DiscussMormonism.com

It appears that those in charge of editorial duties at Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture were on vacation this week. A sampling of errors in Timothy Guymon's review of S. Michael Wilcox, House of Glory: Finding Personal Meaning in the Temple:

75: the quotation "building inside him after many lectures on the subject" is not attributed.
76: D&C 128:17 is misquoted.
76 n. 4: the wrong page number is cited.
76 n. 5: the subtitle of Bradshaw's book is missing.
76 n. 6: Guymon is quoting from Hyrum Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe, but Guymon seems to have mixed up the footnotes in Andrus' book. The sources listed in this footnote do not correspond to "corporeal body."
76 n. 6: "ed." is italicized.
77: a footnote that appears in Andrus' book following "he declared" is omitted.
77: a footnote that appears in Andrus' book following "image of God" is omitted.
77: no source is cited for the long quotation.
77 n. 8: even though the text in the footnote is identical to the text in the cited source, there are no quotation marks.
77 n. 9: even though the text in the footnote is identical to the text in the cited source, there are no quotation marks.
78: there is an extra space following "unfair".
78 n. 10: quotation marks are missing and no source is cited.
79: there is an extra space after "drawer-pull".
79 n. 13: full bibliographic information is not provided.
79 n. 14: full bibliographic information is not provided for either source.
79 n. 15: quotation marks indicating a direct quotation from the cited Wikipedia article are missing.
79 n. 16: a comma rather than a period follows "2015".
81 n. 19: a period rather than a comma follows "HofG".
82: "Grenada" is misspelled.
82 n. 26: full bibliographic information is not provided.
82 n. 27: there is no space between "SLC," and "UT".
82 n. 29: full bibliographic information is not provided.
84: use of quotation marks in block quotation is inconsistent with use in block quotations elsewhere in review.
84: double quotation marks mistakenly appear around the quotation from J.A. Widtsoe.
84 n. 33: full bibliographic information is not provided.
84 n. 34: full bibliographic information is not provided. The page number is italicized.
85: footnote number 35 in the text body is italicized.
85: "The coming forth" reads "Their coming forth" in Wilcox's book.

Well, hey, Tom: don't they at least get credit for pumping something out for however many weeks in a row? But you're right: something seems to be up. Maybe it's the fact that their Editor in Chief has been on a months-long vacation. Whatever the reason, I'm sure you saw the Midgley article from a week or two ago: a re-review of a book they published reviews of a long, long time ago. They must be having trouble coming up with new material.

Tom wrote:
75: the quotation "building inside him after many lectures on the subject" is not attributed.
76: D&C 128:17 is misquoted.
76 n. 4: the wrong page number is cited.
76 n. 5: the subtitle of Bradshaw's book is missing.
76 n. 6: Guymon is quoting from Hyrum Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe, but Guymon seems to have mixed up the footnotes in Andrus' book. The sources listed in this footnote do not correspond to "corporeal body."
76 n. 6: "ed." is italicized.
77: a footnote that appears in Andrus' book following "he declared" is omitted.
77: a footnote that appears in Andrus' book following "image of God" is omitted.
77: no source is cited for the long quotation.
77 n. 8: even though the text in the footnote is identical to the text in the cited source, there are no quotation marks.
77 n. 9: even though the text in the footnote is identical to the text in the cited source, there are no quotation marks.
78: there is an extra space following "unfair".
78 n. 10: quotation marks are missing and no source is cited.
79: there is an extra space after "drawer-pull".
79 n. 13: full bibliographic information is not provided.
79 n. 14: full bibliographic information is not provided for either source.
79 n. 15: quotation marks indicating a direct quotation from the cited Wikipedia article are missing.
79 n. 16: a comma rather than a period follows "2015".
81 n. 19: a period rather than a comma follows "HofG".
82: "Grenada" is misspelled.
82 n. 26: full bibliographic information is not provided.
82 n. 27: there is no space between "Salt Lake City," and "UT".
82 n. 29: full bibliographic information is not provided.
84: use of quotation marks in block quotation is inconsistent with use in block quotations elsewhere in review.
84: double quotation marks mistakenly appear around the quotation from J.A. Widtsoe.
84 n. 33: full bibliographic information is not provided.
84 n. 34: full bibliographic information is not provided. The page number is italicized.
85: footnote number 35 in the text body is italicized.
85: "The coming forth" reads "Their coming forth" in Wilcox's book.

