New Interpreter Hit-Piece

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Lemmie »

Alive and well, definitely. In the mission statement for that bizarre anti-mask flash mob organizer, ‘Defending Utah,’ I think, they stated they were doing it for “these gems of our communities.”

In case that’s not clear, in weird-Utah-speak that apparently translates as “our precious mothers and widows,” and ”retired old ladies.”

Notice women are only defined in terms of their children and husbands, alive or dead. Beyond that, they are only seen as old and retired. Unreal.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:39 am
I'll admit I clicked on the link thinking it was someone impersonating Allen but I think it's legit. I'm pretty sure as Lemmie noted it directly contradicts a statement he made about peer reviewing most of the papers himself. I think it was an episode of their radio show where he said that.
Oh, it is only getting better, Dr. Robbers! This is turning out to be a sequel to the Blake Ostler Episode from last year, because all the old posts have been deleted, and we get this new message from the "real" Allen Wyatt:
Allen Wyatt wrote:To anyone concerned…

Someone is trolling this blog and this post. There are 2 comments made here yesterday purporting to be from Allen Wyatt. They are not. I know this because I am Allen Wyatt and I did not make those comments. In fact, to the best of my recollection, this may be the first time I’ve EVER posted any comments on FPR.

I would invite the blog owner(s) to compare the IP address associated with this comment and compare it to the IP address from the other comments. I would further invite the blog owner(s), if they need any additional information about this trolling effort, to contact me via my e-mail address which I provided with this comment.
Notice that he says "comments"--plural. A Freudian slip? And make what you will about the believability of his claim here re: IP addresses.

I do have to say that I'm disappointed that FPR would delete comments like that.
"[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: 6432
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Philo Sofee »

The New Soap Opera: As Sic et Non Turns..... :lol:
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: 21117
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Kishkumen »

moksha wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:48 am
Excellent point. For all we know, her writing instructions may have been to keep it simple and to cover the foundation blocks of apologetics: denial, pretzelized logic, and ad hominem attacks on the author. If those were her instructions, she fully complied.
I hear you. Yes, you and I could not even be bullied into writing such a review. Doubtless she must shoulder some blame for going along and writing it. That said, I recall with a certain bittersweetness the time when FAIR asked for my speaker's notes from one of my two Sunstone presentations and then subjected those notes to peer review without my permission, as though speaker's notes were the kind of thing one would subject to peer review. On top of that, the peer review was 50% farcical, as one of the two reviewers was Will Schryver, who had no clue what he was doing. Then, to add insult to injury, he broadcast right here on MormonDiscussions.com that I must be angry with him because he rejected my article(?), a stunning violation of double-blind peer review and a petty, unprofessional thing to do.

What I am getting at here, is that the culture surrounding so-called "scholarship" in the LDS apologetic community is so twisted and farcical that whatever a participant in that system comes up with is bound to be colored, or, perhaps more accurately, tainted by it. For all we know Dr. Easton-Black was hoping for more feedback from the editor, never received it, and then had the piece slapped up on the Interpreter blog without her even knowing the process was that far along already.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3444
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Dr Exiled »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:01 am
moksha wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:48 am
Excellent point. For all we know, her writing instructions may have been to keep it simple and to cover the foundation blocks of apologetics: denial, pretzelized logic, and ad hominem attacks on the author. If those were her instructions, she fully complied.
I hear you. Yes, you and I could not even be bullied into writing such a review. Doubtless she must shoulder some blame for going along and writing it. That said, I recall with a certain bittersweetness the time when FAIR asked for my speaker's notes from one of my two Sunstone presentations and then subjected those notes to peer review without my permission, as though speaker's notes were the kind of thing one would subject to peer review. On top of that, the peer review was 50% farcical, as one of the two reviewers was Will Schryver, who had no clue what he was doing. Then, to add insult to injury, he broadcast right here on MormonDiscussions.com that I must be angry with him because he rejected my article(?), a stunning violation of double-blind peer review and a petty, unprofessional thing to do.

What I am getting at here, is that the culture surrounding so-called "scholarship" in the LDS apologetic community is so twisted and farcical that whatever a participant in that system comes up with is bound to be colored, or, perhaps more accurately, tainted by it. For all we know Dr. Easton-Black was hoping for more feedback from the editor, never received it, and then had the piece slapped up on the Interpreter blog without her even knowing the process was that far along already.
I don't know these guys like you do Reverend, but, would they publish an article without letting the author see the final product prior to publication? Would they materially change the document and publish it under the author's name? In the legal field, that kind of conduct would or should get someone disbarred or at least suspended.
"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 

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:02 am
In fact, and with credit to Ben Park's neutral scholarship, "experiment" might be the perfect word for what Joseph did with Nauvoo polygamy.
Alma 32 and 34 support the methodology of experimentation. In a certain sense much of what has been done and is done in the church from its beginnings has had an experimental and/or experiential component/modeling attached to it. Polygamy. United Order. Temple ceremonies. Pilot programs, etc.

