The Interpreter Radio Show

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Symmachus »

Tom wrote:Wow.....

Let’s get it on! Good fight, good night!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

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

—B. Redd McConkie

Tom
God
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Tom »

Doctor Scratch wrote:I think it's worth zeroing in on this:

Bizarrely, Peterson does what appears to be a mocking, high-pitched imitation of Wyatt's speaking voice: "I'm fine! I'm fine!"


It really occurs to me that this is *exceptionally* mean. Peterson is the credentialed, Ph.D.-holding "authority" figure in the room, and here he is belittling Wyatt to his face. Not only that, this was being broadcast all along the Wasatch Front. I think there is good reason to criticize Allen Wyatt and/or to take issue with things he's done, but this was just straight-up disrespect. People have observed in the past that DCP and the apologists are contemptuous of the "Sister in Parowan," or, really, anyone they see as being beneath them. Usually they make an effort to conceal that tendency, but here it sprang loose (and you can almost hear Peterson catching himself). This is yet more evidence of how true that observation really is.

That was a truly stunning moment. According to the standard narrative, Dr. Peterson was fired from his lifelong position as editor of the Mormon Studies Review in 2012 as part of a coup. Almost immediately, he spearheads the creation of a new apologetics organization and journal. Six years later, we learn that Wyatt is essentially working a second full-time job at the Interpreter as the journal editor. Before Wyatt, Jeff Bradshaw did the same. Yet, a reader will look in vain in the journal's pages for any indication that Wyatt is the editor. Wyatt does all the work and Dr. Peterson receives all the glory: Peterson publishes a rote introductory essay for the Interpreter every four months on the importance of doing apologetics and being a tool, and he lends support by calling Wyatt "every once in a while" to ask him how he is "doing."

Speaking of what he is doing, Wyatt says here that "[t]here is nobody who knows [Interpreter's peer-review] process better than me," noting that he "employ[s] a single-blind system of review." He goes on to confess:
We receive quite a few submissions. Some submissions I reject outright; they never make it to the peer-review process for any number of reasons. Of those that do, the majority are reviewed by 2 reviewers, while others are reviewed by more. (I had one paper for which I arranged 5 reviews.) I select reviewers based upon their qualifications in the topic area of the submitted paper. Reviewers do their work concurrently and are not aware if anyone else (or who else) is reviewing a paper. When I receive comments back from all reviewers, their comments are used to determine if the paper is rejected or not. Further, if their comments are positive in the aggregate, I pass the comments on to the author to revise the paper according to the comments received. (Before comments are passed to the author, any identifying information is removed from those comments; that is the nature of a single-blind system.)

It was an active decision on my part to NOT use a double-blind system.

Other remarkable moments during the show:

9:05: Gee says the Interpreter's "editorial staff deserves a lot of credit. The editorial staff has done a better job than some of the professional ones that I've worked with in academia." Gee doesn't name names.

34:23: Gee, discussing the new Gospel Doctrine curriculum: "It will be interesting to see how this works because it works a little bit differently depending on which unit you're in and how both the leaders and the teachers take it. I think we've often underestimated the influence that individual teachers have in the curriculum even though it's been correlated. Some of the individual teachers do their own thing."

35:07: Peterson:
I teach Gospel Doctrine . . . . I do it by systematically ignoring the manual anyway. [laughter] I probably deserve condemnation for that. [Peterson chuckles] What I do is I look to see the scriptural passages that are to be covered and I talk about those. . . . When I was serving on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for almost a decade, I was also teaching Gospel Doctrine in my ward. The stake Sunday School president came into the class. I didn't know who he was; I didn't recognize him . . . . and he realized that I was not following the manual exactly. I always cover the scriptures, but I don't cover them the way the manual wants them to be covered. And he came up to me afterwards and said, "You do understand these manuals are given by revelation?" And I said, "Well, before you go much further on that, you should know that I'm on the committee who writes the manuals." And at least with those manuals at that time, I just don't think that way. I could write them, but it's not the way I teach.

59:17: Gee, talking about a question he received at the FairMormon conference:
I was asked if I had any intention to respond to a certain critic's response to the church's Gospel Topics essay ... on the Book of Abraham. And somebody had written a response to that. I think you know that's a little bit like a non-Catholic writing a response to a section of the Catechism for the Catholic church. It just puzzles me why you would feel the need to do that. It's not your religion, you're not part of it, why are you so obsessed about responding to something that they teach their people. I don't see the need to respond to any Catholic material. And was I planning to respond to it? No, I don't really see the need to. And there's not really an appropriate venue to do that, either, because Interpreter isn't interested in getting into any slugfests and neither are the professional journals. This is mostly an issue they'd rather not talk about. That's fine.

