Interpreter Publishes Bokovoy Article 9 Years Later...Without His Permission

[The Stig]

DanielPeterson Mod Daved6 • an hour ago • edited

Daved6: "One must wonder, why was he not notified when it was decided to republish his piece?"

I didn't know that he wasn't.

Daved6: "That seems to be the height of disrespect."

David voluntarily presented his paper at an Interpreter conference. He granted Interpreter the right to publish his paper in an Interpreter volume, which we did. Years later, without making even the slightest substantive change to the paper, Interpreter decided to make it more easily accessible to a wider audience.

Would it have been okay to have notified him in advance? Sure. Was it necessary? I don't think so. (By the way, I wasn't specifically notified in advance when my previously published paper on "Mormonism and the Trinity" was republished two or three months ago in precisely the way that David's has now been republished. I happened to know simply because of my role in the organization.)

If you regard this as "the height of disrespect," you must live a very charmed life.

Daved6: "Also, since he indicated he disagreed with your decision to republish it without his permission, would you also consider taking it down?"

No, not really. The paper was given at an Interpreter conference and then, with David's ready permission, laid out and formatted and published in an Interpreter volume. We made no changes in it, and we didn't grant republication rights to a third party. It's not at all clear to me why we would need specific permission simply to make it more accessible to readers than it had already been.

Daved6: "Out of respect for him if for nothing else."

I think it arguable that the more disrespectful move would have been to silently suppress David's paper. Certainly we would have caught flak for that. Very possibly even from you.

http://disq.us/p/2hxe7hb

I find it eye-rollingly ridiculous that Peterson thinks the opposite of re-publishing someone’s paper without notifying or asking them is the silent suppression of said paper. His story about not being notified when his own papers are re-published is too laughable to even consider.

Those are the word games of a man who cannot admit the slightest bit of wrong in his actions.

[Kishkumen]

Yeah, I can't see why David would have cared if they had not published his piece. That's an odd way of thinking about it.

[Doctor Scratch]

As I recall, one of the main reasons that Dr. Peterson abandoned METI was because he "wasn't notified" about things--meetings, and that sort of thing. He was incensed enough over this that he abandoned what was essentially his "baby." Given that, he ought to understand why notifying Bokovoy would have been the right thing to do.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

As I recall, one of the main reasons that Dr. Peterson abandoned METI was because he "wasn't notified" about things--meetings, and that sort of thing. He was incensed enough over this that he abandoned what was essentially his "baby." Given that, he ought to understand why notifying Bokovoy would have been the right thing to do.

DtP makes a great point or two:

Defund The Police > DanielPeterson

Dan, “Not at its second, unchanged, publication. Why on earth should it have been?”

Because shouldn’t a 10 year old article be reviewed prior to publication to asses the current quality, accuracy and validity of its research? A lot can happen in 10 years in almost every field of study.

Dan, did I really just have to explain this to you? This doesn’t garner a lot of confidence for the Interpreter’s peer review process.

I can’t imagine how a scholarly organization would publish a 10-year-old paper without asking for the original author’s input re: the points made above. It’s baffling. I’m left to wonder, like others, if this wasn’t a jab at Dr. Bokovoy.

- Doc

[IHAQ]

Given the timeframe involved (9 years), it would have been prudent to check with the author of the piece that they still stood by what they said back in 2012. It is only Bokovoy's professionalism that has prevented Interpreter from having to make an embarrassing retraction. Peterson's excuse that Interpreter was simply making an already published piece more available, 9 years after the event and with no clear explanation as to why it was thought necessary or beneficial to make it more readily available 9 years later, is so laughably and obviously an untruth that it makes clear the man has zero professionalism and even less integrity (a criticism he will enjoy and take satisfaction from, which further demonstrates the point). A professional institution would not have made the "mistake" in the first place, but having done so would have offered the author an apology and offered to remove it.

The people associated with Interpreter should think carefully as Peterson tarnishes their personal reputations with his childish vendettas and petty back stabbing.

[Dr Moore]

As I recall, one of the main reasons that Dr. Peterson abandoned METI was because he "wasn't notified" about things--meetings, and that sort of thing. He was incensed enough over this that he abandoned what was essentially his "baby." Given that, he ought to understand why notifying Bokovoy would have been the right thing to do.

Pettiness is next to Godliness?

[The Stig]

One mister Adam Ford, Esq. has offered a rather scathing review of the actions of Interpreter on this matter (http://disq.us/p/2hxr16j). We'll see how long it lasts before it is deleted. In order to properly preserve history, I offer a copy below:

It is unethical for a journal to deceive readers or misrepresent the views of a scholar. Full stop.

When a journal republishes an article in a new format (as opposed to a run-of-the-mill reprint of an in-demand old issue or the mass online migration of an old dataset in original format) which article a scholar has repudiated on a subject on which the scholar has changed their views, at a minimum, the publishing journal should note that the scholar no longer supports the positions/views set forth in the article. It would also be ethical (and accord with basic professionalism) to allow the scholar space in the republished journal to explain their change of position.

