mormon apologetics work. The times here and there that I have read his stuff online or in Deseret News or other Church publications, it rubbed me the wrong way most often. I had in my mind that he is very combative, and attributed it to his very long career defending the church online. The online world is a tough, scrappy place of “no holds barred” debate, especially the forum and chat world. My assessment (from admittedly very limited knowledge) is that DCP has had a very difficult time transitioning away from the old-school, pre-1990’s apologetic focus against anti-Mormon evangelicals and the arguments of mainstream Christianity. The real threat these days IMO comes from secularism and our own internal Church sources. The former nastiness against outsiders does not translate well when redirected inward towards our own brothers and sisters. I was pleasantly surprised by his interview on Mormon Stories. I wish more of
THATDaniel Peterson made it out to the public. He was funny, and seemed much more warm and caring. He is super intelligent and well educated (even if I disagree with him). I liked that podcast as well, even if I don’t know if I agree with him or not, I could tell he was well educated and well informed, and just has his way of processing things. I liked that about it. I liked the feeling that with the same facts in front of us, some can interpret completely within the framework of the church and be OK with it, while obviously others don’t. Hearing of his combative approach makes me less hopeful it works so nice and neatly (nothing does, right?).
Here’s an update. Apparently it is official. Peterson has been fired from the Review, and Gerald Bradford is moving it in a more scholarly, less apologetic direction. That is probably good news to many here. The bad thing is Bradford fired Peterson by EMAIL, while Peterson was fundraising in Israel for the Institute. That’s pretty classless.
Anyway, here’s Bill Hamblin’s take on the situation.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58099-my-assessment-of-the-situation-at-the-maxwell-institute/ Late add: Here’s a note from Daniel Peterson himself: (On page 5 of previous link.)
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58099-my-assessment-of-the-situation-at-the-maxwell-institute/page__st__80 They should have sold tickets to the drama, or at least had a concessions stand setup in the lobby for fund raising. So, many people say those who leave the church get bitter from it…can it also be said that those zealous apologetics suffer from the same? Daniel Peterson just posted a response on his blog: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2012/06/of-gratitude-and-its-expression.html I don’t care what you think of Peterson, Bradford looks really bad in this. How can he handle this situation so badly?
Quote:The formal statement mentions my associate editors — Louis C. Midgley, George L. Mitton, Gregory L. Smith, and Robert B. White — and pretty clearly implies that they, too, have been dismissed.
They didn’t even receive an email. The newly-posted statement on the Maxwell Institute’s website, I suppose, constitutes their notification and their thanks for, cumulatively, many years of service. (They have been absolutely wonderful.) One of them had written Dr. Bradford several days ago, asking whether he was to be canned along with me, but received no answer. Another called Dr. Bradford by telephone, but his call was not returned. One is traveling in Europe without Internet access, and still knows nothing about any of this (though his earlier calls to Dr. Bradford, regarding a matter that now seems to have been related, also went unanswered). My own emails to Dr. Bradford received no response, and their receipt was never even acknowledged.
For those of you who may be managers in either the public or private sector, a word of counsel: Don’t treat your employees this way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.