Smith's Hit Piece: Unfit for Print?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson has revealed something quite startling over on the MDDboard:

I stand by Dr. Smith's two essays. I'm fine with them. But I didn't write them. I'm not interested enough in John Dehlin to have researched and written them.

No journal editor is responsible for an article published by her journal in the same way that the article's own author is responsible. So, in that sense, yes, Greg Smith is responsible for what he wrote in a way that I'm not.

But I'm not distancing myself from Dr. Smith at all, and I feel no need to do so.

Please note, though, incidentally, that Dr. Smith's articles appear on the Interpreter site but are neither typeset nor paginated for publication in the Interpreter journal, proper. That's deliberate. As of now, at least, there is no plan to include either of them in the journal itself. Not because we disagree with them, but because they don't neatly fit the mission of the journal. (The decision could change, but I don't expect that it will.) The website of The Interpreter Foundation is a broader thing, including news, a blog, "roundtables," and etc.

This is quite astonishing. Despite reassurances for months that the article would eventually be "published," and in the midst of a heated debate about what, exactly, constitutes legitimate "publishing," Dr. Peterson is here saying that, as head editor for Mormon Interpreter, he will not allow Greg Smith's article to appear in print. I have to wonder how Smith himself feels about this, particularly given how much time and effort he put into writing it and collecting, uh, "intel" on John Dehlin.

At this point, it seems that "anti-Mormons and apostates" have more influence over Mormon Interpreter's editorial decisions than the Mopologists themselves.

[_bcspace]

It's in print already and I'm sure someone could make their own hard copy if they want.

[_Equality]

It's in print already and I'm sure someone could make their own hard copy if they want.

Are you saying it has been published?

[Guest]

I have to wonder how Smith himself feels about this, particularly given how much time and effort he put into writing it and collecting, uh, "intel" on John Dehlin.

This is arguably false as well. Mormon Stories has 7 plus years and about 400 podcasts at the time of the smith piece. on the other board, it is admitted that the piece was done in 6 weeks. if only Mormon stories was reviewed, that would require more than a years worth of work per week for that single body of work, and more than 10 podcasts per working day. this never happened. there were no interviews, original research, or transcripts made of the podcasts. this was not a review at all. We have no evidence that Smith was not also practicing medicine at the time. this piece does not show evidence of effort and time.

what should really alarm smith, is that he was allowed or possibly encouraged to make his piece public, only to accept later that lou and dan would call it unqualified for publication. they would both say they have no part in any commentary about dehlin. petersen admits that even the format in which it was shared proves he never had any intent to publish it. smith has to be seeing a bus approaching his prone body. or, perhaps he relishes in this and looks forward to writing lots of pieces like this. who really knows?

[Guest]

....................

[_lulu]

Dr. Peterson has revealed something quite startling over on the MDDboard:

I stand by Dr. Smith's two essays. I'm fine with them. But I didn't write them. I'm not interested enough in John Dehlin to have researched and written them.

No journal editor is responsible for an article published by her journal in the same way that the article's own author is responsible. So, in that sense, yes, Greg Smith is responsible for what he wrote in a way that I'm not.

But I'm not distancing myself from Dr. Smith at all, and I feel no need to do so.

Please note, though, incidentally, that Dr. Smith's articles appear on the Interpreter site but are neither typeset nor paginated for publication in the Interpreter journal, proper. That's deliberate. As of now, at least, there is no plan to include either of them in the journal itself. Not because we disagree with them, but because they don't neatly fit the mission of the journal. (The decision could change, but I don't expect that it will.) The website of The Interpreter Foundation is a broader thing, including news, a blog, "roundtables," and etc.

This is quite astonishing. Despite reassurances for months that the article would eventually be "published," and in the midst of a heated debate about what, exactly, constitutes legitimate "publishing," Dr. Peterson is here saying that, as head editor for Mormon Interpreter, he will not allow Greg Smith's article to appear in print. I have to wonder how Smith himself feels about this, particularly given how much time and effort he put into writing it and collecting, uh, "intel" on John Dehlin.

At this point, it seems that "anti-Mormons and apostates" have more influence over Mormon Interpreter's editorial decisions than the Mopologists themselves.

Thanks for your analysis. It was more double speak than I could deal with when I read it on MAD.

Here's a brain storm idea:

1. Dan publishes the hit piece on the new and improved internet MI.
2. Dan's Chair takes a meeting with him similar to the one between Ham & his Chair.
3. Dan decideds the hit piece will not be turned into hard copy.
4. Dan can't admit that he's been called in and will now have to begin producing considerable output in his field such that he's not going to have much spare time to mess with hard copy versions of the new and improved internet MI.
5. Dan can't admit admit that he's going to be way short on time in the future but allows that the hit piece won't come out in hard copy but then again it might.

[_Kishkumen]

I stand by Dr. Smith's two essays. I'm fine with them. But I didn't write them. I'm not interested enough in John Dehlin to have researched and written them.

No journal editor is responsible for an article published by her journal in the same way that the article's own author is responsible. So, in that sense, yes, Greg Smith is responsible for what he wrote in a way that I'm not.

But I'm not distancing myself from Dr. Smith at all, and I feel no need to do so.

Please note, though, incidentally, that Dr. Smith's articles appear on the Interpreter site but are neither typeset nor paginated for publication in the Interpreter journal, proper. That's deliberate. As of now, at least, there is no plan to include either of them in the journal itself. Not because we disagree with them, but because they don't neatly fit the mission of the journal. (The decision could change, but I don't expect that it will.) The website of The Interpreter Foundation is a broader thing, including news, a blog, "roundtables," and etc.

