Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_Yoda]

Can someone explain why it is wrong to refer to a woman as "she"?

Scratch is male. Would you enjoy being referred to as a "she" after making it clear time and again that you are a "he"?

I have to agree with Gad on this one. Give the "she-Scratch" thing a rest.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Wow, Brent. That was fascinating.

Maybe I'll read it all the way through sometime.

(Good grief! Fifteen years, and you're still so very exercised about this bit of trivia?)

Incidentally, Scott Faulring would have gotten an early copy because he was working on a project connected with (and largely funded by) FARMS and was in and out of the FARMS office. His having a copy simply doesn't prove that there was a vast press run and wide distribution of The Horrible Acrostic.

If it wasn't you, Brent, who went to the media, it was, I suspect, one of your crowd, who saw it as a potential ad hominem bonanza -- and so it has proven, within certain narrow circles, for a decade and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a certain someone at a Salt Lake City publishing concern. We certainly never had any reason to go to the press. And we didn't. Moreover, the press didn't really come to us, much, either. Article after article appeared without having questioned us. Finally, as you certainly realize, if our intent had been to publicly insult you, we were and are entirely capable of doing so directly and openly. An essentially invisible acrostic isn't a very efficient vehicle for conveying an insult.

[_Ray A]

Frankly, I don't know who would have picked up the acrostic unless they were informed prior to publication. I had the hardcopy of that issue, and that would have been the last thing on my mind. I do recall searching for it after learning it was in that copy, but I didn't find it, though living in Kangaroo-Land I would not have received an early copy. Who would think of going through the first letter of 18 paragraphs to find an acrostic? No one. If Dan let this go it was perhaps with the knowledge/belief that no one could find it unless informed beforehand, which appears to have happened. It was a "private joke".

Critics never joke about apologists?

So Dan is a "deceptive cretan". Is that the point?

[_Gadianton]

LoP,

That statement did not imply he would contact your ecclesiastical leader. He didn't threaten you. He was trying to get you to take a gander at your own wrong doings, and ask yourself if your church leadership would be proud of them.

Funny, your last statement. We see the white-hot rage behind those words, rest assured. And no one believed for a second you had brotherly concern for Mister Scratch when you stooped to charging him with mental illness in a cruel personal attack.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dan,

It's late. Tuck away your conspiracy theories and put them to bed.

But if you want some late-night reading to cure insomnia, see below.

————————————————————

Hi Mike,

Great to hear from you (and congrats on your first published book!).

Typically, a book like the Review (just like Dialouge) would be sent out in bulk to many people...

That's precisely my point. I suspect that some pocket (small or large) of FARMS subscribers received copies before the "recall" occurred. The California resident who received the RBBM in question didn't even know of the acrostic until a mutual acquaintance unbagged the cat in 2004 (or thereabouts).

Remember, Mike, I was the source of the recall—I know a bit more about what transpired than you may think (see the reproduced posts below).

Either way, it suggests that very few copies of the Review ever left FARMS and I think it supports Dan's recollection that possibly less than a dozen books were printed before the printing stopped.

Specifically, Dan claims that "fewer than ten" were "printed and bound" (see below).

As near-nirvanic as some may find this topic, I've wasted more virtual ink on it than deserved, largely correcting misstatements of apologists. Those looking for further light and knowledge can consult the following reproduced posts.

ZLMB—December 2000



Bill Hamblin's puerile acrostic is old news -- pretty damned boring, in all honesty. That said, I'm not sure what to make of Dan Peterson's hazy memory of events.

For the record, Bill Hamblin and I are not friends -- though at one time I had hoped we would be. In 1993 Hamblin and I corresponded on mistakes he had made in a FARMS preliminary report (see letters posted separately). Although Hamblin fixed some of the errors, my effort to initiate a dialogue between apologetic and critical scholars failed.

It was in this context that Hamblin published his monologue on my _Dialogue_ article. This was Hamblin's chance to correct me in a forum where I couldn't respond. As part of his critique Hamblin included an acrostic where the first letter of his article's initial paragraphs (excluding quotations) spelled out "METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD." Let's review the details:

Dan Peterson writes:

DP: <<FARMS never went to Sunstone or the Associated Press declaring that "Metcalfe is Butthead." (Metcalfe himself did, apparently.)>>

This is simply untrue.

I was contacted by the Associated Press and _Sunstone_, not the other way around.

Peterson continues:

DP: <<I noted the relevant fact that FARMS has never distributed anything that said "Metcalfe is Butthead." To which you, Shades, respond, "Yes, thanks solely to the fact that the presses were stopped and the offending pages hastily re-written.">>

DP: <<I wonder who stopped the presses. Who rewrote the relevant passages? Was it Brent Metcalfe? Not likely. Was it Sunstone? Doubtful. Was it "Dr. Shades"? Likely not. Who did it? Who COULD have done it, if not that mystical corporate entity, that evil unitary brain calling itself FARMS? So how would an individual's surreptitious insertion of an essentially invisible acrostic into a text demonstrate that FARMS as a whole behaved badly? Especially if it was FARMS that removed the acrostic?>>

Contra Peterson, in fact it was me -- at least indirectly.

