A Tale of Two Book Reviews

[_Gadianton]

I suppose that is true. In this case, however, we are not talking about someone working at Maxwell Institute. Joseph Spencer is an assistant professor in the Department of Ancient Scripture in the College of Religion at BYU. So, the stakes are much higher for him if certain people come to agree with Parry that Spencer is not faithful, not a believer. Spencer could be denied continuing status if this attack on his reputation is successful.

Reverend, lol, my bad! I just made an assumption and went with it, so in this instance, I'm no better than Parry. It's a good thing the peer review over here is better than at interpreter or I could have caused some real confusion.

It is funny though, how nobody can seem to please the olds FARMS crowd unless you're one of them or somehow established yourself as a 'friendly' first. Back in the day, all these Saints with testimonies were dupes, not scholarly enough for FARMs and were taken to task for that. Now, they are too scholarly. But sometimes even those walking the middle were eviscerated. On an odd occasion, the wrong scholar treads upon the right territory. I'm thinking of F. Richard Hauack who was given the old heavy-handed hatchet treatment even though he was promoting the Limited Geography Theory. Minor innovations became great offenses.

[_Tom]

Why did Dr. Parry ask that comments be turned off? I noticed that a comment on the review from Noel Reynolds was posted and then was removed.

[Guest]

Reverend, lol, my bad! I just made an assumption and went with it, so in this instance, I'm no better than Parry. It's a good thing the peer review over here is better than at interpreter or I could have caused some real confusion.

It is funny though, how nobody can seem to please the olds FARMS crowd unless you're one of them or somehow established yourself as a 'friendly' first. Back in the day, all these Saints with testimonies were dupes, not scholarly enough for FARMs and were taken to task for that. Now, they are too scholarly. But sometimes even those walking the middle were eviscerated. On an odd occasion, the wrong scholar treads upon the right territory. I'm thinking of F. Richard Hauack who was given the old heavy-handed hatchet treatment even though he was promoting the Limited Geography Theory. Minor innovations became great offenses.

If memory serves, I think Spencer was already identified as an ideological "other" by Ralph Hancock. So, Spencer is definitely on the Mopologetic radar, seeing as Hancock falls under the general ideological umbrella of those who are deeply concerned about the influence of "liberalism" (in the modern sense) on the Gospel and the Church. Parry's "review" is getting at similar issues. How we read the scriptures--as literalists or as literary theorists, vel sim.--says a lot about where our loyalties lie in the minds of Mopologists.

Although I know it does him no favors, I am happy that people like Spencer are at BYU pursuing different approaches than those Parry champions. Parry's skills are important, no doubt, but his commitment to certain LDS modes of reading leaves us all stuck in a rut, I am afraid. Better to give some room for younger scholars whose approaches will open up new ways of thinking about the scriptures.

Really, I find myself in an odd position here. I recall taking a class with Joseph Fielding McConkie and clashing with him a bit when he said that reading the scriptures in other languages was of negligible importance, "since the scriptures of the Restoration are in English." I asked him why Joseph Smith had studied classical and modern languages if that were indeed the case. He took it fairly well I thought, and I enjoyed the class even though I found myself disagreeing with McConkie on various points throughout the term.

In this case, however, it is the seeming insistence that one must read Biblical Hebrew in order to have anything of value to say that I chafe at. Sure, if I am a professional Hebrew Bible scholar, I damn well better know Hebrew if I presume to teach people about the ancient Hebrew scriptures. But, if I am talking primarily about Mormon scripture, the first surviving manuscripts of which are in English, then maybe it is not all that important to deal with Hebrew.

Another issue, however, is raised. The very fact of Joseph Spencer's hire into the Department of Ancient Scripture makes the contradiction of Mormon scripture glaringly obvious. If you check Joseph Spencer's c.v., he apparently only claims knowledge of three modern languages: Spanish, French, and German. THERE ARE NO ANCIENT LANGUAGES IN WHICH HE CLAIMS COMPETENCE.

NOT ONE.

Department of Ancient Scripture? No knowledge of any ancient languages?

