It is currently Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:47 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:53 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4055
Location: Mount Prospect, IL
Hey, look at that. Only January 1st and we've already got one for "Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2018."

_________________
My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4192
Location: Firmly on this earth
MsJack wrote:
Hey, look at that. Only January 1st and we've already got one for "Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics 2018."


Ha! Scratch take notice, MsJack hit the nail on the head with this observation!!!

_________________
"Being and nonbeing arise mutually. Thus not to see the unity of self and other is the fear of life, and not to see the unity of being and nonbeing is the fear of death." Alan Watts

"The problem is most religions proceed to try and explain the truth and then insist that you agree with their explanation." Brad Warner


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:50 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Posts: 12604
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Quote:
but far and away what interested me most was the disconnect between what I experienced in person at the ward and in these homes, and what I learned about Mormon identities on the internet.

I add my echo to everyone else's: Kudos, DoctorCamNC4Me, for finding this and bringing it to our attention! I ain't gonna lie: It feels good, man!

If anyone is curious why people are mentioning me so often, it's due in part to an essay I wrote back in 2003 or so in which I more or less identified the same things:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

_________________
There is a reason that most of the "revelations" Joseph Smith claimed to receive never made it into the canon, they were just policies that did not work out.

--Fence Sitter, 04-05-2018


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:13 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 7173
What a fantastic even-handed piece of work.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:34 am 
God

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm
Posts: 3185
It seems to be written with equanimity. However, why it was accepted as a thesis project in the first place is a little mystifying but I suppose there's lots of insular and odd topics used.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:16 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18500
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Yahoo Bot wrote:
It seems to be written with equanimity. However, why it was accepted as a thesis project in the first place is a little mystifying but I suppose there's lots of insular and odd topics used.


The evolution of strategies for establishing and challenging religious identities in cyberspace is not exactly an "insular" or "odd" topic. It is a huge phenomenon that is unfolding before the eyes of millions every day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:48 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am
Posts: 15218
For anyone interested, her chapter on the Dehlin hit piece is a fascinating perspective from an outsider's point of view. It's well worth the read.

It starts on page 104 with particular interest, for me, on her perspective of lay apologetics beginning on 115. Please note from the chapter:

Quote:
Because issues raised by former or dissident Saints threaten the Church, Mormon apologists engage in a kind of surveillance of dissident groups. When asked how they gauge what issues to address on their website, Scott Gordon explained that among other things, several FairMormon volunteers “monitor” various Mormon-related message boards (particularly those Gordon calls “hostile” and “anti-Mormon”), and then address issues that are frequently cited in
those venues.

This surveillance does not go unheeded. Members of dissident groups are cognizant that there are often "moles" in their midst, which they attribute to a Mormon culture of tattling rooted in a history of peer surveillance: since at least the mid 1980s, the Church has sanctioned a clandestine Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC), tasked with monitoring other Mormons (primarily but not exclusively their mediated writings related to the Church) through reliance on tips or complaints from other members, and then passing information to local leaders for potential disciplinary action (see Religious News Service 1992:5B, Quinn 1997:311, FairMormon 2014). By design, the SCMC has operated so surreptitiously that among some members it is thought to be little more than a folktale or byproduct of anti-Mormon rumor mongering. Although the existence of the SCMC has been confirmed by the Church, the scale of its operations has never been clarified or even hinted at, but that may be beside the point; just by virtue of its existence, it works as a sort of Panopticon for members, especially in online groups where potential lurkers might be operatives for the SCMC. On the other side of the coin, some orthodox members take surveillance and tattling as an acceptable and even institutionally encouraged behavior, effectively electing themselves to the SCMC by reporting suspicious or unorthodox behaviors and words to Church leaders. Members who are concerned about potential disciplinary action know to self-censor their speech to avoid the network of tattling that might lead to bishop notification of online dissent.


- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:55 am 
Stake High Council

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm
Posts: 549
In 2002 I had moved into a new area in the Salt Lake Valley and had entered a new singles ward. I was asked to teach Elder's quorum some time after having moved into the ward (could have been a year or two later as far as I can recall now) and as a bad internet Mormon I strayed from the material and taught what, as I recall, amounted to what came out in the Race and the Priesthood essay--that the ban originated from those members and leaders who were racists and not from any known revelation; that the explanations of the ban, though often spoken authoritatively, were wrong and thus aren't effective and have become offensive to our modern ears; that BY was the main culprit in beginning the ban; and that leaders, as McConkie put it, were speaking with less light and knowledge on the topic, when they spoke about it, than they should have.

