From another board.

This is a very significant development and people who have endured DCP for the last decade or two will be very pleased. LDS apologetics at BYU will never be the same.

From: Daniel Peterson
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:18 PM
To: <[M. Gerald Bradford] xxx@xxx.xxx> [18 other recipients, redacted for privacy]
Subject: Re: Charting a new course

Dr. Bradford:

You've achieved your goal. I resign.

I resign as Director of Advancement, effective immediately. You've already fired me as editor of the Mormon Studies Review.

My wife predicted that you would pull this while I was out of the country -- just as you used my absence last year to suppress Will Schryver's writing without discussion -- and, in fact, you have.

I realize now, too, that you've been plotting this for some time, and that, naïve fool that I am, I didn't even realize that I was playing chess before I had been checkmated.

There is nothing you can do to prevent this from being an absolutely spectacular propaganda triumph for those who oppose the Institute and despise me, so don't bother trying. As a matter of fact -- since the Institute leaks like a sieve -- I had already read today (on an apostate message board) that there was soon to be a shake-up in the editorial leadership of the Review. They know about it, and they're going to feast on this for years to come.

The timing of my dismissal, coming immediately after my public crucifixion over the John Dehlin debacle, guarantees that it will be read as an institutional rebuke of me and all my works. You could have waited a bit so that that conclusion would be less apparent, but, of course, you haven't. Frankly, I'm not surprised.

With my sacking now, and with what I presume to be the simultaneous dismissal of Lou Midgley and George Mitton and my other associate editors, which follows the utter marginalization of the scholars who once made up the board of directors and the complete ostracism of Jack Welch and, most recently, the re-alienation of Bill Hamblin, the process of driving away those who committed so much of their energy to the creation and building of FARMS and the Maxwell Institute continues apace.

You think it healthy. I do not.

And let's not pretend that the delay in this issue of the Review, or the slowness with which recent issues have appeared, is the justification for this move. You've never raised the matter with me before. In fact, your own actions have significantly contributed to the delay of this most recent issue. (It's substantially complete, though, and the Institute owes my associate editors the proper fees for their services. It's no fault of theirs that you're spiking this issue.)

I regard this as an utterly wrong-headed and disastrous decision, and will not pretend to support it. And not merely because it will subject me to enormous and quite undeserved public humiliation. It's a betrayal of Elder Maxwell, who explicitly approved of what we were doing. "No more uncontested slam dunks," he said. But now we're returning to the status quo ante, under which there were and will continue to be plenty of "uncontested slam dunks." It's a brazen repudiation of the mandate given to us by President Packer, who, when he spoke at the dinner during which we were officially entrusted with Elder Maxwell's name, praised two specific aspects of the Institute's work: the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and its apologetic efforts. It's a betrayal of the promises we made to our leading donors, who explicitly asked us to do apologetics and, in some substantial recent cases, gave us major donations based on our assurance that we would continue to do so.

You place me in an extraordinarily difficult situation, as I'm supposed to be an advocate for a Maxwell Institute that, in my view, will soon no longer exist, and to maintain good relations with donors to the Institute to whom, in my opinion, we will now prove to have flatly lied. I cannot do that. I don't know what to do about the forthcoming Development Council Turkey trip that I conceived, since several of the people who are slated to participate in it are going, at least partially, because I persuaded them to do so.

I feel obliged to try to make it a good trip and to go, but it will, I think, be my last effort on behalf of the Maxwell Institute, and I won't solicit a nickel more for the Institute from any donors. Given their interests, I think their money should go elsewhere. And, though I won't be so disloyal as to solicit funds from them for anything else during the trip to Turkey, I will feel entirely free to do so thereafter. And I'll be vocal about why I no longer regard the Maxwell Institute as an appropriate recipient of their money. I will explain my resignation, and my reasons for it, in a note to members of the Development Council after the conclusion of the Turkey trip but prior to the October PLC meeting. I do not feel that I can do otherwise and maintain my integrity. I've built up a good relationship with the members of the Smith Family Foundation; good luck in maintaining that.

I agreed to give a private tour to the Holy Land -- the trip that I'm currently on -- partially in the hope of interesting a PLC donor in giving to the Maxwell Institute. We're getting along well, but I'm not going to mention the Institute to him any more. Nursing and Athletics are perfectly adequate continuing recipients of his gifts. And I think I can safely predict that, even without my saying much, you will, with my dismissal, instantly lose one very specific annual donation.

Please note that I have not resigned as editor in chief of METI. I will not let you have that so easily. I founded it. It was entirely my idea. I brought it into the Institute. You'll have to explicitly fire me from that position in order to get rid of me altogether. And I won't take it lightly when you do.

I understand that some contract issues may be affected by my resignation as Director of Advancement. I trust that we can work those out in a civil manner. Pending my dismissal from METI, I will insist that I continue to be compensated as a director in my role, which I will now have more time for, as its editor in chief. I also expect my usual fee as editor of the issue of the Mormon Studies Review that you've killed. It was finished and ready to go.