SERIOUSLY?

Of course, because ancient Mormon scripture is NOT ANCIENT in the common sense of the word ancient (it is 19th century English scripture for which ancient date is claimed), knowledge of ancient languages is not required to have something valuable to say about Mormon scripture.

May I suggest that it is in this anomaly that some of Parry's concerns reside? Does the hiring of Joseph Spencer and his ability to hold forth on ancient Hebrew texts not highlight the problem of ancient scripture at BYU in which 19th century scripture is treated as ancient? Sure, he can hold forth on Isaiah because who is going to stop him? In allowing this situation to unfold does one not admit the very thing that Parry and his cohorts want to avoid, namely, the admission that the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham are, in conventional terms, modern scripture, and not ancient?

So does the hiring of Joseph Spencer constitute a kind of admission that it is OK not to believe in the literal antiquity of Mormonism's unique "ancient" scripture? And if that is the case, would a traditionalist not squirm or get hot under the collar to allow this encroachment to occur? Give an inch, and they take a mile. Where will this end? Will the teaching of Mormon scripture in its 19th century context--with no reference to antiquity--not eventually become the norm?

Here, perhaps, is where the real conflict resides. Parry likely has nothing against Spencer personally, but what Spencer represents may be a real problem. Now, I am engaging in quite a bit of speculation here, but I note that Parry's insistence on the value of Biblical Hebrew and Spencer's clear lack of even claimed credentials in that area is perhaps telling.

What a BYU Religion professor has had to say about antiquity was never all that important in the past, since no special expertise in ancient languages or ancient history was required to teach Mormon scripture. A person with a PhD in whatever subject might be teaching Religion at BYU. It was in more recent times that pains were taken to ensure that faculty in Religion were real experts in the relevant disciplines.

Where does Spencer and his track record reside in this mix? He is a brilliant and likable fellow. It sounds like he has much to contribute to learned discussion of Mormonism. What he is not by any means is a scholar in the mold of Hugh Nibley.

[_I have a question]

Why did Dr. Parry ask that comments be turned off? I noticed that a comment on the review from Noel Reynolds was posted and then was removed.

If the Interpreter wants to be taken seriously as a scholarly journal, then one of the criteria for publication should be that comments cannot be turned off at the request of the author. Otherwise it’s just an online hobby pulpit.

[_Kishkumen]

If the Interpreter wants to be taken seriously as a scholarly journal, then one of the criteria for publication should be that comments cannot be turned off at the request of the author. Otherwise it’s just an online hobby pulpit.

I don't know about that. Journals do not have comments sections. Hey, if I were Parry and I had written such a thing, I would not want to be obliged to respond to comments, especially if I discovered that the faculty of Cassius University had drawn attention to my "review."

[_Doctor Scratch]

If the Interpreter wants to be taken seriously as a scholarly journal, then one of the criteria for publication should be that comments cannot be turned off at the request of the author. Otherwise it’s just an online hobby pulpit.

I don't know about that. Journals do not have comments sections. Hey, if I were Parry and I had written such a thing, I would not want to be obliged to respond to comments, especially if I discovered that the faculty of Cassius University had drawn attention to my "review."

"Mormon Interpreter" is not a "journal" in the traditional sense. In reality, it is a blog. You may remember, Reverend, circa the mid-summer of 2012, that the Mopologists were parrying criticisms about the fact that "Interpreter" was an almost entirely online and independent venture: they were saying this to counter criticisms that they were "not serious" or "not academic" since (a) they were pretty much purely digital, and (b) they were no longer affiliated with BYU. And so they sang the praises of Bryce Haymond, for his superior IT skills. They waxed poetic about how it was *better* to be strictly online, since it allowed them to be more "nimble." (And hey: they are certainly cranking out all kinds of stuff at a pretty rapid pace! Seriously: did Jack Chick produce material at this rate?)