Too bad these mistakes were not found in an anti-Mormon article. This would have won the most insightful review of the year award.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Well, hey, Tom: don't they at least get credit for pumping something out for however many weeks in a row?

Absolutely. I haven't counted, but I would guess that we must be up to 155 weeks or so in a row.

Doctor Scratch wrote:I'm sure you saw the Midgley article from a week or two ago: a re-review of a book they published reviews of a long, long time ago.

Yes. Speaking of Professor Midgley, here are some numbers that the computer at the home office in Panguitch pulled from his latest bit of nominal intellectual history:

1: times Midgley notes L. Payne's birthdate
1: times Midgley gets L. Payne's birthdate wrong
1: times Midgley uses the adjective juicy (see footnote 10)
5: times Midgley uses the adjective bizarre (including three truly bizarres, one most bizarre, and one bizarre)
5: times Midgley uses the verb insist (including two times in a single sentence)
6: times Midgley cites his own work
4: paragraphs used by Midgley to shadowbox with unnamed "LDS scholars"
0: times Midgley quotes from the book ostensibly under review
0: times Midgley cites a page from the book ostensibly under review

An incomplete list of errors in Midgley's review:

63: "book length" should be spelled "book-length"
63: a comma is missing following "1988"
63 (PDF version): "Lofts Try" is a misspelling (a correction has been made to the html version)
63: Dale Luffman is not a "current Community of Christ Apostle"
64: the birthdate is incorrect
64 n. 2: double quotation marks are mistakenly used around "Manuscript Found"
64 n. 2: "breath" should read "breathe"
65: "may have written" should read "may well have written"; “impressionistic" should read "impressionist"
65: "Schnoebelin" is a misspelling
65 n. 6: "first book 1988" should read "first book in 1988"
66: the comma between "Smith" and "the Make-Believe" should be deleted
66 n. 12: "additions" should probably read "editions"; a period is missing at the end of this sentence: "There are, it seems, no editorial standards in place in much of the currently flourishing electronic self-publishing ('vanity press') industry".
67: "demon infested" should read "demon-infested"
67: "Joseph Smith's most" should read "His most"
69 n. 15: the dash following "Book of Mormon" should probably be deleted; a semicolon is mistakenly used after "(2012)"
70: the comma after "original idea" should probably be deleted
70-71: Dale Luffman is not "currently a Community of Christ Apostle"
70 n. 17: the footnote cites no sources. Among other claims, Midgley asserts that "[a] frog is not a Salamander and hence not artistically a symbol for fire."
72 n. 21: "see see" should read "see"

I think the most odd claim is this:

The importance of temple work cannot be exaggerated. “The coming forth [of modern labor-saving inventions] in such rapid succession in the latter days was not an accident and was not accomplished without the inspiration and direction of the Lord.”36 Modern technology is an expertise growing exponentially — to the bad as well as the good.

Today, genealogy ranks second only to porn as the most searched topic online. According to a January 2012 report by market research firm Global Industry Analysts, an estimated 84 million people around the world spend anywhere from $1,000 to $18,000 a year in search of their ancestors … It’s a demographic projected to grow 36 percent by 2020, three times as fast as any other group.37

The claim that "genealogy ranks second only to porn as the most serched topic online" is made in this article in Businessweek:

http://www.bloomberg.com/Brad Wilcox/articles/20 ... juggernaut

So I don't blame Guymon for including it. But the Businessweek article doesn't have any support for the claim, and I can't find any metric online searches that even has "genealogy" in the top 10, let alone number 2.

A quick survey of the 29 or so errors that I had noted in the first version of Guymon's article reveals that fully 27 of those errors, 93% of them, have been silently corrected in the current version of the article posted on the Interpreter site.

