DiscussMormonism.com

It would seem that there is some barely restrained rage simmering below the surface appearances of Mopologetics these days. First, we got the absolutely stunning news that Allen Wyatt was apparently forced to accept a co-editor (J. Lindsay) after accusations that the formerly solo Editor in Chief was "under-qualified." Thus it makes sense that the Mopologists would be reminiscing about past editorial experiences, including DCP's experience as the principal editor of the now-defunct FARMS Review. Just take a look at this exchange:

Moksha wrote:Kerry Shirts wrote up a really impressive paper on the Tree and sent me a copy last year since he knew I had an interest in symbolism. Kerry's paper would make a really good article for the Interpreter. Even his list of sources was impressive.

DCP wrote:Among other things, it would be awfully hard to work with somebody who repeatedly slanders us and mischaracterizes us the way Kerry does.

I'm honestly unaware of anything that any of us ever did to hurt him, but he continually says really nasty, unjust, and untrue things about us. I can't fathom why he feels the need to do that. It's genuinely strange. And it saddens me very much.

ClintonKing wrote:It sounds like Kerry Shirts would be opposed to having his paper appear in Interpreter.

DCP wrote:I expect that he would. Very strongly.

Kiwi57 wrote:You should probably stop exploiting Dan's blog for advertising purposes.

Moksha wrote:I think of it as assisting the Interpreter with a very scholarly article which would be a feather in its cap.

DCP wrote:We once published an article in the FARMS Review that had more or less been written by Kerry.

I'm not eager to repeat that experience.

Whoa! This is a stunning admission! Critics for well over a decade have pointed out that the old FARMS articles were not "scholarly" because they were written by "amateurs." Kevin Graham was one of the people who frequently leveled that particular criticism. One of the rebuttals to this was the idea that all scholarship is good, so long as it is sound and well-reasoned, and yet look at what Peterson is saying: "more or less been written by Kerry." Meaning, of course, that the editors exercised a heavy hand in the revision process. Lots of former FARMS authors have complained about "meddling" in their work, and now, at last, we get DCP himself admitting that this was indeed the approach they used. One has to assume that this same thing still goes on at "Interpreter," and, in fact, it may have something to do with the new "restructuring" that has occurred with respect to Allen Wyatt's role.

And I have to admit: it's really hard to ignore Peterson's closing remark: "I'm not eager to repeat that experience." Why would he say this? Is it because he thought Kerry was rude or personally unpleasant? (I find that quite impossible to believe. Kerry will stand up for himself and push back when he knows something is wrong, but I've never seen any signs that he is in any way a mean or unpleasant person.) So, then, I guess it means that he thought that Kerry was an "unscholarly" loser? The experience was "not fun" because they had to do too much of the work? Or is it that Kerry wasn't sufficiently "Mopologetic"--in line with what Hauglid has said--and he was resistant to going into full-on "attack dog" mode?

In any event, this may be the very first time that Dr. Peterson has publicly admitted that he regrets having published an article in the FROB. Very, very interesting.

I bet Coach P is conflating current Kerry (their supposed enemy because he disagrees with them) with old apologetic sincere Kerry and saying what he wants to say to today's Kerry in the above post. I have a hard time envisioning Kerry as being anything but easy to work with and very scholarly. He strikes me as a sincere guy who discovered the truth and followed the consequences, regardless of whatever backlash would happen. Even so, I bet as Reverend outlined, Coach and his cohorts used the heavy hand of the priesthood to regulate the realm at FARMS and still do so at Interpreter.

My take on Coach is that if enough pressure is put on him, he will say many, many contradictory things. If I were to depose him, I would try to get him talking and let him twist himself into knots. He cannot stand up to scrutiny because Mormonism cannot. One has to lie to oneself in order to remain, once one knows the real history beyond a certain point, and Dr. P has certainly passed that point a long time ago. I don't think he has a real position on anything other than winning the argument and so the contradictions would be plentiful.

"I'm honestly unaware of anything that any of us ever did to hurt him"

Huh.

How about something related to this?

"We once published an article in the FARMS Review that had more or less been written by Kerry.

I'm not eager to repeat that experience."

isn't it at least plausible that if a publishing endeavor ended with the editor-in-chief mortally frustrated with the individual publishing, that the individual publishing could have been "hurt" during the experience? I'm not saying that the individual publishing was hurt, or even speculating that he was hurt. I'm just pointing out that within mere sentences of feigning ignorance, "Why, I am at a total loss as to how that person could have been offended by anything we did. Nothing at all comes to mind!" -- something like this, interestingly, immediately impresses itself upon the mind: "I did have to deal with that person once and I won't be doing that again, that's for darn sure! Good heavens, what a catastrophe!"