Experimentation is connected or joined to the hip with the concept of line upon line. Life and learning are composed of bits and bytes of interconnected experiences...or experiments...to see what works and what doesn’t. Trial and error. Looking at it from this perspective Nauvoo polygamy was in some respects an experiment. Through experiential means those that practiced polygamy were able to learn and grow in ways that may have been impossible to do otherwise.

Experimenting upon the word.

By the way, here is a podcast with Ben Parks that some might enjoy.

https://radiowest.kuer.org/post/kingdom-nauvoo

Regards,
MG

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10368
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Lemmie »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:44 am
Dr Moore wrote:
Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:02 am
In fact, and with credit to Ben Park's neutral scholarship, "experiment" might be the perfect word for what Joseph did with Nauvoo polygamy.
Alma 32 and 34 support the methodology of experimentation. In a certain sense much of what has been done and is done in the church from its beginnings has had an experimental and/or experiential component/modeling attached to it. Polygamy. United Order. Temple ceremonies. Pilot programs, etc.

Experimentation is connected or joined to the hip with the concept of line upon line. Life and learning are composed of bits and bytes of interconnected experiences...or experiments...to see what works and what doesn’t. Trial and error. Looking at it from this perspective Nauvoo polygamy was in some respects an experiment. Through experiential means those that practiced polygamy were able to learn and grow in ways that may have been impossible to do otherwise.

Experimenting upon the word...
So you agree with Doctor Scratch’s assessment of the use of the term then?

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21117
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:12 am
I don't know these guys like you do Reverend, but, would they publish an article without letting the author see the final product prior to publication? Would they materially change the document and publish it under the author's name? In the legal field, that kind of conduct would or should get someone disbarred or at least suspended.
Stranger things have happened in the world of academic publishing. I know of instances (non-LDS) in which pieces were substantively altered and published in that altered form without the author's knowledge or permission. Unethical? Yes! Unprofessional? You bet. Unheard of? Unfortunately, no.

In saying that, I do not know what happened here. But whatever did happen here was a terrible outcome for all involved. The best we can hope is that Dr. Park forgives Dr. Easton-Black and the editor of Interpreter. I wish we could hope for the retraction of the review as posted in error. That, indeed, would have been the smart thing to do--claim that an earlier draft was posted by mistake--and then post an improved version later. I think everyone would have accepted that face-saving gesture without too close a scrutiny. Now, however, it seems that Interpreter has doubled down on taking ownership of this, and letting their reviewers accept responsibility for their alleged aspirations to provide real peer review while spectacularly failing to do the same. Wyatt is happy to own publishing poorly executed, insulting, and demeaning pseudo-reviews (hit-pieces).

Still, having failed to pull their cheese out of the flames, they might still make a mea culpa and take the review down. Either Wyatt or the author may easily take that route. It would be classy to apologize. And, I think this would facilitate forgiveness for what can generously be called a bad mistake. I am not holding my breath, but it would be nice to see a correction of course when things have gone so horribly wrong. Also, I have to wonder why it is that LDS leaders do not intervene in some way. Is this what they want to encourage in the way of Latter-day Saint intellectual community? Because, seriously, things have to be pretty bad to result in this sort of shoddy performance.

In any case, we are, as we are far too often, being told that no one with any collegiality, experience, or aspirations to quality scholarship need waste their time with a rag like Interpreter.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:12 am
I don't know these guys like you do Reverend, but, would they publish an article without letting the author see the final product prior to publication? Would they materially change the document and publish it under the author's name? In the legal field, that kind of conduct would or should get someone disbarred or at least suspended.
Yes, the would, Dr. Exiled. We've seen firsthand testimony from Hauglid, Blair Hodges, and Kerry Shirts about the way that Mopologists editors "meddle" in authors' work. In both Hauglid's and Hodges's cases, for example, they were both pressured to add more critical material to their work--stuff that is along the same lines as the "nastygram" material in Easton Black's latest article.
"[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
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:25 pm
In saying that, I do not know what happened here. But whatever did happen here was a terrible outcome for all involved. The best we can hope is that Dr. Park forgives Dr. Easton-Black and the editor of Interpreter. I wish we could hope for the retraction of the review as posted in error. That, indeed, would have been the smart thing to do--claim that an earlier draft was posted by mistake--and then post an improved version later. I think everyone would have accepted that face-saving gesture without too close a scrutiny. Now, however, it seems that Interpreter has doubled down on taking ownership of this, and letting their reviewers accept responsibility for their alleged aspirations to provide real peer review while spectacularly failing to do the same. Wyatt is happy to own publishing poorly executed, insulting, and demeaning pseudo-reviews (hit-pieces).

