Although Bill Hamblin posted John Dehlin’s reply on his blog, mine doesn’t seem to be making the cut (Hamblin moderates his blog’s activity). So for those interested, here is the reply that I submitted to Hamblin’s blog...

********************

For you, Bill, Bradford isn’t “a bad person,” but he is “a less than competent administrator” (“a view shared,” you tell us, “by MANY other people”).

You don’t merely “disagree” with Bradford you “disagree RADICALLY.” Bradford’s inability to contain all leaks within the Maxwell Institute doesn’t merely evince “negligence” but “DISASTROUS negligence.” His behavior in firing Dan Peterson isn’t just “shameful” it’s “ABSOLUTELY shameful.” Bradford’s initiation of a new vision isn’t just “immoral” it’s “FUNDAMENTALLY immoral,” not just “wrong” but “FUNDAMENTALLY wrong.”

“[A] less than competent administrator” who exhibits “disastrous negligence” and engages in “fundamentally immoral” behavior sounds like “a bad person” to me.

At what point does the “classic-FARMS” guard recognize that such acrimonious rhetoric has contributed to their now-official marginalization?

********************

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the only thing that will shake some sense into them is formal Church discipline: disfellowshipping or excommunication. They won't listen to anything short of that. So I guess the question is: Was the Church more interested in doing this mainly for PR reasons--i.e., so that they could publicly divorce themselves from the "classic-FARMS" rhetoric? Or are they genuinely interested in curtailing the rhetoric?

Brent's presentation is always so wonderfully scholarly -- where as, I simply made a numbered list of pretty much the same content in another thread.

I think church discipline is right around the corner for those guys. This is the perfect opportunity for the brethren to clamp down on apologists and put them in their place before they cause further embarrassment to the BYU flagship. I'm sure the brethren are right now behind the scenes putting a plan together to oust Hamblin. The LDS church is taking it on the chin because of these wild school teachers that need to be put in their place.

I vote to disfellowship them. No partaking of the sacrament for 3 months and no public prayers or testimonies.

Paul O

Firing dan by email was a disgrace and should be condemned by everyone. However, I can see why the exmormons here are in glee mood because of it. You all think that MI is heading for fall as it changes from apologetics to something more benign.

Yeah, these guys need to undergo a Council of Love. They're out of control.

- VRDRC

Yeah, these guys need to undergo a Council of Love. They're out of control.

- VRDRC

I must have missed that - where are the exmormons "in glee mood" because the firing was done by email?


I think you are ignoring the evidence of your own eyes. Clearly not "all" think "that MI is heading for [a] fall" - some notable individuals are looking forward to a different kind of MI, but still a healthy one.

btw, how is your demonstration shaping up? Are you planning to lead it yourself?

Look in the mirror and see the exmormons here in glee mood. They are standing right behind you.

Sorry, I don't see it. In fact, I've seen just the opposite in some cases - people from both sides of the divide seem to agree that generally, firing someone by email is not the best way to do it.

One reason for firing someone who is rather well known during the summer is because people are in vacation mode. And they are not in town. The summer is always a good time to fire someone who is known and popular. And to do it by email when that person is not in town or in the country is even better.

Difficult to get people together when they are scattered here and there in the summer. But...something will be done for Dan. It is not over until it is over. Boycott of funds, loss of subscriptions, petitions etc.

And so, Kevin's support Bradford thread is in bad taste?

Time for Clint Eastwood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFAiqxm1FDA

The roar of our engines.

Do you seriously think that Kevin is supporting Bradford simply because the firing of Dan was done by email?

And is this, for you, the most important factor in the whole affair? IOW, you're OK with the firing, just not with the medium?

As I have stated on MDD, journals change direction and with it, they change their editors. And at times their board. But it can be done in a kind way. And this is the way it should have been done with Dan. I think that Dan could have handled a call in, a kind talk about new directions, a thank you for wonderful service, and offered an advisory role on the board. But to have it done by email when he was away and then have the emails leaked, well...something stinks here.

I don't see what would warrant Church discipline, unless they can be seen to tarnish the good name of the Church, but even then, what would the charge be? Apostasy? I'm not so sure.

More likely, perhaps more scary, is the damage to Dan's academic reputation. I am not sure how BYU works, but I can't imagine his reaction and the reaction of his goon squad bodes well for his post in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages.

... and a demonstration with why me in the van?

Don't go all coy on us now - tell us where and when, and how we should dress etc. What should we write on our placards (and should we ask Dr Shades to check them for spelling, proper English etc)

Is it against the rules to protest a firing by email? And to disagree with it? Those responsible for this behavior of firing someone by email should get the discipline.

It may not be the best way to do it, but when you fear the bluster of the firee, it may seem reasonable.

Personally, why didn't he do it by committee, headed by someone like Tommy Monson or one of his direct lieutenants?

There you go again, with the "have the emails leaked"!

Can you come right out and say it clearly and plainly? Do you think that Bradford deliberately leaked the emails to people he knew were unfriendly to the church?

No more innuendo, please. Be clear and specific, and stand behind your "hints".