But the law doesn't demand it.

The Interpreter is not here just moving its archives online. It is seeking filler content in its new publishing timeline by taking old articles one-by-one and republishing them anew. It is smart because each article is likely to gain more readership/exposure than would result from a mass online dump of old material. As they work through the old material, "This article was next!" Dr. Peterson assures us. But this is not an ethical defense. Because they are publishing anew the material, they have an ethical obligation to not deceive or misrepresent the current views of any scholar whom they are republishing.

The old article supports the agenda of the journal and Dr. Bokovoy's current understanding of the Temple and Jacob do not support the agenda of the journal. So ethics be damned; full speed ahead. It is obvious (clearly and without question) that what the Interpreter is doing here is unethical because it is likely to deceive its current readers as to the current views of Dr. Bokovoy. The Interpreter staff sleep fine at night because the Mormon God requires obedience, not goodness. It is not illegal; they own the content; they can do what they like with it. So many Mormons are unethical in similar ways, while still being "honest in all their dealings". This is another example of how Mormonism (an obedience mindset) stunts ethical growth (a love mindset).

In the end, the easiest way out of the quandary is to just accept and admit that BYU is not a academic university and the Interpreter is not an academic journal. BYU is a religious seminary and the Interpreter is religious propaganda. All the angst goes away once this is understood and accepted. Of course they choose their cause over scholarship every time the two conflict, they deeply believe in their cause above all else, including the ethos of the academy. Of course they don't care about the ethical rules followed by academic journals, they are not an academic journal. The ends justify the means (obviously) when the end is laying the groundwork for the literal building of God's Kingdom on Earth under the direction of ordained Apostles in preparation for a literal imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The ethical analysis of Dr. Bokovoy's concerns are literally nothing in this context. It builds the Kingdom to publish the old article; publish the old article.

[IHAQ]

Peterson's response to Adam Ford's eloquent comment is eye opening in that it shows Peterson has a very closed mindset. There is no room in his mind for reflection or to try and see the other person's perspective. He knows that even the original author sees the Interpreter's action in posting his article as troublesome and objectionable. Yet he entrenches his belief that he and Interpreter are infallible...

DanielPeterson Mod Adam Ford • 3 hours ago
AF: "It is unethical for a journal to deceive readers or misrepresent the views of a scholar."

Happily, we did neither.

AF: "The Interpreter is not here just moving its archives online."

Plainly. We're putting a paper online, at no charge, that was presented at one of our conferences roughly a decade ago and that, for almost the entire intervening time, has been featured as a video on our website and in a book that we still sell.

AF: "The Interpreter staff sleep fine at night because the Mormon God requires obedience, not goodness. "

That's a disgustingly vile slander, Mr. Ford. Not only against the "Interpreter staff" but against Latter-day Saints generally.

You were once better than this. (I think.)

AF: "So many Mormons are unethical in similar ways"

A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!
O wise young judge, how I do honour thee!

AF: "a love mindset"

Let me speak for everybody else here in saying how very honored we are, and how profoundly moved, that you have condescended to come here and model The Love Mindset for us.

I'll treasure this for years to come.

AF: "In the end, the easiest way out of the quandary is to just accept and admit that BYU is not a academic university . . . BYU is a religious seminary."

And, with equal relevance and logical rigor, that the Mississippi River flows northward and that chipmunks are vegetables.

AF: "and the Interpreter is not an academic journal."

Happily, there are excellent online resources for learning about non sequiturs.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

[drumdude]

the publishing journal should note that the scholar no longer supports the positions/views set forth in the article

Crickets from Peterson because he knows Interpreter is not a scholarly journal.

It is seeking filler content in its new publishing timeline by taking old articles one-by-one and republishing them anew.

Crickets from Peterson because the Interpreter has to keep its unbroken Friday schedule (which is very scholarly ).

what the Interpreter is doing here is unethical because it is likely to deceive its current readers as to the current views of Dr. Bokovoy.

Crickets from Peterson because he has personal issues with Dr. Bokovoy which he would rather deal with through the Interpreter than in person like an actual human being.


And the ramblings Peterson squeals in a pathetic defense:

I'll treasure this for years to come
the Mississippi River flows northward and that chipmunks are vegetables.
Happily, there are excellent online resources for learning about non sequiturs.

I can just feel the poor man losing it over the failure of Witnesses. He's been up all day arguing in the comments. As scholars do.

[Kishkumen]

It is unethical for a journal to deceive readers or misrepresent the views of a scholar. Full stop.

When a journal republishes an article in a new format (as opposed to a run-of-the-mill reprint of an in-demand old issue or the mass online migration of an old dataset in original format) which article a scholar has repudiated on a subject on which the scholar has changed their views, at a minimum, the publishing journal should note that the scholar no longer supports the positions/views set forth in the article. It would also be ethical (and accord with basic professionalism) to allow the scholar space in the republished journal to explain their change of position.

