The Yarn Spinners

[_guy sajer]

If these articles provide any kind of objective evidence in support of Joseph Smith's interpretation of the papyrus or his other claims viz Egyptology and the ancient world, please do cite them specifically so we can see for ourselves how Gee is demonstrating to an otherwise skeptical academic community that Joseph Smith really did produce a work of ancient origin.

I've cited them specifically. You have the full references.

I have limited time to read them, and books on or related to Mormonism are quite low on my reading list. You, apparently, have read them and are familiar with the arguments therein, so if you care to summarize the objectively verifiable, credible evidence for the PofGP, please share it with us. I assume that if it's there, you'd be thrilled to share it with us, if even to point out the specific pages.

I am not looking for narratives about the PofGP, but credible scientific evidence, that other scholars might find compelling, that Joseph Smith actually produced a work of ancient origin.

I'd have to see the sales figures for FARMS publications, but I'd be extremely surprised to find a substantial market for FARMS publications outside of the Mormon market.

You're shifting your ground. You said that the books weren't targeted at a general audience, but only at Mormons. This is plainly not true. They're being marketed by a prestigious non-Mormon academic press to an overwhelmingly non-Mormon audience.

I have no idea, off the top of my head, what the sales figures for them are. But those figures are neither here nor there. Whether the marketing is successful or not, whether the audience is interested or not, the fact is that they are clearly, contrary to your initial claim, being targeted, to at least a significant degree, to a non-Mormon audience.

I didn't shift my ground. I believe that in my original post, I said I was guessing, or presuming. I was not making an affirmative declaration. I am willing to admit when I've made an inaccurate assumption, which differentiates me, perhaps, from some of your apologetic colleagues. I see this as a character strength, not a character flaw. Stated a qualified assumption is quite different from "making a claim," particularly when one makes clear that what's he's doing.

Still, I'm not 100% certain my assumption was incorrect, and this is where sales figures come in. Again, I assume that the primary market for such books is the Mormon community, even if the book is targeted ostensibly for general audiences. But I don't know, and you're right, it probably doesn't matter.

So, I guess we need to clarify just what type of product we're talking about here, so that we are talking about the same thing.

The books being distributed by the University of Chicago Press plainly and explicitly address the Book of Abraham.

That's indisputable. Again, the question I am asking is whether the books offer scientifically credible evidence that Joseph Smith produced a work of ancient origin. Can you answer this question? I am asking sincerely.

Well, I've read your description of the peer review process at FARMS, and it does not leave me with a lot of confidence that you understand peer review well. You appear to have difficulty distinguishing between copy editing and peer review.

You call anonymous content-review by two-to-four scholars (in addition to editors, etc.), resulting in the rejection of a substantial number of submitted manuscripts, "copy editing"?

I am only going by the description you provided which I read some time ago. The description you provided described a process of copy editing, not peer review. Having edited a peer review journal and refereed countless manuscripts, I know the difference well. If you care to update your description here, please feel free.

Manuscripts can be rejected for a lot of reasons that have little to do with how sound the theoretical framework is or how good the quality of evidence is, particularly when the “peer” review takes place within a relatively tight circle of religious apologists, all of whom share the objective to prop up the truth claims of the religion to which all belong and to which they are all devoted.

The context of “peer” review I refer to is actual submission to actual “peers,” not a tight circle of like-minded religious apologists. When you and FARMS submit your defenses for the Book of Mormon and PofGP to peers outside the Mormon apologetic community, then I’ll concede that you engage in true “peer” review.

I dare say that should you submit the same apologetic manuscripts to peers outside the Mormon apologetic community, the rejection rate would be much higher.

Why don't you describe the process at the Maxwell Institute? I'd like to know.

I've published an account of it. It's not hidden.

I’m not suggesting it is.

I dare say that I understand the peer review process at least as well as you, given our respective peer-reviewed publication records.

I'm aware of your oft-expressed conviction of my academic inferiority.

Here’s what I don’t get Dan. I actually have a great deal of respect for you. You are, I think, a brilliant writer and a first-rate mind. You could have, I think, easily established an impressive peer reviewed publication record. You are more than capable of it. I mean this as a sincere compliment.

I had a colleague in the Marriott School who was also a quite capable writer and researcher. But, he chose to devote his time to building the school administratively, in which case his publication record severely suffered. (He was actually a bit bitter about it later on when he started to get grief for lack of publications.) Plus, I was hired under a different regime, and we were told explicitly, “we like you, but if you don’t publish, we wont’ keep you.” I know that your generation of faculty was hired under a set of different expectations.

So, there are legit reasons not to publish, even for someone of your evident skill.

So, I’m sincerely curious, why have you not done it?

I mean that I do not see that the U of Chicago is publishing evidence, and thereby granting it scholarly credibility, that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document written by Abraham. I could be wrong; if so, please show me how.

For one so vastly my superior with regard to academic publishing, I'm surprised that you seem to think that either the University of Chicago or the University of Chicago Press has, or should have, a "party line" of some sort. The University of Chicago publishes books arguing for various and often contradictory opinions on numerous subjects.

Dan, you’re missing the point, probably not due to your fault, but because I have not explained myself well. I am not suggesting at all that U of Chicago has a party line. There is a difference between reviewing for content, correctness of arguments within limited frameworks (e.g., does a book on Catholicism accurately describe the doctrine, debates, etc. within the framework of Catholic belief and experience) and historical presentation, etc. and reviewing for sound theoretical frameworks, sound empirical evidence, sound conclusions based on the framework and evidence, etc.

In other words, the book reviewers were not basing publication and editorial decisions on the soundness of the theoretical framework, evidence, and conclusions, as would be the case if you submitted apologetic defenses of the Book of Mormon and PofGP to a non-Mormon peer-reviewed academic journal. That is what I’m assuming, and that is the point I’m making.

I am referring specifically to the issue as to whether FARMS and other Mormon apologists/scholars have been successful publishing in mainline academic, peer-reviewed outlets credible, objective evidence supporting Mormonism's claims viz the Book of Abraham or, for that matter, its claims viz the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

What on earth do you think these books are about?

See my response above.

The process of reviewing books is different than that reviewing manuscripts submitted to peer-review journals. There is a reason that peer-reviewed journal publications are the gold standard for promotion and tenure and that books are of secondary importance (generally and with exceptions), particularly contributions to published anthologies.

I assume, therefore, that we will soon be seeing credible evidence that Joseph Smith produced documents of ancient origin in a mainline, non-Mormon, credible, peer reviewed Journal soon?