We have to wonder just how many other possible experiences "not wished to be repeated" by the apologists involving the individual occurred, and how they could come to believe that given several "uncomfortable" experiences with the individual, the individual surely wouldn't have likewise come away feeling "uncomfortable". Or do they see themselves as Gods? "I'm sure that peasant boy will boast until the day he dies about that time he touched my robe and kissed my ring, and bowed prostrate before me. Well, his hands were dirty; no fun for me. I prefer to be worshiped by those who have some practice doing it."

Yes, good points, Dr. E. Why is he "not eager to repeat that experience"? As you point out: there is really no way that he will supply and answer to that question. It would simply reveal too much of the truth.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 23, 2020 4:00 am

We have to wonder just how many other possible experiences "not wished to be repeated" by the apologists involving the individual occured, and how they could come to believe that given several "uncomfortable" experiences with the individual, they are at a total loss as to how the individual could have likewise came away from the interactions feeling "uncomfortable". Or do they see themselves as Gods? "I'm sure that peasant boy will boast until the day he dies about that time he touched my robe and kissed my ring, and bowed prostrate before me. Well, his hands were dirty; no fun for me. I prefer to be worshiped by those who have some practice doing it."

You write, "do they see themselves as Gods?" I dunno. Take a look:

SeN wrote:Between bouts of consulting the Chronic book (at least while we were still in Utah), we listened to the first part of Tears We Cannot Stop: A Sermon to White America, by Michael Eric Dyson.

I’ve long dreamed of a serious, balanced, honest conversation on the American racial divide. Unfortunately, this book isn’t it — and my saying that is almost certain to provoke accusations against me in certain circles of bigotry and racisim, and of toxic “whiteness” and basking in white privilege.

I regard Thomas Sowell as a far more reliable guide to this subject than Michael Eric Dyson. Too bad. To say that I’m disappointed in the book thus far would be a massive understatement.

Do you remember that line from The Big Lebowski where Walter Sobchak (John Goodman's character) repeats that quote: "If you will it, Dude, there is no dream"? Professor Peterson says that he's "long dreamed of a serious, balanced, honest conversation on the American racial divide," but where is the evidence for this? Just this, now, in this blog entry? Remember that this is the guy who posted lynching photos as a *joke*. And here he is saying that the only reliable voice on race is a Black author who shares his conservative views. So, basically, the only conversation on race that's acceptable to him (i.e., a "serious, balanced, honest conversation") is one that aligns with his ideological views. That's not "serious" at all. That is just a perpetuation of his own racial views. Let him defend them if he cares in any meaningful way about a "serious, balanced, honest conversation on the American racial divide."

huh, at the end of that post he says, "But I’ll close on a much more hopeful note, in two lines from a hymn that I never liked when I was young."

Why didn't he like "Abide with me?" Was it because of the general them of charity -- "help of the helpless?" Just a guess, but I venture he did not need to acquire a taste for "Praise to the Man" or "Onward Christian Soldiers". How about "The Spirit of God?" Probably wolfed that one down first taste.

On a side note, Kerry shared his Tree research with me as well. I would like to see a serious editor work with Kerry to get it published somewhere. Tremendous research and fascinating connections. Nothing denominational or polemical.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 23, 2020 4:23 am

huh, at the end of that post he says, "But I’ll close on a much more hopeful note, in two lines from a hymn that I never liked when I was young."

Why didn't he like "Abide with me?" Was it because of the general them of charity -- "help of the helpless?" Just a guess, but I venture he did not need to acquire a taste for "Praise to the Man" or "Onward Christian Soldiers". How about "The Spirit of God?" Probably wolfed that one down first taste.

One wonders if he loved burning ants as a kid when the other kids were playing without him and he was left with the adults?

DCP Attacks Kerry Shirts

Kerry should wear that like a badge of honor on all his shirts.

Kerry's work on tree symbolism is a helluva lot better than Dr. Easton-Black poorly executed review of Park's book on Nauvoo. So, I don't think much of this excuse that what Kerry does is somehow not up to Interpreter's high standards. I also recall that interminable piece on Enoch that Interpreter published. It was written by some non-LDS PhD. Now, it was interesting, but it was also very odd and convoluted. I don't see how Kerry's work would be less appropriate for Interpreter than that.