Update 06/23/12 8:00 p.m.
Facebook Group supporting Dan
Mike Parker over at the FAIR Blog has also now published an excellent post on the FARMS/MI issues.
Gerald Smith over at M* has a very good post on the FARMS/MI debacle–check it out.
Bridget Jack Jeffries over at Clobberblog has an excellent timeline on the FARMS/MI developments.
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
It appears FARMS, now the Maxwell Institute has fired Daniel C. Peterson, who has served as editor of the FARMS Review, subsequently renamed the Mormon Studies Review. Daniel Peterson, who holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) had served as editor for the Mormon Studies Review for some 23 years, since its inception.
Peggy Fletcher-Stack, of the Salt Lake Tribune broke the story in her column today:
As this “Mormon moment” continues to ratchet up public scrutiny of the LDS Church, Mormon apologists are assessing the best way to shield the faith: Play offense or stick to defense? Last week, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University, fired Daniel Peterson, who served as editor of the Mormon Studies Review since its founding 23 years.
Doctor Peterson responded with his thoughts on his own blog Sic et Non:
Since it has now been publicly announced, I suppose that I can break the self-imposed public silence that I’ve maintained, with only a couple of minor exceptions, regarding my dismissal as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, published by Brigham Young University’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, after founding it and directing it for twenty-three years.
This will be brief. I may or may not have other comments on the topic in the future, depending on how and where things go. I still want to be careful. I have no desire to injure either the Maxwell Institute or the University, and I’m not particularly interested in a glorious martyrdom. (There will, I fear, be grievous damage to the Institute, but it won’t come at my hands.)
The Maxwell Institute’s official response was much more generic calling the move a better positioning for the Review.
Doctor Peterson was less than thrilled at the dismissal, as well as the manner in which it came about:
It’s scarcely a secret that I haven’t received my dismissal enthusiastically. Thanks to somebody’s leak of two emails, this has already been all over the Web and I’m told it will soon appear, without my participation or involvement, in the mainstream media. I have personal reasons for being displeased, but this isn’t about my hubris: I know that nobody is indispensable. Much more importantly, I have deep concerns about the significance of my dismissal (and the reasons behind it) for the future direction of the Maxwell Institute. Moreover, on behalf of the roughly two hundred and fifty writers who have contributed to the Review over nearly a quarter of a century, I vigorously reject the insinuation that the Review was in a crisis that necessitated emergency mid-volume intervention, and that it now requires a post-Peterson “detoxing” period before it can be permitted to resume publication.
I was notified by the Maxwell Institute director, Dr. M. Gerald Bradford, of his desire for a change in the direction and approach of the Review slightly more than two weeks ago, just prior to my departure for Israel. He and I spoke for several hours, as I attempted to figure out precisely what he had in mind. I had some very substantive concerns, and was still rather uncertain about exactly what he was saying. However, he said nothing at that time about dismissing me as editor.
On Thursday, 14 June, though, I received an email, while I was in Jerusalem, notifying me that he was removing me as editor of the Review. It arrived completely out of the blue; I never saw it coming, though I now suspect, for various specific reasons, that it was the culmination of a long-prepared plan. Today, just slightly more than a week later, my removal has been publicly announced.
William Hamblin, Ph.D., a history professor at BYU, and a colleague of Doctor Peterson, posted his own version on his view of the events, on his blog:
There have been a lot of rumors floating around the internet recently regarding a scandal brewing at the Maxwell Institute. In order to provide a reality check and quell some of the more wild and brazen speculations of apostates and anti-Mormons on the fringes of Mormondom, I’ll provide the following summary of my understanding of the situation. Some of the details may not be completely accurate, but I have original memos or eye-witness oral sources for almost all of this information.
Last week, Gerald Bradford (bradfordmg@aol.com, 801-422-8619) Executive Director of the Maxwell Institute (maxwell_institute@byu.edu, 801-422-9229), dismissed Dan Peterson (daniel_peterson@byu.edu)–arguably the most prominent contemporary LDS apologist–as editor of the Mormon Studies Review, where he has served for twenty-three years.