Very seriously yours,

Daniel C. Peterson
Tiberias, Israel



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 11:28AM by Susan I/S.

Who is daniel petersen?

He's a BYU professor of ancient languages and Mormon Apologist. Bascially, he's the equivalent of a modern day Pharisee.

Just a quick comment on this whole debacle. I remember John Dehlin saying somewherre that one of the many reasons people leave the Mormon church is becuase of the apologists and their pharisaic ways. Do you suppose that Mormon leadership is trying to remedy some of the reasons for why members are leave by shaking things up within the apologetics community? From my perspective, if this is what they have in mind, I don't really think it will solve anything at all. I mean with or without apologists like DCP, the church still remains a fraud.

On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:43 AM, [M. Gerald Bradford] <xxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:

Dear Dan:

I trust all goes well with your travels. I was hoping to hear from you on the Review before you left. Given how far behind it is, we need to decide its future and address our breach of expectations with its subscribers. Our front office staff are even now soliciting subscription renewals for a periodical that is now two issues behind schedule. And I'm unwilling to publish 23:2 as it stands.

I remain convinced that the time has come for us to take the Review in a different direction, along the lines of the prospectus I gave you. But I now realize it was wrong of me to ask you to accept and execute my editorial vision in place of your own. I value you as an academic colleague and I respect your right to pursue the research and publication projects you find inspiring and valuable. I will continue to support you in this regard. But what we need to do to properly affect this change in the Review is to ask someone else, someone working in the mainstream of Mormon studies, who has a comparable vision to my own for what it can accomplish, to edit the publication and devote whatever time it takes to make this happen. I plan to begin the process of finding a new editor right away. At the same time, I would welcome your continued involvement as a member of its soon-to-be-formed editorial advisory board. I believe you will continue to find much in it to commend, and it will be a better publication for your involvement.

I plan to announce that the Review will be on hiatus until this process is completed. In the interim, we will settle things up with our current subscribers. I want to make this announcement as soon as possible and word it the right way.

I’m sensitive to the fact that there are those who would love nothing better than to make something of a change in editors and I’m concerned that we not give them any grounds to do this. I would appreciate any ideas you have along these lines that I might include in this announcement. Please be assured that, while brief, it will be positive and will highlights the important things that the Review has achieved under your helm during the past two decades plus. It will also indicate that the recently christened Mormon Studies Review is going to chart a new course, with a new editorial team, one that will bring it explicitly in-line with the scholarly agenda of the Institute, that will ensure that it clearly complements the Journal and Studies, and that will further enable it to make solid, scholarly contributions to Mormon studies.

Please let me hear from you in the next week or so. I’ll make the announcement sometime around the first of the month.

All the best,

Jerry

Sounds like he was taken to the woodshed and asked to choose his own switch.

Wow, I read the letter Peterson was responding to as well. Sounds like his years of personal attacks against ex-Mos caught up with him.

What an undignified, whiny, ridiculous letter. I'd say unprofessional, too, if I saw the study and promotion of poorly constructed con-man fantasies as a valid profession. I'd be embarrassed for him, if he wasn't such a boob. Almost makes me wish for some kind of afterlife, so he could realize how foolish he's been.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 11:28AM by Susan I/S.

Do you get the feeling we'll soon have DCP giving us his version of Nixon's "Checkers" speech? "You won't have Dan Peterson to kick around anymore . . ."

While I doubt DCP's apocalyptic reaction to this will actually play out, I do hope it serves to discredit him among some Mormons. His style of "all is well" apologetics with tapirs and such is just pure anti-intellectualism. The more we can get Mormons actually thinking and doubting, the better off they'll be. And the fewer families and lives that will be destroyed by this awful church.

We don't want him. He was most useful as a deluded apologist. TBMs really got a shock with how much nonsense it takes to explain their "truth". Hope he goes back under his rock.

Remember Saul.

Geeeezus H. Kuh-rye-st, Dan's a petulant, whiny baby. It shouldn't be surprising that he uses the same tactics to interact with his colleagues as he has with apostates.

For years, Dan has been trying to humiliate apostates-- especially those who are more well-known, so his fretting and kvetching for paragraphs that the apostate boards (yay us!) will "feast" on his humiliation is a highly enjoyable irony. It's a little thing called your comeuppance, Dan-the-fired-man!

We will probably pick your terminated bones clean (and that's no small meal), but it may be an overstatement-born-of-narcissism that we will be feasting on it for years. Mentioning it for years? Yes. Enjoying it for years? No doubt. But feasting for years? I don't know about that. Unless you join us as an apostate, without such a prominent platform to spew your vitriol, you may very well fade into oblivion. You would hate that even more than the feasting, so QuichYerBichin and enjoy what's remaining of your 15 minutes.

Some of the "Oh, the irony" highlights for me:
Poor Dan feels marginalized. Welcome to our world, Dan. You've been a big part of trying to ensure apostates are marginalized by members. Feels kind of sucky, doesn't it?

