Daniel C. Peterson Calls The Maxwell Institute Unethical

[_Drifting]

But what is new with anti's, lying is your trademark.

Paul H. Dunn was an 'anti', who knew...

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

We all have our ethics. Clearly Dan felt his ethics were not compatible to the ethics involved in the "re-alignment".

Hello ldsfaqs,

I agree 100% with your above post. If Dan feels his ethics were not compatible with the Maxwell Institue, then Dan clearly feels the Maxwell Institute is unethical.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Peace,

Wang

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm really having trouble understanding how what Peterson said can be construed as calling the MI unethical. He clearly disagrees strongly with the new direction the MI is taking. It would be perfectly reasonable to take the position that it would be personally unethical for him to go out and fund raise for the MI when he disagrees strongly with what it is doing without branding the MI as unethical.

[_Jaybear]

I'm really having trouble understanding how what Peterson said can be construed as calling the MI unethical. He clearly disagrees strongly with the new direction the MI is taking. It would be perfectly reasonable to take the position that it would be personally unethical for him to go out and fund raise for the MI when he disagrees strongly with what it is doing without branding the MI as unethical.

The language is clumsy, but it appears to me that he did not support the "realignment of the Maxwell Institute" for ethicial reasons, not as your read ... he could not support fundraising, for ethical reasons.

But, your charitable interpretation, may have been what Dan meant to say.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

It would be perfectly reasonable to take the position that it would be personally unethical for him to go out and fund raise for the MI when he disagrees strongly with what it is doing without branding the MI as unethical.

Hi Brad,

Good point. However, he didn't state what you wrote above. You're right though, Dan could have clarified himself about exactly what he finds unethical about the Maxwell Institute.

Instead, we are left with his clear and unambiguous statement that he finds the Maxwell Institute unethical. It's really inappropriate.

[_Doctor Scratch]

He means that he can't "ethically" support a Maxwell Institute that doesn't engage in polemical apologetics. He's said this repeatedly: he thinks that Elder Maxwell wanted them to aggressively defend the Church, publish "smear" pieces (he wouldn't put it that way, of course, but in essence that's what he means), and mock Chapel Mormons. Because Dr. Bradford and the Powers That Be want the MI to be more professional and scholarly, DCP felt that he had to quit, for "ethical reasons."

[_Res Ipsa]

It would be perfectly reasonable to take the position that it would be personally unethical for him to go out and fund raise for the MI when he disagrees strongly with what it is doing without branding the MI as unethical.

Hi Brad,

Good point. However, he didn't state what you wrote above. You're right though, Dan could have clarified himself about exactly what he finds unethical about the Maxwell Institute.

Instead, we are left with his clear and unambiguous statement that he finds the Maxwell Institute unethical. It's really inappropriate.

Hi Everybody Wang Chung,

I think it's ambiguous as hell. It's a horribly constructed sentence. Given the opening clause of the sentence, I read the word "support" as meaning "support as a fund raiser." My own practice is to give ambiguous sentences a "charitable" interpretation. I don't have the history with Peterson that most of you folks do, but it seems to me he's very good at digging holes for himself. I don't understand the rush to dig them for him.

[_Res Ipsa]

He means that he can't "ethically" support a Maxwell Institute that doesn't engage in polemical apologetics. He's said this repeatedly: he thinks that Elder Maxwell wanted them to aggressively defend the Church, publish "smear" pieces (he wouldn't put it that way, of course, but in essence that's what he means), and mock Chapel Mormons. Because Dr. Bradford and the Powers That Be want the MI to be more professional and scholarly, DCP felt that he had to quit, for "ethical reasons."

Hi Dr. Scratch,

Since the topic of the sentence was quitting his rule as fundraiser for the MI after being replaced as editor, I think he meant he can't ethically fund raise for the "new" MI because of his strong disagreement with the new direction. I think there's a significant difference between "I can't ethically fundraise for this organization because I don't believe in it's mission" and "I can't fundraise for this organization because it is unethical."

Ain't language grand?

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Personal attacks, and all responses thereunto, have been moved to the Telestial Forum. You can read them if you click here.]

[_Kishkumen]

Little Stevie Smoot to the rescue. He wonders why Dehlin didn't just take his smear like a good academic.