This is the culmination of a long-term struggle between radically different visions for the future of the Institute. Peterson wishes to continue the traditional heritage of FARMS, providing cutting edge scholarship and apologetics on LDS scripture. Bradford wants to move the Institute in a different direction, focusing on more secular-style studies that will be accessible and acceptable to non-Mormon scholars. Bradford is especially opposed to LDS apologetics, which he wants to terminate entirely as part of the mission of the Institute. He feels apologetics should be done by FAIR (The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research http://www.fairlds.org/ ) or other groups.
Professor Hamblin continues posting updates with his thoughts on his own blog here; here; and here. There are several others he has posted if you just scroll down his blog you’ll certainly find them.
What has been most interesting, however, is the involvement of John Dehlin in all of this. Peggy Fletcher Stack noted in her article:
The tipping point against that approach may have been a 100-page article about John Dehlin, a church member in Logan who launched Mormon Stories, which welcomes those who question aspects of LDS history, practice and theology. Dehlin’s group has published articles about reasons Mormons leave the fold and research on gay members, among other topics.
After hearing about the piece, Dehlin called an LDS general authority, who was a personal friend. Eventually, Maxwell Institute director Gerald Bradford pulled the article from the journal, leaving a giant hole and putting it behind in its publishing schedule.
“I have had enough conversations with general authorities to know,” Dehlin said this week, “that they don’t view ad hominem attacks as a constructive way to do apologetics.”
The episode exemplified escalating tensions between the two positions — either to answer critics as Peterson advocates or to let well-reasoned scriptural scholarship speak for itself as Bradford hopes.
Now, John Dehlin is no stranger to controversy, by any means. Back in August of 2010, Geoff J. over at the Bloggernacle Times (where I once blogged long ago, and far, far away) wrote a rather critical post of John, which generated over 200 comments. I have likewise been critical of John, for some of his past antics.
But, this seems to take John Dehlin to a new level even for him. As Peggy Fletcher Stack noted in her column (above), the Review editors were to publish a 100 page, scholarly and footnoted report, critical of John. And, John, who welcomes and sensationalizes any criticism against the Church, and particularly its history was having none of that. John, is the critic, not the criticized. So, he did what any self respecting critic would do, and called in his personal chit with one of the Quorum of the Twelve who supposedly spiked the story, which has yet to appear and see the light of day.
I’m not certain how much of John’s story, as related in the Tribune article I actually believe. John, refused to divulge the name of the Apostle (or other general authority) to whom he appealed for relief. And, pretty much all of John’s quotes in the article are unsubstantiated. We have no way of knowing the article in question was as he described ad hominem–since John was apparently successful in spiking the story. It also seems a bit much to believe the entire editorial board which served the Maxwell Institute Review faithfully for over two decades would get tossed over a story critical of a guy who goes out of his way to stick his own fingers in the eyes of the institutional Church.
Say what you will about Doctor Peterson’s style of apologetics. Some will agree, others will not. Still, it seems to me The Review owed the entire editorial board a bit more courtesy than an oversea’s firing, and the readers more than an indefinite suspension of The Review.
I’m not certain who has the 100 page John Dehlin story (hopefully not missing like the 116 pages); however, whoever has it, I hope it is eventually published. I’m certain there are a myriad of blogs in the Bloggernacle that would publish it. Perhaps as some have suggested, FAIR might undertake to publish the paper. After all, a guy who is not at all shy about preening for self laudatory media exposure in the New York Times ought not be bothered by a paper critical of his own critical efforts. Maybe, John–you could use the material for a future pod cast? . . .
Other media and blog links:
What the Maxwell Institute Controversy is Really About
June 23, 2012 at 9:11 am
Is it any surprise that Dehlin can’t take what he dishes out, or that he’d suppress facts? I can’t wait to see the missing pages.
June 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm
No. No surprise at all . . .
June 23, 2012 at 9:56 am
It seems that Dehlin asked a GA to intervene to insure an article critical of him was suppressed. After all of the berating of the church authorities for not disclosing its history fully, it seems that he should come clean and fully disclose what his role in having Peterson sacked actually was. The amazing irony is that he constantly blames and accuses the church for hiding things, and yet he wants to suppress an article critical of his methods and accusations. He loves having the spotlight except when it doesn’t serve his purposes.
June 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Not likely Dehlin will do anything remotely similar to what he expects the Church to do in response to his criticisms . . .