It sounds like he will be leaving the Maxwell Institute, but he won't be able to leave it alone. He's going to "be vocal" about their dishonesty and misuse of money. This from a man who has been distorting information for years to hide the dishonesty of TSCC and their monumental misuse of members' money. He's turning into a bitter, offended Maxwell Institue apostate! Of course, his anger is justified righteous-indignation, while apostates anger is UNjustified UNrighteous-indignation.

He's angry he's given so much of his time to the Maxwell Institute and is being unceremoniously discarded. Hey, Dan. Haven't you bashed ex-Mo's for being angry that we gave so much time, energy, and money to the Mormon church just to be unceremoniously discarded? That one feels kind of sucky, too, eh?

He's going to try and destroy the testimonies that donors have of the truthfulness of the Maxwell Institute and lead them astray. Kind of like he accused apostates--most recently, Dehlin--of trying to destroy TBM's testimonies and lead them astray.

Finally, he will no long be accepting callings, errrr, assignments from the Maxwell Institute. In other words, he's going inactive. Dan, welcome to apostacy!

Do you think this was approved or even initiated by TheBrethren? It appears Dan is as expendable to TSCC as the rest of us. It must really sting when he's wasted so much of his career defending a sham that he must have known for a long time was a sham. What career opportunities exist for a fired Mormon apologist whose mental contortions make him look like a dope to his not-Mormon peers? Maybe a tell-all book! If he provides the real dirt, he'll make millions. Especially if he cranks it out before Mitt's run for POTUS is over. Chop-chop, Dan!

Yep. That's exactly how the cookie crumbles. Oh, the irony. Love it.

but yep. Live by the tard. Die by the tard.

(Shakespeare allusion, not the other one)

+1

The CULT won't stand behind a thing these self-important nobodies come out with. They are a distraction for the questioning that seems to have backfired given the multitude who attribute their discovery of truth to FARMS and the like - that is real truth, which is that the CULT is indefensible, even by people with letters after their names.

The entire cojcolds is a case of the inmates running the asylum. Joseph Smith spawned generations of people who can't separate fact from fiction. The apologists just keep adding to the stew, while we sit back and enjoy the show. Popcorn anyone?

That is an interesting development as they have been an infuriating, sneering, unhelpful group as long as I've known of them. I wonder what this "different direction" will be. But more importantly, I wonder what I'm going to have for breakfast.

1. What will the anti-Mormons say?

2. Will I get my money?

Looks like a personal tragedy for Mr. Peterson but I guess he had it coming.

In a few months, he'll be even more disappointed when he finds out his donors will be loyal to the church and the MI after all.

DCP is a despicable POS.

I cannot remember who posted this the other day so please give them credit to this phrase..............Here's to the elephants!!!!!

Here's to the elephants!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eti21PVHXrg

To the elephants!

> deleted <



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 09:41AM by cludgie.

My brother worked as an executive for a "Mormon run" oil company in Arizona, and he told me that during their meetings they were clear in stating that the very reason that the company existed was to further the cause of TCOJCOLDS...

Believers take their temple covenants seriously and will give all that they have, or will ever have to Joseph's cult...

The money will continue to flow, but perhaps not so much of it into DP's pockets...

And perhaps a few less junkets to the "holy lands..."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2012 09:04AM by darksparks.

It's about time. I'm sure you wanted to do this long ago, but had to wait for approval from the higher ups.

can someone fill me in on what this whole john dehlin debacle is about?

From Daniel Peterson's Blog on June 15:

Quote

There’s no reason for us to like diseases, financial setbacks, wars, betrayals by friends, interpersonal hostilities, misunderstandings, physical injuries, injustice, unmerited humiliations, and the like. It must needs be that offenses come, but woe unto him by whom those offenses come. They hurt. They’re painful. And their costs are, many times, very high and quite permanent. However, they do serve to school us, to train us, to smooth and polish us (as Joseph said of the persecutions that afflicted him throughout his life) as we, stone-like, roll down the hills of our lives.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58073-dr-petersons-blog/

It sounds like normal University political infighting to me.

DCP is discovering, much to his dismay, that he's replaceable (as is everyone else.) It's a fundamental life lesson. It's a bit late in life for him to be learning that, but oh well.

The only "new direction" is leaving Daniel Peterson out. The defense of mormon doctrine will remain the same convoluted nonsense. This sounds like a personality conflict. What I've gleaned from Peterson, he won't let it go without making a public mess unless he is sufficiently remunerated for his silence, which I fully expect he will be.

The presidential campaign is having an effect on even the way the apologists handle discussions about mormonism. FARMS and Maxwell Institue and any other apologetics entity will be monitored heavily by the mormon leadership.

There is too much at stake for the LDS church in the political arena. They want to keep their tax exempt status as well as their religious imperialism in real estate holdings.

DCP is feeling the large boot of the LDS church. I have no sympathy for the man.