Wyatt: We've gotten into slugfests before, though.

Gee: Well, no. Sometimes you say something that's controversial and people do respond to it. I was told--I haven't really seen it--that some people on Twitter--who weren't at the conference--exploded at my presentation before I was even finished. . . . I looked at the response that the critic had made, and I wasn't impressed with it. I'm not sure it merits a response. That is the sort of question you get, and it didn't really have anything to do with my presentation, but that's what's on people's minds. And if you have something on your mind, you can call us at 801-254-1640.
Beautiful segue by Dr. Gee there.

1:04:22: Peterson, talking about interviews he is conducting for an upcoming film on the Book of Mormon Witnesses:
Professor [John] Turner--who is, by the way, an exceedingly nice guy; he was a really, really nice person--he's written a book on the Mormon Jesus, but he also wrote a biography of Brigham Young, which some Latter-day Saints didn't take to all that kindly. In fact, he did bring up to me--he stuck around after the interview was done while we were taking down the equipment and chatted quite a while; he was very friendly--and he wanted to know how Interpreter was doing. And I said, "Well, really well." And I said, "we've published a lot of things. Some of them really good and maybe some of them won't stand the test of time." And he said, "Well, about that review of my biography." [Peterson laughs] He was not pleased because it had been somewhat critical.

Peterson doesn't mention whether Turner asked why a self-described "journal of Mormon scripture" reviewed a biography of Brigham Young.

1:05:29: Peterson:
The object is to do a . . . full-length film on the witnesses to the Book of Mormon . . . . It's going to be a docudrama--we have a preliminary script in hand by Mitch Davis, who's the same guy who wrote and directed "The Other Side of Heaven" . . . . We have most of the crew of the people who did the recent "Joseph Smith: American Prophet," the PBS film.

No word from Dr. Peterson on whether the casting call has gone out.

1:08:20: Peterson:
[Elder Pearson] realizes, the church realizes now that if the church comes out with a film on the Witnesses, it's going to be dismissed, upfront, as propaganda, one-sided propaganda, and it almost should be. It's not the church's mission to air criticisms and so on--that's not what it's about. We are actively going out of our way to interview non-Latter-day Saint historians to get their perspectives on the Witnesses, their experiences with the angel and the plates and so on. We want to hear those voices. Now I will not conceal the fact that I come down very strongly on the side of there having been an angel and real plates . . . . And I think the evidence will show that, at least point strongly in that direction. But in order to gain credibility, we want to go after the strongest counterarguments that we can find--not from the nut cake, fringe anti-Mormons who don't have academic credibility and they're not serious, but from people who've really given it serious hard thought but are not believers. What do they have to say? And we'll address those. I've let it be known that in doing this film, we want to address every single serious objection or concern or criticism or reservation that's been expressed about the Witnesses.
Last edited by Tom on Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Lemmie »

I select reviewers based upon their qualifications in the topic area of the submitted paper.

He left out that MI peer reviewers are required to not be hostile to the truth claims of the LDS church.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Gadianton »

There are some gems in there, Tom.

The last quote about looking for "real historian" feedback on the witnesses and plates and angels is interesting. Isn't that kind of like looking for "real mammalogist" feedback on the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot?

I wonder what their expectations are? He says they want the strongest counterarguments. I wonder how much time "real historians" are going to spend thinking about it?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Philo Sofee »

Gadianton wrote:There are some gems in there, Tom.

The last quote about looking for "real historian" feedback on the witnesses and plates and angels is interesting. Isn't that kind of like looking for "real mammalogist" feedback on the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot?

I wonder what their expectations are? He says they want the strongest counterarguments. I wonder how much time "real historians" are going to spend thinking about it?


I bet Phil Jenkins ain't involved because they didn't think of inviting him.... neither Michael D. Coe or Robert Ritner........ I'm just sayin'.....
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Gadianton »

Well that's just it, Philo, how are they ever going to receive the best "counterarguments" without judging the source as either an anti-Mormon or not familiar enough with Mormon Scholarship to have an opinion?

