Doctor Scratch wrote: I wonder if Smith is angry about this? I partly suspect that the hit piece's appearch on the MI website was the doing of the "Young Turks"--e.g., Smoot and Haymond, and that the "Old Guard" would have preferred to go on waiting. Regardless, this "demotion" of the hit piece to blog-only status is a tremendous slap in the face to Smith by the MI Board.
Dr. Scratch,
If I had to guess, I would say that Smith is not too pleased that all of his hard work will never make it to press.
I guess in the end it was just too sucky for even DCP to publish.
Back peddling on my speculation that the old brick & mortar MI might have owned the copyright perhaps the new and improved internet MI owns it, but I doubt it.
So the good Doctor could publish it however he wants whenever he wants.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:I guess in the end it was just too sucky for even DCP to publish.
It doesn't sound to me like DCP thought it was too sucky. It sounds to me like he thinks highly of it, but was told not to publish it. Putting the article on the website, but not in the print journal looks to me like a way to publish it while claiming that he didn't publish it - the type of dissembling that DCP is well practiced at.
NorthboundZax wrote:It doesn't sound to me like DCP thought it was too sucky. It sounds to me like he thinks highly of it, but was told not to publish it. Putting the article on the website, but not in the print journal looks to me like a way to publish it while claiming that he didn't publish it - the type of dissembling that DCP is well practiced at.
Indeed. In the era of electronic journals, it would be considered published. The piece is as polished as anything else that journal has published. Dissembling is right. But, whatever.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
NorthboundZax wrote:It doesn't sound to me like DCP thought it was too sucky. It sounds to me like he thinks highly of it, but was told not to publish it. Putting the article on the website, but not in the print journal looks to me like a way to publish it while claiming that he didn't publish it - the type of dissembling that DCP is well practiced at.
Indeed. In the era of electronic journals, it would be considered published. The piece is as polished as anything else that journal has published. Dissembling is right. But, whatever.
kish, i recognize that calling DCP out as a liar is harsh language, but this example of dissembling is just so...typical of really bad behavior. his credibility is so diminished by his clintonesque parsing of what the meaning of "publishing" in some sort of quixotic attempt to do...what?
DCP is rapidly emasculating what little credibility he had.
bcspace wrote:It's in print already and I'm sure someone could make their own hard copy if they want.
Equality wrote:Are you saying it has been published?
moksha wrote:It is available through HP LaserJet Publishing of Boise, Idaho.
Is that legal? Hamblin was threatening to sue. I wouldn't want to do anything illegal.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
DCP wrote: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.
I find the rationale given here for not publishing the essays in the journal ("because they don't neatly fit the mission of the journal itself") rather puzzling. The homepage describes the journal as "a nonprofit, independent, peer-reviewed educational journal focused on the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The journal is subtitled "A Journal of Mormon Scripture."
Even so, the fledgling journal has already published several articles that do not appear to "neatly fit [its] mission":
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
Tom wrote:I find the rationale given here for not publishing the essays in the journal ("because they don't neatly fit the mission of the journal itself") rather puzzling. The homepage describes the journal as "a nonprofit, independent, peer-reviewed educational journal focused on the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The journal is subtitled "A Journal of Mormon Scripture."
Even so, the fledgling journal has already published several articles that do not appear to "neatly fit [its] mission"
This is Daniel Peterson's hobby, first and foremost. If I am wrong, it is up to the rest of the editorial board to prove me, and everyone else who agrees with me, wrong.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Doctor Scratch wrote:Yeah, I'm still not entirely sure how to read all this and to figure out what this all says about the political machinations that are currently playing out. It is truly remarkable that DCP is refusing to give the "hit pieces" the stamp of legitimacy, but it certainly does feel like he's trying to salvage *some*thing out of this mess they've created. I would guess that his most recent Interpreter article is the consequence of this to some extent. The piece reads like a strange mishmash of his Middle Eastern work that's been given a vaguely "Mormon Studies"-ish revision: like he went back in and revised it specifically so that it would fit more neatly into a "Mormon Studies" paradigm. But, of course, this isn't a guy who's exactly known for restraint, and you can still see some of the old Mopologetic impulses creeping into the text. (I'm thinking especially of his argument that some LDS should never be exposed to the full truth about Mormonism.)
I take all this as proof positive that DCP received a warning much like Hamblin did. It sounds as if the MI folks complained to Pres. Samuelson, and he sent down word to DCP's and Hamblin's respective dept. heads to tell them to shut up. Although Hamblin was very open about what happened, DCP is trying to be very subtle lest anyone thinks he's in trouble.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)