June 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm
The issue is whether or not The Maxwell Institute was to continue to be an apologetic arm of BYU and indeed the Church. Obviously the decision was made by Church leaders at the highest level to change the mission of the Institute and to leave the business of apologetics to FAIR. It is also obvious that Petersen and his associates did not agree with the mission change; therefore, their jobs were eliminated. The way they were dismissed (via email and poor communications) reflects negatively on the Institute an its Director.
June 23, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Great summary post, Guy.
Two corrections:
1) I have read John Dehlin’s email regarding Greg Smith’s paper. Dehlin sent it to a member of the Seventy and invoked the name of an Apostle, basically saying, “I’d hate to have to get him involved in this.”
2) “Full Disclosure” (who didn’t see fit to even disclose his or her own name) commented: “Obviously the decision was made by Church leaders at the highest level to change the mission of the Institute and to leave the business of apologetics to FAIR.” Regardless of how obvious this may seem, it is completely and totally untrue.
June 23, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Thank you Mike for the corrections on this–much appreciated. The email to which you refer is it public? Anyway to get a copy of it? I’m sure John would be forthcoming immediately . . .
June 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Also, please note that John Dehlin is more than happy to criticize LDS general authorities for being wrong about gay marriage and Book of Mormon historicity, not teaching about Joseph’s polygamy in Sunday school, and dozens of other things, but he’s behind them 100% when it benefits him personally.
June 23, 2012 at 5:03 pm
And, this surprised you? . . .
June 23, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Mike @ 5: yeah, it’s almost exactly like someone who cheers the brethren on those issues, then criticizes them for spiking an article… Funny how that works.
June 23, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Nate: To which article are you referring? The John Dehlin review by Greg Smith? Is there any evidence at all that “the brethren” “spiked” it?
Someone in the know says no:
http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-will-of-the-brethren/
June 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm
[...] case it seems to designate an article critical of and damaging to Dehlin’s project. (See this pertinent commentary). Dehlin has claimed that a General Authority of the Church agreed with him that the article was [...]
June 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I think it is terribly sad that Peterson was fired, for it does not seem to have been done in a very good way, but I do not see why John Dehlin is to blame. I believe that we should be as honest as possible, but that does not mean I would not fight against someone writing lies or propaganda against me. If apologetics is about writting 100 page papers attacking people I dont want anything to do with it. I do not agree with everything Delhi does or says, but I do think that we as apologists for the church need to stop searching out people to attack. Attack ideas that you disagree with, but we shouldn’t be attacking people. Right?
June 26, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Brian: Interesting that you have not read Greg Smith’s paper, and yet you characterize it as “lies,” “propaganda,” and an “attack” on John Dehlin’s person.
Is it perhaps possible that Smith’s paper shares some important truths about Dehlin’s methods and operation that would help people see that Dehlin is not exactly what he claims to be? And that this could be done without attacking Dehlin as a person?
Perhaps the paper should rise and fall on its own merits. If it is true and useful, then people will be enlighted. If it is false and misleading, then people will condemn it.
June 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Sure, I haven’t read it, and thus I do not know what Smith’s paper says. I was not commenting specifically about his paper, more on the idea of it for me personally. Let’s say his paper does demonstrate with complete accuracy that Dehlin is a terrible horrible person; my point is that this says nothing about his work or his arguments. It just smells like a bunch of gossip, and I think we should try to avoid that kind of stuff.
June 26, 2012 at 3:15 pm
“Let’s say his paper does demonstrate with complete accuracy that Dehlin is a terrible horrible person; my point is that this says nothing about his work or his arguments.”
I completely agree with you. Which is why Smith’s paper does not argue that John Dehlin is a terrible, horrible person, and instead focuses completely on his work and his arguments.
It would be helpful if you could provide actual examples of when FARMS/NAMI has engaged in personal attacks. The claim they do is bandied about quite regularly, and yet specific instances when they have stooped to such tactics never seem to be produced.
June 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Mike, Have you read Smith’s paper?
June 26, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Just to clarify again, I did not say that smith’s paper was “lies,” “propaganda,” and an “attack.” I was merely saying that even though I try to be as honest about myself as possible, I would not want someone publishing an expose on me, for we all know that most of those, although they sound appealing and gossipy, tend to not be very accurate. Since it has no yet been published, all we can do is speculate, and I would like to give the board of Maxwell institute a little more credit. I think they probably had good reason to not publish the paper.
June 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Yes, I have read it. It’s quite good. And not a single personal attack can be found in it.
