New Interpreter Hit-Piece

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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 PhD 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 PhD. 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.

[_mentalgymnast]

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

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

[_moksha]

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.

[_mentalgymnast]

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

[_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.

[_consiglieri]

But if Joseph Smith was wrong about that, what else could he have been wrong about?

[_mentalgymnast]

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]

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