Still, having failed to pull their cheese out of the flames, they might still make a mea culpa and take the review down. Either Wyatt or the author may easily take that route. It would be classy to apologize. And, I think this would facilitate forgiveness for what can generously be called a bad mistake. I am not holding my breath, but it would be nice to see a correction of course when things have gone so horribly wrong. Also, I have to wonder why it is that LDS leaders do not intervene in some way. Is this what they want to encourage in the way of Latter-day Saint intellectual community? Because, seriously, things have to be pretty bad to result in this sort of shoddy performance.

In any case, we are, as we are far too often, being told that no one with any collegiality, experience, or aspirations to quality scholarship need waste their time with a rag like Interpreter.
Some good points here, Reverend.

It seems to me that Wyatt is in a tough spot here. He's basically being used by senior-rank Mopologists at "Interpreter." Think about it: how often have we heard from DCP or Midgley or whomever else (even Easton Black!) about the importance of credentials? If you don't have a Ph.D. from an Ivy League institution or something close to it, then you are basically the scum of the earth. And Wyatt does not have a Ph.D.. He doesn't even have a graduate degree in the sort of field that you'd expect someone to have if they're reviewing religious "scholarship." So, why is he the one overseeing the editorial process?

To be honest, I think it's because DCP doesn't feel like doing it. It's a lot of work to crank out article after article, and complicating things further is the fact that they refuse to pay anyone for their labor. (Well, except for Skousen, who's now collected more than a quarter of a million dollars working on his silly "ghost committee" project.) And the senior-rank leadership at Interpreter must not care about the quality of the "scholarship" they're pumping out--because otherwise, why allow Wyatt to remain as Editor in Chief?

And yet Wyatt has made sure that there is a new article each Friday, and he does this for free. (Allegedly.) What a thankless task it must be--literally, since I don't think I've ever seen him get a single "thank you" on the pages of "Sic et Non," and in fact, DCP insulted him to his face on live radio! I dunno: if I was slaving away with zero compensation, and the person in charge was publicly depicting me as a kind of weenie/"girly-man," and never even bothered to thank me for my work, I think that I would take my business elsewhere. But, I guess that Wyatt is getting some kind of reward for this? Maybe it makes him feel empowered, or maybe he really craves recognition from the upper-tier Mopologists?

Whatever the case may be, I see this as perhaps the biggest liability for the Mopologists at the moment. Either Wyatt will need to be ousted, or there needs to be a rigorous public defense of his qualities as an editor.
"[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

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by mentalgymnast »

Lemmie wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:12 pm
mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:44 am


Alma 32 and 34 support the methodology of experimentation. In a certain sense much of what has been done and is done in the church from its beginnings has had an experimental and/or experiential component/modeling attached to it. Polygamy. United Order. Temple ceremonies. Pilot programs, etc.

Experimentation is connected or joined to the hip with the concept of line upon line. Life and learning are composed of bits and bytes of interconnected experiences...or experiments...to see what works and what doesn’t. Trial and error. Looking at it from this perspective Nauvoo polygamy was in some respects an experiment. Through experiential means those that practiced polygamy were able to learn and grow in ways that may have been impossible to do otherwise.

Experimenting upon the word...
So you agree with Doctor Scratch’s assessment of the use of the term then?
If the usage of the word ‘experiment’ stopped Bro. Hales in his tracks I would see that as unfortunate. It just doesn’t seem to me usage of the word ‘experiment’ is a problem.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7881
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Doctor Scratch »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:57 pm
Lemmie wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 12:12 pm

So you agree with Doctor Scratch’s assessment of the use of the term then?
If the usage of the word ‘experiment’ stopped Bro. Hales in his tracks I would see that as unfortunate. It just doesn’t seem to me usage of the word ‘experiment’ is a problem.