As far as witnesses go, they do have one promising avenue that I can think of. Maybe there are some Christian historians who are sold on the eyewitness account of the resurrection, and the apologists can use that against them. If you believe that eye witnesses establish the resurrected Jesus, where do the witnesses of the Book of Mormon fail to meet that standard?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Lemmie »

Good point philo. Iirc, Jenkins already expressed his opinion re: the witnesses. Let's just say he'll never get asked to peer review anything by Peterson because there is no way he can pass the "not hostile to LDS truth claims" requirement.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Philo Sofee »

Lemmie wrote:Good point philo. Iirc, Jenkins already expressed his opinion re: the witnesses. Let's just say he'll never get asked to peer review anything by Peterson because there is no way he can pass the "not hostile to LDS truth claims" requirement.


Yes, Peterson must load the dice before hand, or else the conclusion he badly wants just cannot be reached legitimately. They don't want a valid historical conclusion based on evidence, they want a faith based conclusion based on testimony. And now that Richard Lloyd Anderson has died, they will lionize and emulate and praise his work as the world famous and most powerful material of all, utterly unassailable. Unassailable, of course, because we already know they certainly won't get anyone who reviewed that book negatively in that film they are producing. (Eyeing Rodger Anderson's outstanding slaughter of Richard's biased carefully selected materials and conclusions)
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Tom wrote:1:08:20: Peterson:
[Elder Pearson] realizes, the church realizes now that if the church comes out with a film on the Witnesses, it's going to be dismissed, upfront, as propaganda, one-sided propaganda, and it almost should be. It's not the church's mission to air criticisms and so on--that's not what it's about. We are actively going out of our way to interview non-Latter-day Saint historians to get their perspectives on the Witnesses, their experiences with the angel and the plates and so on. We want to hear those voices. Now I will not conceal the fact that I come down very strongly on the side of there having been an angel and real plates . . . . And I think the evidence will show that, at least point strongly in that direction. But in order to gain credibility, we want to go after the strongest counterarguments that we can find--not from the nut cake, fringe anti-Mormons who don't have academic credibility and they're not serious, but from people who've really given it serious hard thought but are not believers. What do they have to say? And we'll address those. I've let it be known that in doing this film, we want to address every single serious objection or concern or criticism or reservation that's been expressed about the Witnesses.


Thanks for posting this, Tom. My God, what stamina you have. I am going to go ahead and go out on a limb and make a public prediction: this film will never see the light of day. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that, but you heard it here first. The movie will never be completed.

Earlier on in the thread, the Hon. Rev. Kishkumen complained about apparent lack of candor and authenticity, but I must respectfully disagree. This radio "program" was perhaps the most unguarded that we've seen DCP in quite some time. The nugget I've quoted above is a perfect example. DCP, ego-driven as always, fails to see all the pieces of the political puzzle even though they're right there in front of his face, and he is even spelling them all out in a very public way. I mean, think about it: "[Elder Pearson] realizes..." Huh? Why even mention a GA? What this tells you is that they've had to try to persuade the Brethren that their film won't drive people away from the Church, and/or that it won't make the Church look bad. (Are the Brethren helping to fund this Mopologetic venture, I wonder?)

Another reason why I think the film won't come to fruition is along the lines of what Dr. Robbers has said. I can't think of any way that they'll be able to stage the "counterarguments" in a way that's convincing. What, are they going to smear the historians who agreed to be in their film? "Oh, yes, Professor Z has dismissed the Witnesses' testimonies, but we happen to know that she's an anti-Mormon who watches pornography and drinks alcohol." "We acknowledge that Professor W. has a Ph.D. from Brown, but we can confirm that he's never read the Book of Mormon, by his own admission." They are, of course, going to cherry-pick whichever non-LDS appear in the film, and, really--I admit I was joking about the *type* of smear that's likely to appear, but in all honesty, what kind of "response" are they going to be able to mount against whatever supposed "counterarguments" they collect?

There is just no way that this proposed film can turn out well. Again, I want to emphasize that I totally, truly, sincerely *hope* that this movie gets made. But I really think that this is a really low-rent version of Jodorowsky's Dune: an insane, fever-dream of a project that seemed interesting for certain reasons, but was just not doable in the end. Just the way that DCP is pitching this--way blown out of proportion, far too ambitious: "we want to address every single serious objection"--spells disaster, imo. (And as an aside, doesn't it count as a "serious objection" if we have a problem with the ethics of the people who are making the film?)