I reported my teaching experience on an internet site only to be told, as time went by that I was an internet Mormon opposed to a chapel Mormon. I took offense, not wanting to see distinction and labels put upon me and my fellow church goers even though in some ways I knew I was seeing things differently. I recall arguing that the distinction is too hard to evaluate since as it turns out individual people are too complex to fit neatly in either category. Too many Mormons who frequent the internet sites and boards common to Mormon-related internet chat have positions and ideas defined as chapel Mormons and too many chapel Mormons hold closely to views found in both camps as well.

Looking back though, I am quite impressed that Shades put this out there, and articulated these observations so long ago. There was obviousness to it, even then, and I refused to see it and acknowledge it. I shall eat some crow.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 7856
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
I wonder if chapel Mormons know they are a dying breed?

Probably not since they are probably unaware of who they are.

_________________
"The lives we lead now are not dress rehearsals, they are the only performance we have. Therefore what matters is what we have here, the people we know and and love and the good we can do for the world"
Sean Carroll


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm
Posts: 1243
Stem wrote:
In 2002 I had moved into a new area in the Salt Lake Valley and had entered a new singles ward. I was asked to teach Elder's quorum some time after having moved into the ward (could have been a year or two later as far as I can recall now) and as a bad internet Mormon I strayed from the material and taught what, as I recall, amounted to what came out in the Race and the Priesthood essay--that the ban originated from those members and leaders who were racists and not from any known revelation; that the explanations of the ban, though often spoken authoritatively, were wrong and thus aren't effective and have become offensive to our modern ears; that BY was the main culprit in beginning the ban; and that leaders, as McConkie put it, were speaking with less light and knowledge on the topic, when they spoke about it, than they should have.

I reported my teaching experience on an internet site only to be told, as time went by that I was an internet Mormon opposed to a chapel Mormon. I took offense, not wanting to see distinction and labels put upon me and my fellow church goers even though in some ways I knew I was seeing things differently. I recall arguing that the distinction is too hard to evaluate since as it turns out individual people are too complex to fit neatly in either category. Too many Mormons who frequent the internet sites and boards common to Mormon-related internet chat have positions and ideas defined as chapel Mormons and too many chapel Mormons hold closely to views found in both camps as well.

Looking back though, I am quite impressed that Shades put this out there, and articulated these observations so long ago. There was obviousness to it, even then, and I refused to see it and acknowledge it. I shall eat some crow.


Dr. Shades is a man ahead of his time. I think Ballard somewhat acknowledged the comparison with his stay in the boat speech a while back: Stay in the chapel where our false narrative reigns and don't venture out into that dangerous internet area where you could drown in a sea of reality.

_________________
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 2967
Location: OreIda
Quote:
Because issues raised by former or dissident Saints threaten the Church, Mormon apologists engage in a kind of surveillance of dissident groups. When asked how they gauge what issues to address on their website, Scott Gordon explained that among other things, several FairMormon volunteers “monitor” various Mormon-related message boards (particularly those Gordon calls “hostile” and “anti-Mormon”), and then address issues that are frequently cited in
those venues.

This surveillance does not go unheeded. Members of dissident groups are cognizant that there are often "moles" in their midst, which they attribute to a Mormon culture of tattling rooted in a history of peer surveillance: since at least the mid 1980s, the Church has sanctioned a clandestine Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC), tasked with monitoring other Mormons (primarily but not exclusively their mediated writings related to the Church) through reliance on tips or complaints from other members, and then passing information to local leaders for potential disciplinary action (see Religious News Service 1992:5B, Quinn 1997:311, FairMormon 2014). By design, the SCMC has operated so surreptitiously that among some members it is thought to be little more than a folktale or byproduct of anti-Mormon rumor mongering. Although the existence of the SCMC has been confirmed by the Church, the scale of its operations has never been clarified or even hinted at, but that may be beside the point; just by virtue of its existence, it works as a sort of Panopticon for members, especially in online groups where potential lurkers might be operatives for the SCMC. On the other side of the coin, some orthodox members take surveillance and tattling as an acceptable and even institutionally encouraged behavior, effectively electing themselves to the SCMC by reporting suspicious or unorthodox behaviors and words to Church leaders. Members who are concerned about potential disciplinary action know to self-censor their speech to avoid the network of tattling that might lead to bishop notification of online dissent.


It is information like this why I stated in the Pasterson plagiarism thread that the SCMC knows about Pasterson's plagiarism. Everyone who is anybody in the church, GAs, paid apologists, BYU officials, etc. know about Pasterson's plagiarism. They enable, protect, condone, encourage and give it their blessing. They have no honesty or integrity anyway no more than DupeCUtahPasterson himself.