I had heard rumors that Bill authored a review slated for publication in the FARMS's _Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_ that included an acrostic belittling Dan Vogel and me. When the RBBM was hot of the press it was distributed to FARMS employees and associates. I called my friend Scott Faulring -- then a FARMS researcher -- and asked him to read the first letter beginning with the first paragraph of Hamblin's review. He began: "M." We quickly stumbled on the first quotation. He began again, omitting the quotations:

"M -- E -- T -- C -- A -- L -- F -- E -- I -- S -- B -- U -- T -- T -- H -- E -- A -- D"

Scott was mortified. He called Brent Hall who in an eleventh-hour effort to salvage the dignity of the journal alerted other senior FARMS staff to the acrostic. The _published_ and _distributed_ copies of the RBBM were retrieved, covers stripped, and pages reprinted to obscure the acrostic. Scott later told me that the acrostic had gone to press with the blessing of the journal's editor -- Dan Peterson.

More from Dan:

DP: <<Admitting that you've never actually seen anything from FARMS that says "Metcalfe is Butthead," you respond that, by carefully isolating the first letters of several successive paragraphs at the beginning of a very lengthy academic article -- or by having someone else do it for you -- you HAVE managed to find ""METWHSFE IA BUTAHEAT.">>

DP: <<Wow.>>

DP:<<When I noted that "FARMS never went to Sunstone or the Associated Press declaring that 'Metcalfe is Butthead'" you responded that "FARMS didn't have to. It was in the original version of the review.">>

DP: <<So let me see if I understand this. The terrible public insult to Mr. Metcalfe came in a hidden acrostic that was never distributed.>><snip!>

Pure fabrication and Peterson knows it.

The RBBM had been _distributed_ (see on my conversation with Scott Faulring above).

On more than one occasion I tried to dialogue with Bill. Here's a sample invitation:

********************
BEGIN BRENT
********************

On the now defunct Morm-ant I suggested a major weakness in BoMor apologetics is the seeming ineptitude of some apologists in reading texts. William D. Hamblin's most recent FARMS publication is a case in point ("Sacred Writings on Bronze Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean" [Ham-94] [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1994]). In his latest apologia he continues his tirade against my _Dialogue_ essay "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book of Mormon Historicity" (26 [Fall 1993]: 153-84). Hamblin misrepresents my discussion on metallic plates in almost every detail (see "Apologetic and Critical Assumptions," pp. 156-57).

As of today (8/9/94), the list of SAMU-L subscribers includes Bill Hamblin. SAMU-L is a suitable forum for discussing these issues.

Bill, I'm prepared to discuss my research. Are you prepared to defend yours?

Cordially,

Brent Lee Metcalfe
BRENTMET@WORDPERFECT.COM

********************
END BRENT
********************

Here's Hamblin's response:

********************
BEGIN BILL
********************



********************
END BILL
********************

Yes, I didn't find his arguments too compelling either.

I haven't shied away from discussing my research -- I only ask that sense and sensibility govern the discussion.

Cheers,

</brent>

ZLMB—July 2004



Hi Scott [Gordon],

I have no interest in a protracted discussion on this topic, but I'd like to correct some of Dan Peterson's misstatements that you quoted. The second quotation is representative:



[Daniel Peterson:] I doubt very much that Brent Metcalfe actually felt a great deal of pain at the incident. If public humiliation had been a big concern of his, he wouldn't have made the unpublished acrostic a matter of public record by going to various news agencies with it, encouraging them to bring it to the widest possible audience. Until then, nobody knew about it. It was completely obscure, in almost every sense. Quite to the contrary, I suspect that Metcalfe and his associates loved it. It gave them a chance to divert attention away from the substance of the FARMS reviews and to direct public attention instead to a prank that, in fact -- unlike the reviews -- had neither been published nor distributed by FARMS. That unpublished acrostic may be among the longest-lived unpublished private jokes in American history. In this sense, the classic ad hominem tactic (a logical fallacy of irrelevance and diversion) adopted by Brent Metcalfe and his Signature colleagues has been phenomenally successful, at least in certain circles.


Here are a few salient facts:



• I didn't "go[] to various news agencies with" anything; rather, they contacted me.
  
  
• Similarly, I didn't "encourage[] them [i.e., 'various news agencies'] to bring it to the widest possible audience"—I don't even recall this ever coming up.
  
  
• Dan's repeated claim that the acrostic was "unpublished" is wrong. The acrostic was published and distribution of the journal had begun—both to FARMS employees and, as I recently learned, to regular FARMS customers (see below).
  