Yes, he's not responsible for them "in the same way." He's simply responsible for the fact that he web-published them on the Interpreter blog. I am not sure what he's trying to say here. If it is intended as some kind of self-defense, then it is completely lame.

Why do I hold Dr. Peterson responsible for the hit pieces in a very substantive and serious way?

1. Dr. Peterson published other works by Greg L. Smith that were very similar to the Dehlin hit piece.

2. Dr. Peterson saw to the hiring of Greg L. Smith to the editorial board of the Mormon Studies Review.

3. It was as a member of this board that Greg L. Smith wrote the hit piece.

4. Other members of the editorial board, Lou Midgley being chief among them, read, gave suggestions regarding, and even collected intelligence for the hit piece.

5. Dr. Peterson was no doubt aware of all of the situation described in #4.

So, Peterson's attempt to minimize his connection to the piece is silliness. His fingerprints are all over that hit piece.

[Guest]

This is a little long but I think worth posting in full from MAD

BYU is an upwardly mobile school. It has aspirations. And one of the ways that a school advances its reputation is via faculty research and publications.

Whatever their quality may or may not be, in-house publications -- that is, publications aimed at the Mormon community -- do relatively little to advance BYU's reputation in the world at large. They're not read beyond the membership of the Church and a small handful of "Mormon-watchers."

I'm not at all unsympathetic to these aspirations. One of the things that I'm most proud of regarding my own career at BYU is my launch of the Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, which has, I think it's safe to say, considerably enhanced BYU's reputation (which was, previously, nonexistent) among those, worldwide, who concern themselves with pre-modern Islam, ancient and medieval philosophy, the history of medieval science and medicine, Islamic philosophy and theology, and similar fields.

The trouble is that faculty members have finite time and energy, so that effort given to X is effort no longer available to devote to Y. Doing Mormon studies almost inevitably cuts into what might simply be lumped together and called "non-Mormon studies." I don't blame a department chairman for finding that situation worthy of discussion, but I do worry that, if Mormon studies are effectively altogether penalized by certain administrators at BYU, such studies will languish at the Church's flagship university, which seems distinctly odd and which will then effectively cede the entire field to people at Claremont, Durham, Virginia, Utah State, UVU, and etc. And we may or may not always appreciate what those people do, but, if we've turned the field over to them, we'll have no grounds for complaint. emphasis added

Peterson has posted on his blog that it is not clear if he remains as a METI editor. Furthermore, he has pissed and moaned that he no longer has an office at MI which is where METI is located.

In view of that, has someone in the the BYU administration, whether, Pres, Dean or Chair, outlined for Peterson how he, as a professor of Asian and Near Eastern Languages will be expected to contribute to BYU's aspirations in the near future?

Particularly with regard to peer reviewed articles on Arabic and Islamic Studies in widely respected scholarly journals and monographs from university presses?

Will Peterson have any spare time for other pursuits?

[_Kishkumen]

The trouble is that faculty members have finite time and energy, so that effort given to X is effort no longer available to devote to Y. Doing Mormon studies almost inevitably cuts into what might simply be lumped together and called "non-Mormon studies." I don't blame a department chairman for finding that situation worthy of discussion, but I do worry that, if Mormon studies are effectively altogether penalized by certain administrators at BYU, such studies will languish at the Church's flagship university, which seems distinctly odd and which will then effectively cede the entire field to people at Claremont, Durham, Virginia, Utah State, UVU, and etc. And we may or may not always appreciate what those people do, but, if we've turned the field over to them, we'll have no grounds for complaint. emphasis added

Grin. Yes, I see now.

Um, Daniel, you're wising up, eh?

The thing is: Mormon Studies are still on the menu at the Maxwell Institute. You know, Mormon Studies, the very thing Bill Hamblin has been publicly dismissing as a viable pursuit at BYU for months now?

It is good to see that you can tell which way the wind is blowing. What is less admirable is this pose in which you pretend to be the sole advocate of something you were tossed out of the Institute for the purposes of advancing.

You see, it was you who stood in the way of turning the Mormon Studies Review into the publication it ought to be. Others, the ones who saw to your removal as editor, were the ones who long ago determined not to cede the field of Mormon Studies to other universities.

You are unbelievable.

In any case, good luck with your latest attempt to get back into the Maxwell Institute. This doesn't show humility on your part, but it does show some pragmatism.

[_lulu]

Doing Mormon studies almost inevitably cuts into what might simply be lumped together and called "non-Mormon studies." I don't blame a department chairman for finding that situation worthy of discussion,

Grin. Yes, I see now.

Um, Daniel, you're wising up, eh?

The thing is: Mormon Studies are still on the menu at the Maxwell Institute. You know, Mormon Studies, the very thing Bill Hamblin has been publicly dismissing as a viable pursuit at BYU for months now?

It is good to see that you can tell which way the wind is blowing. What is less admirable is this pose in which you pretend to be the sole advocate of something you were tossed out of the Institute for the purposes of advancing.

You see, it was you who stood in the way of turning the Mormon Studies Review into the publication it ought to be. Others, the ones who saw to your removal as editor, were the ones who long ago determined not to cede the field of Mormon Studies to other universities.

You are unbelievable.

In view of Ham's public caterwauling, and DCP's very public response cited here, are Dan & Ham splitting?

They've always made such a lovely couple.