What a farce the church is!

_________________
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:45 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm
Posts: 3185
Kishkumen wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:
It seems to be written with equanimity. However, why it was accepted as a thesis project in the first place is a little mystifying but I suppose there's lots of insular and odd topics used.

The evolution of strategies for establishing and challenging religious identities in cyberspace is not exactly an "insular" or "odd" topic. It is a huge phenomenon that is unfolding before the eyes of millions every day.

I guess if people write dissertations about a three word phrase in Milton, this isn't unusual.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:49 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18500
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Yahoo Bot wrote:
I guess if people write dissertations about a three word phrase in Milton, this isn't unusual.


Thank you for continuing to undermine your minuscule credibility.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:58 pm
Posts: 6998
Dr. Shades wrote:
If anyone is curious why people are mentioning me so often, it's due in part to an essay I wrote back in 2003 or so in which I more or less identified the same things:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm

Yeah - I read that here at MormonDiscussions.com some years ago and I remember being quite impressed by it.
Reading it for a second time just now, I find it even more impressive than I did back then.

Peace,
Ceeboo


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 18599
Location: Koloburbia
Doctor Scratch wrote:
... the Mopologists' "fan club"? (How extensive is that fan club, I wonder?)

The Mormon Apologetics Fan Club comes in four tiers depending on both the awareness that Mormon apologetics exist and financial contributions of the Fan Club members.

1. Backers - This group does not contribute financially and does not explicitly know that such apologetics exist, but they are presumed to be favorable towards such apologetics if they knew about these valiant efforts. This is by far the largest group.

2. Boosters - No contributions, but they know that Mormon apologetics exist and they approve of it.

3. Booster-Backers - May or may not financially contribute, but they know about Mormon apologetic efforts and have even visited the FAIRMormon website, read posts on the ever popular Mormon D&D board, and followed Dr. Peterson's column in the Deseret News.

4. Presidential Booster-Backers - Moderate to large financial donations. This group is conversant with cutting-edge Mormon apologetics. They have books by treasured authors, such as Dr. Peterson and others on their bookshelves. Many receive thank you letters from FAIRMormon and the Mormon Interpreter. A select number are on Dr. Peterson's Christmas card list. This group receives the full blessings and benefits that come with being a Presidential Booster-Backer in the Mormon Apologetics Fan Club. They are entitled to free valet parking at the annual FAIRMormon Conference held at the Higbee-Lee Ford Dealership Showroom in Springville, Utah each August.

Hope that helps.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:13 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:51 pm
Posts: 916
Dr. Shades wrote:
Quote:
but far and away what interested me most was the disconnect between what I experienced in person at the ward and in these homes, and what I learned about Mormon identities on the internet.

I add my echo to everyone else's: Kudos, DoctorCamNC4Me, for finding this and bringing it to our attention! I ain't gonna lie: It feels good, man!

If anyone is curious why people are mentioning me so often, it's due in part to an essay I wrote back in 2003 or so in which I more or less identified the same things:

http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm


It would be interesting to see what percentage of Mormons would answer each of the differentiations as Chapel Mormons and as Internet Mormons. The essay itself is prophetic. Cool, Shades. :cool:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 2950
Location: Unassigned Lands
Yahoo Bot wrote:
It seems to be written with equanimity. However, why it was accepted as a thesis project in the first place is a little mystifying but I suppose there's lots of insular and odd topics used.

Insular and odd, that's the risk you take when you do a project on Mormonism. Also a big risk with a Mormon-related topic: will anyone care in the wider world?

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:37 pm 
Anti-Mormon

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm
Posts: 5130
Location: In the Politburo
Yahoo Bot wrote:
I think I am correct. Memories fade.

I imagine you duties as the "director" of the Mormon Studies program at Claremont drain your mental energies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: Parowan, Utah
I am heartened that Dr. Shades is receiving the recognition he has long deserved—particular in light of the slander he generally endures from some quarters. And it confirms to me that the Mormon Interpreter can only aspire to be the Cassius University of believing Chapelites.

Kishkumen wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:
I guess if people write dissertations about a three word phrase in Milton, this isn't unusual.

Thank you for continuing to undermine your minuscule credibility.

In fairness, the great Hellenist Cornelis Ruijgh wrote a 1,100 page book on a single particle in Homer that is only two letters long (the particle τε, in Autour de “τε épique”: Études sur la syntaxe grecque). Perhaps finding this a bit excessive, a student of his opted to limit his own study of a Homeric particle to 300 pages, and he increased the number of letters he was interested from 2 to 3 (focusing on the particle περ, in Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and Description of the Particle περ).