All that said, I think that Tom is correct to take note of this development: it is remarkable that they've shut down the comments. Not a watershed moment, necessarily, but a very, very important development. They have tried *so* hard to be "transparent," and to make it seem like everything they're doing is on the "up and up," and yet here they go with the outright censorship. What is Parry afraid of? (And is he really the one who ordered this? Did DCP have zero say on the matter [actually, he probably doesn't even care]? What about Allen Wyatt? The "Board"?) Meanwhile, Reverend,I assume you saw this:

While I don't think that the LDS Church's leadership views Interpreter negatively I do think that for Peterson it was a pure power grab. He has stated in the past, as has been noted in this thread, that even though he wasn't the boss on paper (MI director or BYU president) if you were someone in the know at the MI at the time everyone knew who was really in charge. So he felt that he was in control. Since the organizing of Interpreter Peterson has been obsessed with only a few things besides his travel and his blog: making sure that something is published every Friday (that somehow equates to quality or a positive for him). He has also recently been told to "tone things down" in relation to the way that Interpreter has gone after not a volume published in the Joseph Smith Papers but the validity of the credentials and testimony of individual scholars who edited those volumes. At some point you would really hope that Peterson would take the suggestions that Davis gave to him back in 2012 and Midgley gave to Skousen decades ago. I'm not confident that Peterson will ever change, though.

(emphasis added)

The censoring of the comments, given the nature of Parry's article, would seem to support to WMLdeWette is saying, no? True Mopologetics has perhaps crept back onto the Brethren's radar (after quite a long hiatus, I should add: they have ramped up the viciousness considerably in the past year or so), and now the hammer is coming back down?

[_Dr Moore]

As a known donor to the Interpreter, I wish to see the true vision realized, that being a genuine scholarly presentation of discoveries related to Mormonism. After all, I was with David Bokovoy, one of the founders, just days after that infamous dinner meeting.

But, reversion to personal tear-down and Pharisaical virtue signaling pieces masquerading as book reviews, I would argue, falls short of that goal.

With so much legitimate pushback on the methodology employed in, say, a sensation piece like the Greatest Guesser, I would submit that the public comments section is THE peer review process and ought to be enhanced as such through a comment period prior to official publication. It would be great if the comments were taken more seriously, even augmented through a registered voting and comment process, then fed back once or twice before granting approval to publish. It might never be able to establish a genuine double-blind peer review process, but something more democratized would very likely lead to a substantial rise in credibility and hence readership.

[_Kishkumen]

With so much legitimate pushback on the methodology employed in, say, a sensation piece like the Greatest Guesser, I would submit that the public comments section is THE peer review process and ought to be enhanced as such through a comment period prior to official publication. It would be great if the comments were taken more seriously, even augmented through a registered voting and comment process, then fed back once or twice before granting approval to publish. It might never be able to establish a genuine double-blind peer review process, but something more democratized would very likely lead to a substantial rise in credibility and hence readership.

If only the Interpreter were taken that seriously. They could really use your guidance, Dr. Moore.

[_moksha]

Spencer could be denied continuing status if this attack on his reputation is successful.

Then it was definitely a good thing that the consecrated secretary left off that last line in the Interpreter hit piece: "Off with his head!" Can you imagine what impressionable decision-makers in the Religion Department might have made of that?

[_Dr Exiled]

As a known donor to the Interpreter, I wish to see the true vision realized, that being a genuine scholarly presentation of discoveries related to Mormonism. After all, I was with David Bokovoy, one of the founders, just days after that infamous dinner meeting.

But, reversion to personal tear-down and Pharisaical virtue signaling pieces masquerading as book reviews, I would argue, falls short of that goal.

With so much legitimate pushback on the methodology employed in, say, a sensation piece like the Greatest Guesser, I would submit that the public comments section is THE peer review process and ought to be enhanced as such through a comment period prior to official publication. It would be great if the comments were taken more seriously, even augmented through a registered voting and comment process, then fed back once or twice before granting approval to publish. It might never be able to establish a genuine double-blind peer review process, but something more democratized would very likely lead to a substantial rise in credibility and hence readership.

I like the idea of having the comments section act as a peer review mechanism. But too much democracy would expose too many like happened with the Dale team. Also, the voting would put the content out of the control of the editors.