New Interpreter Hit-Piece

[_Simon Southerton]

After reading such an inept hatchet job of a review, it seems the proprietor of the Interpreter doesn't really care about the quality of his journal. Maybe that's because he knows hardly anyone cares about their work. We've had 50 years of limited geography apologetics and you never hear it being talked about at church. We've had 50 years of missing scroll lies and most members know nothing about it.

How depressing to devote your life to advancing ideas that most Mormons ignore.

[_Lemmie]

Allen Wyatt
JULY 13, 2020 AT 2:31 PM
Nice try scratchy. You know better than anyone that every single article is peer reviewed by experts in their filed, usually by PhD’s. You know, as in reviewed by real scholars.

Real scholars, Wyatt?

Sister Black’s paper was no exception and was peer reviewed by highly qualified scholars.

Any chance any of your "real scholars" referred to Doctor Black by her scholarly title? Or is it just you, Allen? Are you the only one who can't use her proper title? Do you think calling her "sister" instead of "doctor" is respectful? Its not, Allen. Grow up and act like an adult. Treat adult women with scholastic titles the same way you treat men with scholastic titles. You know, like real peer-reviewed journals do.

[_Lemmie]

Faith-Promoting Rumor absolutely destroys Easton-Black’s pseudo-review:

http://faithpromotingrumor.com/2020/07 ... YWobAefbMo

From the comments, Allen “The Slug” Wyatt writes:

Sister Black’s paper was no exception and was peer reviewed by highly qualified scholars.

What?! This horrible review was actually peer-reviewed by “highly qualified scholars?” Who could have possibly peer-reviewed this piece of dookie? Michael Hogan? John Pack Lambert? Ideeho? Tom Merrill? Raymond Swenson?

Well, I guess this speaks volumes about the quality of The Interpreter’s peer-review process.

Interesting. I seem to recall Wyatt or Peterson stating in the past that book reviews in the Interpreter were NOT peer reviewed. Now, suddenly, Wyatt insists this book review was? I wonder why?

[_Gadianton]

Where was that quote about "scratchy"? I didn't see it in the comments.

Yes, they did say in the past that Allen was reviewing most of the stuff himself. can't remember where.

[_Lemmie]

Where was that quote about "scratchy"? I didn't see it in the comments.

Yes, they did say in the past that Allen was reviewing most of the stuff himself. can't remember where.

In the Comments at the Faith-Promoting Rumor link Everybody Wang Chung gave:
http://faithpromotingrumor.com/2020/07/ ... YWobAefbMo

[_I have a question]

Her peer-reviewed hit piece is being almost universally ruined within the Interpreter comments section.

For a review that makes quite a bit out of claims that Park’s “documentation is infrequent and causes the reader to search for sources to quotation marks,” Sister Black was unable to provide even a single example from the book to back up that charge. That seems irresponsible at best, and hypocritical at worst. Perhaps she’s not as interested in the truth as she claims.

Hoist with her own petard.

[_Lemmie]

Allen Wyatt
JULY 13, 2020 AT 9:00 PM
It is very simple scratchy. I know it will be hard but try your best to follow along if you can.

Those asked by me to review papers submitted for the Interpreter have scholarly expertise in one or more areas related to the topic. Thus, if a paper has to do with Old Testament the reviewers will have expertise in that subject area. If a paper requires expertise in multiple areas, then I generally employ more reviewers, each with a different expertise area.

Over the years I have used professional historians, psychologists, chemists, engineers, religion professors, linguists, archaeologists, and experts from many other disciplines do peer review.

Sister Black’s paper was no exception and was peer reviewed by highly qualified scholars.

scratchy, try as you might but you will never convince anyone that the Interpreter isn’t scholarly or peer reviewed according to the highest academic and professional standards.

http://faithpromotingrumor.com/2020/07/ ... YWobAefbMo

The “highest academic and professional standards”? Wyatt has got to be kidding. The greatest guesser Bayesian fiasco puts the lie to that all by itself.

[_Lemmie]

Sister Black’s paper was no exception and was peer reviewed by highly qualified scholars.

Wyatt contradicts himself. Apparently DOCTOR Black’s book review was an exception. From the Interpreter website:

Peer Review – Allen Wyatt

....There are a small number of essays appearing in the Interpreter that are not peer reviewed. For instance, it makes little sense to arrange a peer review for a first-person essay, such as those that may appear in Interpreter around Christmas or Easter. In addition, book reviews may be evaluated solely by the Interpreter book review committee, although some may also go through a formal peer review process depending on scope and approach.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/peer-review/

Regarding his peer review process being “scholarly or peer reviewed according to the highest academic and professional standards”, this statement from the same link also contradicts:

Reviewers are generally of the LDS faith, but are not required to be. It is required that the reviewer not be hostile to LDS truth claims and that they are supportive of the Interpreter Foundation’s mission statement. Quite honestly, most reviewers are LDS simply because the majority of non-LDS scholars don’t have the source-level expertise required to provide a peer review of LDS-oriented scholarship.

So, when Wyatt says “the highest academic standards” he really means coming from the infinitesimally small group of academics who are “not hostile” to lds truth claims. That’s quite a qualification to leave out, especially if he and Peterson are deciding who is “hostile” and who is not.

[_Kishkumen]

Getting old is tough. I"m giving them passes as individuals. I can't imagine staring down the day til my own demise. If something unforeseen doesn't hit me, I imagine I'll be ready to say all sorts of things, perhaps hoping that which is ending isn't the end. If someone invites me to spout off on any old topic of my past, relying on my past legacy, perhaps, hoping to incite click bait, I'd do it.

Forgive them, Jesus, they don't know what they're doing.

All I know is this little piece in response to a book is sad, particularly as it's pretending to be some sort of intellectual exercise. Maybe it's merely a symptom of advanced age, fears, and disappointments. It's a piss poor excuse for publication. Now if she added these thoughts on Sic Et Non's discussion board she'd have found an appropriate home for such comments. Or maybe that's how we should view the Interpreter anyway--a comment section of unvetted, unfettered thoughts.

Yes, I don’t know where Dr. Easton-Black’s mental acuity is. Honestly, I don’t think that is the problem. If someone told me to do a short review for an online blog aimed at faithful Latter-day Saints, I might produce such a deficient little review, were I a CES professor. I think the blame for this fiasco rests squarely on the shoulders of the editor, and, beyond that, the general culture of mishandling the vocation of scholarship one sees at Interpreter and its predecessor publications.

[_moksha]

Yes, I don’t know where Dr. Easton-Black’s mental acuity is. Honestly, I don’t think that is the problem. If someone told me to do a short review for an online blog aimed at faithful Latter-day Saints, I might produce such a deficient little review, were I a CES professor. I think the blame for this fiasco rests squarely on the shoulders of the editor, and, beyond that, the general culture of mishandling the vocation of scholarship one sees at Interpreter and its predecessor publications.

Excellent point. For all we know, her writing instructions may have been to keep it simple and to cover the foundation blocks of apologetics: denial, pretzelized logic, and ad hominem attacks on the author. If those were her instructions, she fully complied.