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:17 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18500
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
In fairness, the great Hellenist Cornelis Ruijgh wrote a 1,100 page book on a single particle in Homer that is only two letters long (the particle τε, in Autour de “τε épique”: Études sur la syntaxe grecque). Perhaps finding this a bit excessive, a student of his opted to limit his own study of a Homeric particle to 300 pages, and he increased the number of letters he was interested from 2 to 3 (focusing on the particle περ, in Linguistics and Formulas in Homer: Scalarity and Description of the Particle περ).


No doubt Bot would find that equally stupid.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Internet vs. Chapel Mormon - UPenn Doctoral Dissertation
PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:48 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am
Posts: 711
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Enormously gratifying, on multiple levels. Kudos to Dr. Cam for the find, and kudos to Dr. Avance for her superb scholarship, and on earning her doctorate from such a prestigious university. I'd like to note a few things that stand out, such as this:

Quote:
In a scathing letter (40) in which he resigned from his position of Director of Advancement at the Maxwell Institute, Peterson referred to the event as "my public crucifixion" (Peterson 2012) and in August, during a question-and-answer session at FairMormon's annual conference, he expressed disappointment with the involvement of General Authorities in the debacle, saying it had felt like he, rather than Dehlin, "was the one being disciplined" (Daniel Peterson, FairMormon conference remarks, 3 August 2012)-- a term implying ecclesiastical sanction emanating directly from Church leadership.
(emphasis mine)

Wow! Did DCP really say that? This radically contradicts what he has been saying ever since--i.e., he has sworn up and down that there was *NO* G.A. involvement, and yet here we have this UPenn-approved dissertation saying that, no, in fact Peterson himself told *the entire FAIR Conference* that a GA was involved! I guess back then, so close to him getting canned, when emotions were still raw, he was willing to openly tell the truth. Later, though, he re-affixed his Mopologetic hat and the spin-doctoring has proceeded in full ever since.

I created a rough transcription of Dr. Peterson's August 2012 conference paper Q&A. Here are some excerpts from the Q&A:
Quote:
Peterson [chuckling]: I like this first question. [Peterson reads audience member question]: “How are you doing?” [audience laughter]

Peterson: It has been a fun few weeks. Let me be truthful: I’ve gone from deep discouragement to incandescent rage, sometimes multiple times on the same day. Okay, better not get too far into that one.

Quote:
[Peterson reads audience member question]: “Is it possible that some at BYU and elsewhere in the church feel that issues dealt with in apologetics should be dealt with, if dealt with at all, by the General Authorities?”

Peterson: I’ve never heard that at BYU. I remember being told once by a kind of mid-level bean counter at BYU—that’s how he was described by the president of BYU and I complained about it so it’s not my phrase—somebody told me that the Brethren really didn’t like FARMS because we were usurping their role. And I said, well, it’s funny that you should say that because I had just flown back to Washington, D.C.—it was actually for the meeting that photograph showed—on the plane with Elder Maxwell, and he was up in the—I was back in peasant class—he was up in the business class section. He came back and spent about two hours talking with me about what FARMS was doing. He was very excited, very positive about it. And so I said, “well, you know, I can promise you that Elder Maxwell likes what we’re doing,” and he said, in response, “well, he doesn’t speak for the Brethren.” [audience laughter] To which I responded—I have this diplomatic problem—“And you do?” [audience laughter] It’s probably what’s why what’s happened to me in the past few weeks has happened. [audience laughter]

Quote:
Scott Gordon hands slips of paper to Peterson and whispers to Peterson, "Do you want to handle these or not?" Peterson says: "Okay." Gordon adds, "You can do them or not do them. It's up to you." Peterson: "Okay."

[Peterson reads audience member question]: “Since this is a FAIR conference, would you tell us about John Dehlin and the alleged role of the article against him in the current crisis?” [Peterson chuckles]

Gordon: "There are two others like it."

Peterson: "There are two others like it. Let me read them."

[Peterson reads audience member question]: “When and where will the article on John Dehlin be published? Who has control over the publication of the article?”

[Peterson reads audience member question]: “Will Greg Smith’s controversial paper be published?”