But the law doesn't demand it.

The Interpreter is not here just moving its archives online. It is seeking filler content in its new publishing timeline by taking old articles one-by-one and republishing them anew. It is smart because each article is likely to gain more readership/exposure than would result from a mass online dump of old material. As they work through the old material, "This article was next!" Dr. Peterson assures us. But this is not an ethical defense. Because they are publishing anew the material, they have an ethical obligation to not deceive or misrepresent the current views of any scholar whom they are republishing.

I think that the best practice would be to notify the author and ask him whether he is copacetic with the republication. If he is not, don't do it. The folks at Interpreter know full well that David is not currently a believing, practicing Latter-day Saint, so I think it was especially important for them to consult him on this republication. What did they expect his reaction to be? Probably exactly what it was. The folks at Interpreter are not dummies, and they have a history of stirring the pot by deliberately baiting people or creating situations that provoke a negative reaction. At this point, I think it is pretty obvious that attracting negative attention is part of the point.

Please note, at the same time, that the following note was added to the republished article:

[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.

See David E. Bokovoy, “Ancient Temple Imagery in the Sermons of Jacob,” in Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, “The Temple on Mount Zion,” 22 September 2012, ed. William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 171–186. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books ... -insights/.]

One cannot assume that the author necessarily holds the views he held back in 2012. Nearly a decade has passed, and people are liable to change their views, whether those changes remain within a believing paradigm or not. One can fairly ask: what value do these writings have regardless of the author's changing views? It may be that some people still value what he said then, regardless of what he believes now. The fact that he changed his mind does not necessarily mean that he was wrong at the time. Mind you, I am not saying that I agree with his views then or now. My opinion on their correctness or incorrectness is not what matters. I am talking about what the Interpreter crew thinks LDS readers might benefit from.

So, I think an argument can be made for the usefulness of re-publishing the material from the point of view of the folks at Interpreter. I think it would have been best to contact David beforehand and seek his consent, but I am not surprised they did not. These are the kinds of niceties that the apologists routinely ignore. They clearly operate with a different kind of standard of politeness than I and many others of us do.

In the end, the easiest way out of the quandary is to just accept and admit that BYU is not a academic university and the Interpreter is not an academic journal. BYU is a religious seminary and the Interpreter is religious propaganda. All the angst goes away once this is understood and accepted. Of course they choose their cause over scholarship every time the two conflict, they deeply believe in their cause above all else, including the ethos of the academy. Of course they don't care about the ethical rules followed by academic journals, they are not an academic journal. The ends justify the means (obviously) when the end is laying the groundwork for the literal building of God's Kingdom on Earth under the direction of ordained Apostles in preparation for a literal imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The ethical analysis of Dr. Bokovoy's concerns are literally nothing in this context. It builds the Kingdom to publish the old article; publish the old article.

I really take exception to this part. Here he went really overboard. Of course BYU is an accredited university. What DCP and his friends decide to do with their own journal published off campus and without the imprimatur of BYU does not invalidate the legitimacy of BYU as an institution of higher learning. That is a patently absurd claim. The journal is not an academic journal anyway. It never has been. One might call it scholarly in the broad sense of the word, but it is most definitely not an academic journal, and the folks at Interpreter like it that way. They operate outside of the academic realm on purpose, and I doubt they think that they are poorer off for it. Remember, they opposed FARMS moving onto BYU campus. There are costs that come with playing the academic game, and, depending on your goals, they may not be worth paying.

As for the Interpreter being religious propaganda, well . . . . DUH!!! And so what? There are lots of periodicals devoted to pushing this agenda or that. Since Interpreter is not an academic journal, it is obviously something else, and that something else is explicitly about supporting the claims of the LDS Church. The point is so obvious that calling the journal propaganda is far from a substantive criticism. All it is is mudslinging.

In fact, nothing he says here is surprising, informative, or worth the emotion he throws into it. Yes, Interpreter is not academic on purpose. Yes, its agenda is to support the LDS Church and its faithful or struggling members. No, it is not going to adhere to the kinds of academic practices that do not allow it to achieve its foundational goals. And, honestly, that does not make the people participating in Interpreter bad people doing something nefarious.

What does bother me is the pattern of provocativeness and rudeness. I think the provocativeness has dampened over time as people have complained about it fairly vociferously, but the kind of passive rudeness of this incident reflects on the personalities of the people involved. I do not hold all of the world of Mormondom or the LDS Church and its members responsible for all of the behavior of DCP and his friends. I don't think that what they do invalidates BYU as an institution of higher learning.

I get why we get these emotional reactions, and I have written more than one of these kinds of things myself, but I think this kind of screed is counterproductive. It really plays into the bad behavior of the apologists.