June 26, 2012 at 3:52 pm
I would like to read it, if you have access to it. I just can’t understand what it would say which would have real value, but I am open.
June 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Unfortunately I’m not at liberty to share it at this time. Mine is a draft copy for review only.
I’m hoping it will be published in some fashion soon.
June 26, 2012 at 3:19 pm
On the other hand, if you want to see a real example of an ad hominem attack, take a look at what Ed Firmage had to say when he found out Dan Peterson had been fired:
http://mormonscriptureexplorations.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/real-ad-hominem/
June 29, 2012 at 7:18 am
[...] sample of related posts and articles see: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, [...]
January 28, 2013 at 5:26 am
“Is it any surprise that Dehlin can’t take what he dishes out, or that he’d suppress facts?”
No surprise to me, either. I have experienced his selective use of truth and his censorship firsthand. At first, I thought that it was just some sort of server error. So, I posted some answers to attacks on Gardner and the Book of Mormon just to see what would happen.
It was not long before a number of my posts that responded to various false claims were deleted from the site and the site was set to moderate my comments whereas that had never been done before with my posts. Those posts that were moderated never saw the light of day and they, and several other posts were removed by Dehlin because they showed the baselessness of what he and his fellow unbelievers think about translations of ancient and other texts and how they “should be done” in regard to the Book of Mormon.
There was nothing in violation of the rules or unseemly about them at all. They simply exposed the foolishness and incorrectness of several of the claims and snide remarks of other posters who were attacking Brant Gardner on his stance regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. I wish I had saved them all so that I could provide many additional examples. They would have been most instructive regarding Dehlin’s motives behind his site.
One post in particular I reposted a few times in the same place, each time the post ending up lost in cyberspace as Dehlin deleted the post not long afterward. Might as well leave this post where it will see the light of day. Let the reader judge whether it merited moderation and deletion.
Someone named Jamie posted the following text:
Jamie on September 1, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Great interview and I enjoyed listening to a different perspective. There is so much that could be discussed and reading other comments there are some interestingcomments. However i am going to basic and focus on one thought. Brant suggested that the translation of horses was not a literal translation because the bom does not portray them doing horses things, other than eating grass. But in Alma chap 18 and 20it states getting the horses and chariots ready or preparing them. What are the horses being preapered for if it is not to pull the I chariots, which is what horses carried out as a task . in the 19th centuary the word would have been wagon not chariot. if they weren’t being preapered to pull the chariots then what were they being prepared for?
I posted in response:
D. Charles Pyle on September 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
For the record, in the ancient world deer also were used to pull chariots. Even in Greek mythology (as mentioned in Callamachus, “Hymn III to Artemis” 109, for example) references are made to Artemis riding in a chariot pulled by horned deer.
Preparation also likely including making the animals ritually prepared for various ceremonies and important affairs of State.
It is also important to know that not all chariots were wheeled. Don’t fall for the inane canard that all chariots at all times were wheeled. Book of Mormon chariots may have been wheeled but I do not recall mention of wheels in conjunction with these chariots. One fact that often gets ignored is that even though no evidence of larger scale wheels have been found (wood does not do well in acidic soils like in Mesoamerica) we know that Mesoamericans fully understood the principle of the wheel. Many wheeled toys and ritual devices have been found.
In addition, wars always are fought on foot in the Book of Mormon. There is no mention of riding horses into battle or of using chariots in battle–with the exception of scripture passages that were written in the Old World.
Just saying…
I also posted several variants of the selfsame post, over a period of weeks and with greater or lesser degrees of additional detail, some of which dealt with differing configurations of devices that were called chariots in ancient times, including what we would today call ‘sleds’ and ‘wagons’ but which were called chariots anciently. None of the posts saw the light of day and only this above variation have I preserved elsewhere.
But, the truth of the matter is that Dehlin vary much engages in censorship and hides things that conflict with his views in a number of instances.
February 24, 2013 at 5:48 am
[...] in June 2012 Daniel C. Peterson, was fired as FARMS/Maxwell Institute editor of the FARMS Review. Part and parcel of that controversy was the [...]
May 21, 2013 at 6:46 am
[…] case it seems to designate an article critical of and damaging to Dehlin’s project. (See this pertinent commentary). Dehlin has claimed that a General Authority of the Church agreed with him that the article was […]