Peterson: I assume that it will be. Probably not in this journal. [gestures toward screen showing image of mormoninterpreter.com website page] The person who has control over it right now is Greg Smith himself, and Greg is trying to—Greg is a very loyal Latter-day Saint—Greg is trying to find out what he should do. And you probably know that there was allegedly an intervention by an unnamed General Authority conveyed to President Samuelsen, which was conveyed to President—excuse me, conveyed to President Samuelsen, which was conveyed to Jerry Bradford, and then conveyed to me. What was said—you know, the game with the passing along the complex message, you know, through a chain of people—I don’t know what was said at that first level. I don’t know who said it. I don’t know on what basis we were asked—or were we asked—at that level not to publish it. I have no idea. We can’t tell. We’re trying to get some guidance on that. Actually, Greg is now. I don’t know what will come of that. It’s out of my control at this point. I will say that I don’t think that anybody involved in that decision—I know that Jerry Bradford had not read the article, President Samuelsen had not read the article, I don’t have any reason to believe that the person up higher in Salt Lake had read the article. Now, by the way, let me just deny here—I’ve heard some reports that I’ve been called into the First Presidency and reamed out, some that it was a couple members of the Quorum of the Twelve. These are absolutely not true; it has not happened. It has not happened. We were asked not to run that article. We said, “Okay, we won’t run the article.” That’s it. That’s as far as it goes. There’s no evidence of a General Authority assault or shutting us down. I’ve seen explicit reasons given as to why the General Authority shut us down. If those people know that, it’s more than I know. I have no reason to believe that General Authorities were involved at all, except in this specific case of the article about John Dehlin not going to press. In terms of my dismissal by the Maxwell Institute, I don’t know of any General Authority involvement in that. None. Absolutely none. Now, of course I’m lying because I read about myself online. [laughter from Peterson and audience] I actually said to my wife the other day, “Look, now I presume that an insane person doesn’t know if he is insane, so will you tell me: have I talked to the First Presidency and I just don’t remember it?" [audience laughter] [Scott Gordon points to someone in the audience and whispers something to Peterson; someone in the audience calls out something like "we don't know what you're talking about."]

Peterson: Oh, some of you haven’t been following this. Lucky you. [Laughter from Peterson and audience] Okay. John Dehlin is a person who has established a series of podcasts and so on who has been very influential in dealing with troubled members of the church. People differ on what he’s doing: some people see him as someone who’s really helped keep people in the church; other people say, “No, he’s taking people out of the church.” An article was written about John Dehlin’s online activities. He’s got a kind of growing empire of podcasts and, you know, things like that and conferences. And Greg Smith, a physician up in Alberta, did an article—at some length—analyzing—at considerable length—gathering up the things that John Dehlin was saying, his public statements and so on. And it presents an image of John Dehlin that is not—well, that some active Latter-day Saints, myself included, would find troubling about what he is doing and so on. Now people can differ about this.

I have to admit that one of the things that bothered me about it was the idea that an article was, in effect, suppressed. And I know that John Dehlin lobbied to have it suppressed. You know, one of my favorite lines out of this recent controversy is that someone said, on one message board, well, bottom line is that when it came down to it, the church disciplined Dan Peterson and not John Dehlin. I have to admit that [Peterson looks over at Scott Gordon] that’s how it looks right now. But it won’t last. So, anyway. That’s been the controversy. And that to my mind, was the precipitating event that led to this, but I don’t think it’s the fundamental cause because I think the fundamental cause was that there’s always been—and I didn’t realize how fundamental it was—there’s always been a disagreement within the Maxwell Institute between . . . two people, three people maybe—recent hires—and the people who founded the organization and so on and so forth about whether we ought to do apologetics. And the group that founded the organization are all now out of the organization.

Do I dare use the—okay, this is the way I see it. [laughter from Peterson and audience] Nobody will—it is a coup and I would argue that what you have here, basically, it’s kind of like Isaac Asimov’s story “I Robot,” or the movie, you know, where humans make robots to help them and gradually the robots take over. I don’t mean to compare these people to robots. [audience laughter] But the idea is here that the Maxwell Institute—what was originally FARMS—was founded by a group of scholars to do certain things—apologetics was part of that. It wasn’t all there was. It was never all it was. Gradually, the organization grew and got some major donations and so on and it became too big for a bunch of academics to run. We were busy with full teaching schedules and all that sort of thing. And frankly, we needed a certain amount of money. Hey, we’re clueless, we went into the field of academics because we can’t balance check books, we can’t manage our way out of a paper bag, right? And so we hired people to help us do that and then gradually—and it wasn’t malicious or anything; it’s the way universities run; some of it may have been malicious toward the end, I don’t know [audience laughter]—but gradually, the staff came to take over the day-to-day running. The scholars who founded the thing were gradually marginalized and eventually completely, completely driven out. And then the staff were left running it. And it turned out that some of the staff that had been hired didn’t like the purposes of the organization and have now turned it to make it more, as they see it, more academic. So, anyway. That’s a pretty frank assessment. I’ll probably rue this afterwards.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dr. Shades, Google [Bot] and 42 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group