How important is peer review? How reliable?

[_Joey]

People like Peterson, and perhaps you, love to live in the isolated world of Mormon apologetics that is void of common sense. I have no doubt that is why Peterson (and you?) make a life in Provo working in obscure professions that tolerate book smart but need no common sense. The very difference between those who can and those who teach. . . .

While laughable, the ignorance displayed is really pretty sorry for those who claim an academic background. (Perhaps another warning sign for our educational system here in the U. S.)

The fact that we have dissemination of information, scholarship, publications, and everything else in life at the click of a mouse completely escapes bozos like you and Peterson. . . . Hence that is exactly why he teaches. Isolation and the ivory tower is great for guys like him, and perhaps you, where the reality of our world and common sense in thought process is non-essential. Tenure and having the church support you is much more critical. So go along to get along. . . .

I think even Peterson, as dense as he displays himself here, knows the answer to that question.

But let his lap dogs continue to come here and prop up his arguments and his spirits. He is a loon and continues to not only embarrass himself, but demonstrates the very weaknesses in our educational system.

Joey, do you have anything to offer to the discussion beyond sneering and pretended superiority?

[This guy Peterson is rich]

My apologies. As many here and on other boards have noted time and time again, "sneering and superiority" is really your turf. My apologies. I did not mean, in any attempt, to cloud title on your first lien here.

Now, back to topic: What professionals have expressed an interest in the works of Book of Mormon historicity by Clark/Sorenson??????

Maybe that's the answer: No need for peer review if we know it will never be read in the first place! Undoutedly saves Farms lots of time and outside expenses!

[_Mister Scratch]

For the Scartchmeister: Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Katunob, etc.

Hmmm. Let's see. The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities is edited by John Gee. Does it still count as peer review if you are reviewing your own work? As for Katunob, I wonder if you would be so kind as to cite text which would clue a non-LDS in to the fact that, say, the Sorenson article is, in fact, "Mormon" in nature.

[_Mister Scratch]

Do books count? Raphael Patai's book The Children of Noah, Jewish Seafarers in Ancient Times, Princeton University Press, 1998, actually has an appendix of John M. Lundquist about the Book of Mormon themes of oceanic crossings and the very valid concept of Jews having ships, using ships, sailing ships, and working with and in and by shipping in ancient times. After all, Patai *asked* Lundquist to include his views! And Princeton obviously does not publish New Agey Atlantis type crap.

Well, JustMe, is this posited as a mere theory? I.e., is it included as a kind of "interesting possibility"? Or, it is presented as something for which there is a lot of evidence, and which merits serious attention from the wider academic community?

The implications being the Book of Mormon theme *is* in a peer reviewed publication by a university press, and it ain't ridiculous. Mormons are not afraid of publishing our views, when they are allowed in the literature.

And that is precisely the problem: LDS texts dealing with the more controversial facets of Mormonism never make it past peer review (provided that they are ever submitted in the first place; I asked DCP about all the various journals to which these controversial texts have been submitted, and he demurred). It is one thing for Terryl Givens to publish a book *about* Mormonism with a prestigious, peer-reviewed press. That is fine and dandy, of course, since the book remains within the "Mormon" paradigm. It is not going to alter the secular world's understanding of anything major; the book will still be seen as "Mormon," and that's it.

What critics are asking for is that the more audacious claims of Mormonism (Book of Mormon historicity; Book of Abraham; Lamanite DNA) meet the demands of rigorous, academic peer review. So far, it hasn't, and indeed none of the TBMs have even supplied evidence or anecdote that LDS have ever even *tried* to publish this stuff in reputable journals.

[_Joey]

Did your venting make you feel better? This is why I rarely participate on message boards. It so much easier to make nasty assertions than it is to engage in argument and evidence. I see none of the later in your post.

Mike Ash
http://www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com

Looks like I shook your faith. After living w my TBM wife for 23 years and interacting with her family, I have come to see that truth and documented history does that to most in the LDS faith. She has gotten over it. I trust someday you will too if you ever have the freedom of thought and lifestyle that I have provided her.

[_Gadianton]

This has been laughed out of the courts thus far and is not really creationism in the peer reviewed literature for what should be obvious reasons.

Thanks EA, this has been most informantive. I think the "legal" aspect of peer review has not been brought up before on these boards.

[_harmony]

For the Scartchmeister: Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities, Katunob, etc.

Hmmm. Let's see. The Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities is edited by John Gee. Does it still count as peer review if you are reviewing your own work? As for Katunob, I wonder if you would be so kind as to cite text which would clue a non-LDS in to the fact that, say, the Sorenson article is, in fact, "Mormon" in nature.

Oops.

*cough*... [slip]...

PS. Daniel, couldn't you have found one that isn't edited by one of your friends?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, couldn't you have found one that isn't edited by one of your friends?

I did.

Katunob.

None of this matters, though. I've already supplied lists of articles published by reputable university presses, etc. They're always dismissed.

So there's no point in listing more.

One is enough.

(Yet, oddly, several dozen will never be enough.)

And do you really imagine that John Gee became editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities because his academic peers think him a laughable mediocrity, or that he's permitted to waive normal peer review procedures for his own writing?

[_Mister Scratch]

Daniel, couldn't you have found one that isn't edited by one of your friends?

I did.

Katunob.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Katunob defunct? Further, are you going to supply text that demonstrates that the article(s) in question deal with Mormonism in a very frank and obvious way---i.e., a way which would be apparent to a non-LDS scholar?

None of this matters, though. I've already supplied lists of articles published by reputable university presses, etc. They're always dismissed.

No, you haven't. You have never supplied a single example of a peer-reviewed article that meets the criteria I've laid out.

And do you really imagine that John Gee became editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities because his academic peers think him a laughable mediocrity, or that he's permitted to waive normal peer review procedures for his own writing?

Well, did Gee publish an article in which he argues that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is legitimate? If so, please supply the text.

[_JustMe]

Scratch

What critics are asking for is that the more audacious claims of Mormonism (Book of Mormon historicity; Book of Abraham; Lamanite DNA) meet the demands of rigorous, academic peer review. So far, it hasn't, and indeed none of the TBMs have even supplied evidence or anecdote that LDS have ever even *tried* to publish this stuff in reputable journals.

So the Lundquist piece in a legitimate book on a legitimate subject that directly reflects on the Book of Mormon doesn't count, on your take. Why am I not surprised? It certainly doesn't take away from the significant fact that in an obviously peer reviewed BOOK (much more in depth than a scholarly journal article would be) the Book of Mormon and its themes are published.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Katunob defunct?

It may be. I haven't checked.

But what difference would that make?

It's irrelevant.

Journals come and journals go. That doesn't somehow make them magically non-peer-reviewed during their period of publication.