1. The Changes

75: the quotation "building inside him after many lectures on the subject" is not attributed. Quotation marks have been removed.
76: D&C 128:17 is misquoted. Correction made.
76 n. 4: the wrong page number is cited. Page number changed from 158 to 124.
76 n. 5: the subtitle of Bradshaw's book is missing. Reference to Bradshaw's book removed. Full bibliographical information provided for Smith, Teachings.
76 n. 6: Guymon is quoting from Hyrum Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe, but Guymon seems to have mixed up the footnotes in Andrus' book. The sources listed in this footnote do not correspond to "corporeal body." Reference to Andrus book added.
76 n. 6: "ed." is italicized. Corrected. See n. 5.
77: a footnote that appears in Andrus' book following "he declared" is omitted. Footnote added.
77: a footnote that appears in Andrus' book following "image of God" is omitted. Footnote added.
77: no source is cited for the long quotation. Source provided (Andrus book). See n. 6.
77 n. 8: even though the text in the footnote is identical to the text in the cited source, there are no quotation marks. Quotation marks added. See n. 10.
77 n. 9: even though the text in the footnote is identical to the text in the cited source, there are no quotation marks. Quotation marks added. See n. 11.
78: there is an extra space following "unfair". Space removed.
78 n. 10: quotation marks are missing and no source is cited. No changes made. See n. 12.
79: there is an extra space after "drawer-pull". Space removed.
79 n. 13: full bibliographic information is not provided. Bibliographical information provided. See n. 15.
79 n. 14: full bibliographic information is not provided for either source. Bibliographical information provided for Nibley reference. Reference to Nibley biography removed. See n. 16.
79 n. 15: quotation marks indicating a direct quotation from the cited Wikipedia article are missing. Quotation marks added. See n. 17.
79 n. 16: a comma rather than a period follows "2015". Corrected. See n. 18.
81 n. 19: a period rather than a comma follows "HofG". Corrected. See n. 21.
82: "Grenada" is misspelled. Correction made.
82 n. 26: full bibliographic information is not provided. Bibliographical information added. See n. 28.
82 n. 27: there is no space between "SLC," and "UT". Space added. See n. 29.
82 n. 29: full bibliographic information is not provided. Bibliographical information added. See n. 31.
84: use of quotation marks in block quotation is inconsistent with use in block quotations elsewhere in review. Corrected.
84: double quotation marks mistakenly appear around the quotation from J.A. Widtsoe. No change.
84 n. 33: full bibliographic information is not provided. Reference to Widtsoe added. Reference to Wilcox removed. See n. 35.
84 n. 34: full bibliographic information is not provided. The page number is italicized. Bibliographical information added. Italicization removed. See n. 36.
85: footnote number 35 in the text body is italicized. Corrected.
85: "The coming forth" reads "Their coming forth" in Wilcox's book. Brackets added to indicate change.

2. Problems That Remain

n. 3: a period is missing after "M". The bibliographical format used here is inconsistent with the format used in other footnotes (compare nn. 3, 6, 15, 28, 29, 31, and 36).
n. 6: there is an extra period after the footnote number.
n. 7: same.
n. 9: same.
n. 12: the text remains unattributed. Identical text is found in the Wikipedia article titled "Ampullae of Lorenzini," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini.
n. 15: the title of the Lundquist book is incorrect.
n. 31: the year of publication is missing.
84: there is an extra space after "Prodigal".
84: double, rather than single, quotation marks appear around the quotation from Widtsoe.
n. 35: a reference to Wilcox's book is missing.
n. 39: a comma mistakenly follows "2015".

Many of you may not know that Michael Wilcox is probably one of the best known, admired and followed LDS writers and speakers around. His tours all over the world fill up immediately. His groupies at Education Week number in the thousands. He is well loved by deseret book which has published everything he writes because it probably sells pretty well.

My point is imho the Interpreter is on thin ice trying to review his work with so many nitpicks. They are not going to turn the faithful off because he has good insights and normally writes on subjects that interest the sheep. He lately put out one on women in the scriptures, has several on the endtimes/revelation etc.

So I don't see what on earth the apologists get out of picking on him.

by the way I know mike fairly well having taken several tours he led-TBM, very honest down to earth guy who lost his wife 5 years ago to brain cancer after he had just retired from working at the LDS institute at the university of Utah. he has a phd in English from univ of Colorado with his dissertation on cs lewis.

as a non member on the tour to "Book of Mormon lands" (surely an oxymoron), I said to him " you know at all these temple sites, villages, etc, I can't see any Christian influence in the civilizations arising- do you "?
he answered honestly "neither do I"- I believe he just hopes its all true but until then he has a nice gig
writing, speaking and touring.

just commentin

k

Kairos,

Interesting post.

Thanks for the insight on Michael Wilcox.

Methinks the Interpreter owes Tom a stipend for his editing work.

Cicero wrote:Methinks the Interpreter owes Tom a stipend for his editing work.

Maybe Bradford is still holding onto some money for editing fees from 3 or 4 years ago that could be paid to Tom.