If they *do* manage to make it, however.... Wow. I am thinking Heaven's Gate. Waterworld. Something akin to that. I am really hoping for an LDS version of The Room: "John Dehlin! You're tearing me apart!!!!"
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Philo Sofee »

I dunno Scratch. When Peterson gets the bit in his mouth he can move mountains if needed. What this will do is utterly annihilate any authenticity or good scholarly acumen they are hoping and even imagining they have, once word gets out to the real historians what the film says and doesn't include and say or what they fail to analyze and why they ignore some things, or include others. It could be one of the best missionary tools for leaving Mormonism ever created,especially ironic since the dream is imagining flocks will gather to the waters of Mormon to be baptized. I will be truly interested in seeing what you, Jersey Girl, Vogel, Marquardt, Grindael, Shulem, and Analytics, Moksha, Kishkumen, Gadianton, Symmachus, Dr4Cam, Honorentheos, and many others, Lemmie, Kevin Graham, UnckeDale, and others analyze with what is presented. Hell I am actually going to pray to Elohim that he helps get it produced. I am quite serious. If it ends up needing money, we all need to step up and help fund it so they can put this out there since they claim it will be the most thorough and objective, lets make sure it gets looked at and see what they interpret as thorough and objective right?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22364
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:DCP and the apologists are contemptuous of the "Sister in Parowan," ...

Quien es la "Hermana en Parowan"?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21266
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Kishkumen »

Tom wrote:1:08:20: Peterson:
[Elder Pearson] realizes, the church realizes now that if the church comes out with a film on the Witnesses, it's going to be dismissed, upfront, as propaganda, one-sided propaganda, and it almost should be. It's not the church's mission to air criticisms and so on--that's not what it's about. We are actively going out of our way to interview non-Latter-day Saint historians to get their perspectives on the Witnesses, their experiences with the angel and the plates and so on. We want to hear those voices. Now I will not conceal the fact that I come down very strongly on the side of there having been an angel and real plates . . . . And I think the evidence will show that, at least point strongly in that direction. But in order to gain credibility, we want to go after the strongest counterarguments that we can find--not from the nut cake, fringe anti-Mormons who don't have academic credibility and they're not serious, but from people who've really given it serious hard thought but are not believers. What do they have to say? And we'll address those. I've let it be known that in doing this film, we want to address every single serious objection or concern or criticism or reservation that's been expressed about the Witnesses.


"The strongest counter-arguments we can find."

B.S.

What they want is Taves. Someone who has essentially ported in a compatible theology and dressed it up as "Religious Studies." Transubstantiation of the Gold Plates. Then DCP et al. can say, "Well, we don't exactly agree, but you can see that Religious Studies scholars do take this seriously as a real experience."

Well, you don't need to Catholicize the plates to accept that the witnesses had religious experiences. BFD!

The real questions reside in what the religious experiences of the witnesses actually mean. And the truth of the matter is that they could mean ANYTHING. What they mean to the witnesses is entirely conditioned by their context. I say that not to invalidate their experience by any means. I say that to argue the limitations involved in using their witnesses to forward arguments that their experiences have no bearing on.

Like, "Because these are credible witnesses who had actual visions of an angel and felt the plates, we know the Book of Mormon is an ancient record."

Sure, if by that you mean, "These experiences established their belief in an alternate history that isn't shared by anyone who does not believe in the book and is as of yet unsupported by a preponderance of evidence or shared by any non-Restorationist scholar," then fine. Yes, the witnesses were sincere in their experiences and came to believe genuinely in the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.

And so what?

This does not compel anyone else to believe, nor persuade any serious person to investigate the phony history of the Book of Mormon seriously in academic terms. So, really, we always stay at square one. You either believe because you want to believe or have had an experience that makes you believe, or you do not believe. If LDS people need to watch Ann Taves talk about the Transubstantiation of the plates in order to feel validated, then I suppose this film will have been well worth the time, money, and effort.

But in real terms, this film accomplishes nothing of scholarly value at all.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Gadianton »

The Rev wrote:B.S.

What they want is Taves. Someone who has essentially ported in a compatible theology and dressed it up as "Religious Studies." Transubstantiation of the Gold Plates. Then DCP et al. can say, "Well, we don't exactly agree, but you can see that Religious Studies scholars do take this seriously as a real experience."


This is a notable suggestion, but if they go this route, then how will they differentiate themselves from the new MI, who let's face it, can do religious studies better than they can, has the inroads, and already the implicit backing of the Church?