  
• Dan is also mistaken when he says that the acrostic wasn't "distributed." I alerted Mormon historian Scott Faulring to the acrostic after Scott had received his copy of the journal (he read the acrostic to me over the phone). Scott told others about the acrostic and journal distribution was halted, but not before some copies were sold to the general public. For instance, a friend recently shared with me digital images of the acrostic taken from a copy of the journal that a FARMS customer had purchased via snail-mail.


Dan's retort, "In this sense, the classic ad hominem tactic (a logical fallacy of irrelevance and diversion) adopted by Brent Metcalfe and his Signature colleagues has been phenomenally successful, at least in certain circles," strikes me as little more than, well, the classic ad hominem tactic. It's unfortunate that well-meaning folks have become the couriers of Dan's misstatements.

My best,

bReNt

ZLMB—July 2004



Hi "Pahoran,"

You barfed (yes, that's a whimsical play on "Pahoran's" style and should not be taken seriously):



["Pahoran":] This seems rather odd. Having worked for a publishing house, I know that stopping a production mail-out once it has begun is all but impossible. However if this alleged copy from an anonymous FARMS customer was an advance--i.e. pre-production--copy, then your story may make sense.


I, too, have more than a little experience with publishing and advanced reading copies, which often include generic covers, incomplete chapters, pre-proof typos, and so on. I've examined the journal that the FARMS customer purchased, and none of these elements are present—the only discernible difference was the obscuration of Bill Hamblin's acrostic. But lest you doubt, let me offer a sample image from the publicly distributed journal—perhaps you can identify modifications beyond the reworking of Bill's acrostic. Good luck!







["Pahoran":] Refresh our memories, please: who exactly is it that continues to bring this old ho-hum up? [snip!]


Not me. But what's more, who cares?! (I'm as bored with the topic as anyone; I just get tired of the misrepresentations.)



["Pahoran":] Oh, and having jokingly compared me to Gollum on this forum, do you really think you can legitimately complain about having been the "butt" of a similar joke, once, ten years ago?


Oh my—"a similar joke"? Well, if nothing else, "Pahoran," you are funny. For the record, there were other "jokes," including Hamblin's arrival at a FARMS board meeting sporting a Beavis and Butthead T-shirt. This happened after Bill had offered his "sincere" apologies for the "joke." And then there's the paper by William J. Hamblin titled "Vogel and Metcalfe are [sic] the Beavis and Butthead of Mormon Studies: An Evaluation." The content? A sentence ("Vogel and Metcalfe are the Beavis and Butthead of Mormon Studies") accompanied by a footnote ("William J. Hamblin, 'Vogel and Metcalfe are [sic] the Beavis and Butthead of Mormon Studies,' Beavis and Butthead Studies, 3/2 (1993):23-54"). This sentence and footnote are then repeated sixty-one times over five pages. Pretty damn funny, don't you think?

Cheers,

bReNt

ZLMB—July 2004



Hi "Pahoran,"

At the risk of sounding uncharitable, I responded to you for the benefit of those who are interested in something other than the fatuous speculations of some silly malcontent. I'm happy to let readers assess our credibility for themselves.

Hi Dr. Shades,

As I understand it, Bill Hamblin had originally intended the acrostic to spell out "Vogel and Metcalfe are the Beavis and Butthead of Mormon studies," but opted for the shorter "Metcalfe is Butthead."

Cheers,

bReNt

It's late. Sleep tight!

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Ray,

Your questions are addressed in detail in my latest posts.

Cheers,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray,

Your questions are addressed in detail in my latest posts.

I realise that, Brent. It was known prior to publication, etc. I read your post three times. My understanding is that you're not really deeply offended by the "private joke", and maybe like me you'd expect this from those who oppose your viewpoints, but you're more concerned about the post-publication defences/half-truths. Scott Faulring obviously didn't share DCP's/Hamblin's "sense of humour". Or maybe he could see it, but was concerned about offending you?

It was not in the best taste, that I agree with. But it's a tactic resorted to by both "sides". They did it covertly (so they thought). The public criticisms levelled against them have been nothing short of open and nasty, going as far as to include Dan's wife, of late anyway. I think that needs to be considered. It's just how both sides "play the game". Maybe Dan shouldn't water it down, and just say he got a good laugh out of it. But he'd never be forgiven for being human, would he?

[_Dr. Shades]

Brent:

Why did you call Scott Faulring right away and ask about the acrostic? Wouldn't it have been better to wait a week or two until all the copies had been bound, distributed, and otherwise mailed out of the warehouse?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's late. Tuck away your conspiracy theories and put them to bed.

It's scarcely a "conspiracy theory" to think that somebody notified the media.

Somebody clearly did.

But who?

Cui bono?

Not me. Not Bill Hamblin. Not anybody in the leadership at FARMS.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why did you call Scott Faulring right away and ask about the acrostic? Wouldn't it have been better to wait a week or two until all the copies had been bound, distributed, and otherwise mailed out of the warehouse?

Bad timing, that. The whistleblowers jumped the gun (to mix metaphors).