Regards,
MG
Well said, MG. I think that Hales over-reacted. If he actually cares about scholarship, then he needs to read on.
"[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
moksha
God
Posts: 22171
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by moksha »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:44 am
Looking at it from this perspective Nauvoo polygamy was in some respects an experiment.
Try this, then see if you can get away with that. The Parley P. Pratt experiment showed the limits to In Vivo Adulterous Polygamy, and the experimental focus changed along with the nature of firearms.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by mentalgymnast »

moksha wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:34 am
mentalgymnast wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:44 am
Looking at it from this perspective Nauvoo polygamy was in some respects an experiment.
Try this, then see if you can get away with that. The Parley P. Pratt experiment showed the limits to In Vivo Adulterous Polygamy, and the experimental focus changed along with the nature of firearms.
I’m not trying to get away with anything. That’s the way I see it. If you go back and read my post you’ll see that there are other examples where experimentation was/is part of the gradual/eventual building and evolution of the kingdom/restoration. I’m not sure why anyone would have a problem with that.

Rigid thinking?

Regards,
MG

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6126
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by consiglieri »

One would hope the God of the universe would be able to restore his one and only true church to the earth in the way he wanted, not through experimentation by the members. I think it is also important that Joseph Smith never characterized his doctrines and innovations as experiments, but as divinely revealed truths and directives from God Almighty.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6126
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by consiglieri »

But if Joseph Smith was wrong about that, what else could he have been wrong about?
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by mentalgymnast »

consiglieri wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:43 pm
One would hope the God of the universe would be able to restore his one and only true church to the earth in the way he wanted, not through experimentation by the members. I think it is also important that Joseph Smith never characterized his doctrines and innovations as experiments, but as divinely revealed truths and directives from God Almighty.
You may hope that a God would dictate everything down to the minutest detail. Not me. That just doesn’t seem to be the way that the world works. And yes, of course there are divine truths (if you believe in God) , but what would that have to do with the day to day implementation of polygamy, for example? Or the Law of Consecration? Or the temple ordinances. Or the welfare program. The list could go on.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by mentalgymnast »

consiglieri wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 12:46 pm
But if Joseph Smith was wrong about that, what else could he have been wrong about?
What was he wrong about? Implementing the law of plurality of wives? I think that Joseph viewed this through the lens of the Abrahamic Order/Covenant. If so, that potentially brings God into the picture.

But that wouldn’t in turn mean that God was involved with the everyday implementation of the practice. That becomes rather obvious when one observes in the historical record some of the bumbling that went on along the way.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Dr Moore »

The list sure could go on. Whether polygamy was inspired or just Joseph experimenting with an inspiration to love the women in his life? Where does the man end and God begin, and who gets to decide? If the deciding vessel is proven unreliable about some things (you know, pesky things we can now test and show scientifically), then what is to be done about the mystical, unprovable things?

I agree on Alma 32 can allow someone to gain perfect knowledge of, say, the goodness of serving others. But what experiment would you propose to know of a surety that the Book of Mormon is historical?

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8438
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by mentalgymnast »

Dr Moore wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:07 pm
The list sure could go on. Whether polygamy was inspired or just Joseph experimenting with an inspiration to love the women in his life? Where does the man end and God begin, and who gets to decide? If the deciding vessel is proven unreliable about some things (you know, pesky things we can now test and show scientifically), then what is to be done about the mystical, unprovable things?

I agree on Alma 32 can allow someone to gain perfect knowledge of, say, the goodness of serving others. But what experiment would you propose to know of a surety that the Book of Mormon is historical?
About the closest I can come to answering your question is by going back to a Primary answer/song.

Feast upon the word and search, ponder, and pray.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/mus ... g=eng&_r=1

It’s like Pres. Hinckley said, the sure evidence isn’t to found without the BofM, but within its pages.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: New Interpreter Hit-Piece

Post by Dr Moore »

I agree that evidence of the BofM as a spiritually inspiring Christian text is to be found within its pages. But my question specifically was what experiment would you propose to establish it as historically true?

The question clearly has relevance today to church leaders, because we continue to see assertions of Lamanite blood here, Moroni the angel there, and Christ in America as a critical event distinguishing Mormon Christianity from all others.

It can be ahistorical and still edify the soul wonderfully. The two are different questions entirely.

To me, the one and only difference is that if the book isn’t historical, then the group of men whose claimed priesthood authority descends from Joseph Smith have no more claim to God that any other spiritual advisor in the world. That also doesn’t take away from the book’s spiritual power, but it matters a lot to me when it comes to where I aim my devotions, time and resources.

Post Reply