But sure, if the best "counter-arguments" come from the only credentialed folks who would dare accept the challenge for political reasons, and they challenge along the lines of, for instance, "we don't know if the Gold Plates qualify to be transubstantiated" -- a total underhanded softball, then they have a shot at answering the challenge.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21266
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:This is a notable suggestion, but if they go this route, then how will they differentiate themselves from the new MI, who let's face it, can do religious studies better than they can, has the inroads, and already the implicit backing of the Church?

But sure, if the best "counter-arguments" come from the only credentialed folks who would dare accept the challenge for political reasons, and they challenge along the lines of, for instance, "we don't know if the Gold Plates qualify to be transubstantiated" -- a total underhanded softball, then they have a shot at answering the challenge.


Excellent point, Dean Robbers. I would amend my suggestion to leave out the "Religious Studies" term and leave it as "non-LDS scholars." Still, I think the overall gist is the same. Find a non-LDS scholar to say something that impresses upon LDS minds that other people take their foundations seriously, and the job is done. Of course, we can accept the fact that non-believers gonna non-believe. "Wow, if only they would! They are so close. How can they not believe in ancient Nephites if they've come this far already?!?!?!?"
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Tom
God
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Tom »

I received some fluids this morning and managed some further transcription.

1:09:46: Peterson:
I want to deal with those things. We'll confront them head on. And why did the Witnesses leave the church? We're not just going to say because they were proud and wicked. No, Oliver Cowdery left the church partly over early plural marriage.

Wait, what? Cowdery left the church partly over early plural marriage? I've looked through multiple manuals posted on LDS.org (Gospel Doctrine, institute, and seminary), and I find nothing to support this fringe assertion.

Peterson:
And we're going to talk about that--not at great length, but honesty, candidly, upfront. And the fact that he maintained his testimony of the Book of Mormon even after that, and ultimately returned to the church, is deeply impressive. . . . Whatever his issues with Joseph Smith or the early policies of the church or, you know, in Martin Harris' case, there were financial issues--the Kirtland Safety Society and things like that--they had reasons to be unhappy and, you know, frankly, few of us today have to put up with that kind of stress and strain. So, we're going to try to take a humanly, understanding, empathetic approach to them. But they would have insisted, just as we will, that their testimonies stand. . . .

[The film]'s going to take a while. It's partly dependent on funding. We've tried to do the interviews in a nice location that doesn't look institutional, you know, so we've had some kind people allow us to use their very nice homes, for example, to sit the scholars down and set up the equipment. . . . Well, one person asked, "Well, how long is this going to take?" The producer of the--well, I guess I am the producer; he's the...I don't remember what he is. I'm the executive producer--I've forgotten the titles. I'm the grand poobah and he's something else, the chief enchilada or something. [Wyatt chuckles] But anyhow, he said, "Well, you know, probably around 2020 or thereabouts." And she said, "Oh no, no, that's, that's too slow. We need to speed that up. People need this." She had listened to all the interviews and really liked them. That day we interviewed Susan Easton Black and Terryl Givens, and they were good interviews. She said, "No, no, it has to happen faster." Well, it has to--it takes money. I mean, at a certain point, we want to film on location in Palmyra and Missouri and so on. The best time to do it is probably in the spring, when the leaves are green and it's pretty comfortable. . . . or in the fall, we might do that. But we'll need to have money for that or then we'll have to wait for the next season. We're not going back to Palmyra to film in the winter. So if anybody out there has a spare $100,000 or something--or less, frankly--gosh, we'd appreciate it. This, I think, is going to be an important film. . . . I'm actively pursuing funding for Interpreter in general and for this film in particular.

Dr. Peterson says: "We are actively going out of our way to interview non-Latter-day Saint historians to get their perspectives on the Witnesses, their experiences with the angel and the plates and so on." From what I can tell, he's interviewed the following:

Richard Lloyd Anderson
Karl Ricks Anderson
Susan Easton Black
Richard Bushman
Terryl Givens
John Turner

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Philo Sofee »

Oliver Cowdery left Mormonism because Joseph Smith had an affair with Fanny Alger. It has nothing to do with polygamy, and absolutely everything with adultery with a minor. Or at least a very young woman. Emma told Oliver about catching Joseph and Oliver confronted Joseph. THAT is why Cowdery left. This is how I understand it. Peterson is already soft peddling! No surprise. It would have been tough enough if Joseph had just confessed to adultery AND repented and quit, but nooooooo, he then kept at it for the rest of his pea pickin life finding as many women as he could intimidate, coerce or convince to be his lover. And he got others involved with him in the most atrocious scenarios of secrecy one can imagine. NO, this is entirely U-G-L-Y.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21266
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Kishkumen »

This is an interesting if ultimately pointless comparison to make: "If we had lived then, would we have abandoned the Prophet?" So, yes, Cowdery leaves because his partner in the conspiracy is diddling teenage girls under his nose. But he comes back because he had so much invested in the Book of Mormon conspiracy in the first place. It's the most promising achievement of his life. What else is he going to do? At least this is interesting, and who knows where it will go?

Well, this is where the comparison falls flat. We know where it went, and very few of us have as big a stake in this as old Oliver Cowdery had. So when we find out about Joseph's habit of sleeping with the free help around the house, we say, "well, let's see, I pay ten percent of my earnings, go to boring ass meetings, listen to leaders who aren't very impressive, and I can't drink beer or coffee." The calculation of investment versus return is pretty easy to make. Why not reject the wild claims of the guy who was a serial adulterer with young kids, and save yourself time, money, pointless abstinence, and boredom?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Tom
God
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Tom »

Gadianton wrote:There are some gems in there, Tom.

The last quote about looking for "real historian" feedback on the witnesses and plates and angels is interesting. Isn't that kind of like looking for "real mammalogist" feedback on the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot?

I wonder what their expectations are? He says they want the strongest counterarguments. I wonder how much time "real historians" are going to spend thinking about it?

Not much, I’m afraid. Thus far, they’ve interviewed a single non-LDS historian. Given the film’s limited budget, I would suggest pursuing interviews with scholars who can wear two hats and have something new to say about plates and angels. We’ve heard from Bushman, Anderson, Givens, and the like so many times. How about hearing Warren Aston situate the testimonies of the three Book of Mormon witnesses in the wider ufological milieu (alien visitation accounts) of frontier New England ca. 1830? Or Jeff Meldrum could draw illuminating comparisons between 19th century Big Foot sightings and the earliest descriptions of Moroni by Mormons focusing on Moroni’s extreme height, strength, hairiness, and grunting (the last is understandable given the exertion needed to lug around tumbaga plates weighing 50 pounds).

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Philo Sofee »

Already the claim of Peterson is entirely lop sided, with only one non-Mormon scholar (who won't join the church I am willing to bet, so its all about niceties, not convincing evidence enough to make him say gosh yeah! This IS the truth after all!) All else is just the same Mormon historians/apologists... why doesn't that surprise anyone these days? Where the rubber meets the road it's not even a screech of the tires, they are flat and can't function. There is no traction here in the least.

This is Peterson apparently trying like crazy to get back into the high graces of the Brethren instead of being just another mere Mormon guy they are gonna have to pay retirement to from the BYU retirement fund. Perhaps if he gets enough volume he might be able to at least make a 70 in, oh say, another decade after he and his wife at least serve a mission somewhere?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Gadianton »

Wyatt wrote:Some submissions I reject outright; they never make it to the peer-review process for any number of reasons.

DCP wrote:...fringe anti-Mormons who don't have academic credibility...

What was Wyatt's Ph.D. in again?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

Tom
God
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: The Interpreter Radio Show

Post by Tom »

Kishkumen wrote:What they want is Taves. Someone who has essentially ported in a compatible theology and dressed it up as "Religious Studies." Transubstantiation of the Gold Plates. Then DCP et al. can say, "Well, we don't exactly agree, but you can see that Religious Studies scholars do take this seriously as a real experience."

Well, you don't need to Catholicize the plates to accept that the witnesses had religious experiences. BFD!

Bingo. I’ve been reliably informed by the film’s assistant super grande burrito that the following have now been interviewed:

Richard L. Anderson
Susan Easton Black
Don Bradley
Richard Bushman
Terryl Givens
Matt Roper
John Turner

In my professional estimation, the producers need to interview approximately 2.5 non-LDS historians to counter the faith-promoting rumors spread by Black. Who’s next? I recommend Spencer Fluhman, Steven Harper, Jeff Meldrum, Stan Larson, Warren Aston, Jerry Bradford, Bill Hamblin, Patrick Mason, Philip Jenkins, Nathan Hatch, Mark Noll, Kathleen Flake, Phil Barlow, Laurie Maffly-Kipp, Stephen Prothero, Randall Balmer, Alan Taylor, Brent Metcalfe, MormonThink, Loftes Tryk, Sandra Tanner (she’s a mainstream anti-Mormon), Kishkumen, Korihor, John Hamer, Grant Hardy, D. Michael Quinn, and Dan Vogel.

Post Reply