Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_antishock8]

Trevor,

Mr. Peterson is the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University. The thrust of his material really ought to be in that field. He isn't the professor of Mormon Apologetic Studies in the Department of Middle Eastern and Mesoamerican Book of Mormon History. Considering the listed material he has produced for and on behalf BYU, one would think the latter title more appropriate since that's clearly his field of "expertise".

Sincerely,

Professor of Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America

I was simply correcting what I thought to be an overstatement of the case. What Peterson "ought to be" academically is really for him and his employers to decide. My guess is that they are quite happy with him. I find it more than a little odd that you want to castigate him for using his PhD in a manner you deem inappropriate. Why do you care?

You, Good Sir, can correct anything you deem in need of correction. That right, Sir, is yours. Furthermore, you are correct in your assessment of Mr. Peterson and his employers. They are, indeed, forthrightly pleased with the tonnes of apologetic scrabble Mr. Peterson heretofore has amassed instead of academically suited material dealing with Islamic Studies and Arabic reference Asian and Near Eastern Languages. It ills me to know of your displeasure since, Sir, you are someone whose acumen regarding Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America quite clearly exceeds my own. I thusly concede the issue to your superior credentials and keen insight. Good luck, and God speed.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Trevor,

Mr. Peterson is the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University. The thrust of his material really ought to be in that field. He isn't the professor of Mormon Apologetic Studies in the Department of Middle Eastern and Mesoamerican Book of Mormon History. Considering the listed material he has produced for and on behalf BYU, one would think the latter title more appropriate since that's clearly his field of "expertise".

Sincerely,

Professor of Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America

I was simply correcting what I thought to be an overstatement of the case. What Peterson "ought to be" academically is really for him and his employers to decide. My guess is that they are quite happy with him. I find it more than a little odd that you want to castigate him for using his PhD in a manner you deem inappropriate. Why do you care?

I know this one. Because antishock has some massive insecurities and refocuses them by mocking DCP. If DCP blows his nose antishock will find a reason to ridicule him. If DCP does not blow his nose antishock will find a reason to ridicule him.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Oh, he does? How so? Is this because he lacks understanding of Meso-American geography? Or because the Book of Mormon does not match up with known Meso-American geography?

One would have to know the Book of Mormon geography based on the text in order to know if it matches Mesoamerican geography. Herein is Coe's main flaw.

"Objective" in the normative, academic, peer-reviewed sense, of course.

This doesn't answer my question. It seems as though you are painting Bushman as some sort of FARMS critic. While he has some criticisms he also has many praises. It is illustrative of your "objectivity" when you cite the former and show no apparent awareness of the latter.

Lol. C'mon, LoaP. All along you've been pretending like you actually know something about the submission process at FARMS. You *did* know that this is one of the major deviations in FARMS Review from typical academic journals, right? Or, maybe not, hence your completely meaningless/useless Gardner/Beastie example.

Tell me: How is it that articles find their way into FARMS Review, LoaP?

I'm not "pretending" to know anything here. You can "lol" all you want. Some reviews of books are requested by the review. Other articles are submitted and reviewed, some being rejected, others being accepted. Again, I site Bokovoy/Heiser from the recent Review as an example of a great exchange.

[_harmony]

You, Good Sir, can correct anything you deem in need of correction. That right, Sir, is yours. Furthermore, you are correct in your assessment of Mr. Peterson and his employers. They are, indeed, forthrightly pleased with the tonnes of apologetic scrabble Mr. Peterson heretofore has amassed instead of academically suited material dealing with Islamic Studies and Arabic reference Asian and Near Eastern Languages. It ills me to know of your displeasure since, Sir, you are someone whose acumen regarding Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America quite clearly exceeds my own. I thusly concede the issue to your superior credentials and keen insight. Good luck, and God speed.

You couldn't just say "you're right"? You had to act like Balaam's ass and blather on? Why didn't you do a little meta-analysis and find out exactly what percentage of Daniel's publications are apologetic in nature and which are related to his purported field of study? Maybe track down which of his publications are self-published (in that he's the editor of the Review, so essentially everything he puts in that is self-published)?

[_Trevor]

You, Good Sir, can correct anything you deem in need of correction. That right, Sir, is yours. Furthermore, you are correct in your assessment of Mr. Peterson and his employers. They are, indeed, forthrightly pleased with the tonnes of apologetic scrabble Mr. Peterson heretofore has amassed instead of academically suited material dealing with Islamic Studies and Arabic reference Asian and Near Eastern Languages. It ills me to know of your displeasure since, Sir, you are someone whose acumen regarding Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America quite clearly exceeds my own. I thusly concede the issue to your superior credentials and keen insight. Good luck, and God speed.

OK. That was odd.

[_antishock8]

You, Good Sir, can correct anything you deem in need of correction. That right, Sir, is yours. Furthermore, you are correct in your assessment of Mr. Peterson and his employers. They are, indeed, forthrightly pleased with the tonnes of apologetic scrabble Mr. Peterson heretofore has amassed instead of academically suited material dealing with Islamic Studies and Arabic reference Asian and Near Eastern Languages. It ills me to know of your displeasure since, Sir, you are someone whose acumen regarding Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America quite clearly exceeds my own. I thusly concede the issue to your superior credentials and keen insight. Good luck, and God speed.

You couldn't just say "you're right"? You had to act like Balaam's ass and blather on? Why didn't you do a little meta-analysis and find out exactly what percentage of Daniel's publications are apologetic in nature and which are related to his purported field of study? Maybe track down which of his publications are self-published (in that he's the editor of the Review, so essentially everything he puts in that is self-published)?

Sister Harmony,

I'm mocking him because Trevor is not right. The bottom line is BYU employs Mr. Peterson to produce apologetic material, which he does in abundance. It's clear from BYU's website that Mr. Peterson doesn't produce much, if anything, in the way of Islamic Studies and Arabic. Hell, he thinks John Esposito is a "Liberal" Muslim, which is akin to calling Wahhabism a light-hearted take on Islam.

Anyway, I digress. I know you and your ilk have an affinity for Mr. Peterson because he lies about Mormonism and deceives Mormons about Mormonism in such a way as to help you accommodate the devastating facts that most reasonable people would accept reference the veracity of your religion. It's nice to have someone who possesses the TITLE of a respectable field of study at BYU share your view that Mormonism is true enough, but the fact that he's a de facto paid apologist for Mormonism is self-evident. I'm not sure why you resist the obvious. It's right here for you to see:

http://farms.BYU.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=1

Mr. Daniel Peterson is less a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic and more a professional Mormon apologist. That's a fact. You can either accept that BYU, a Mormon owned and ran institution pays him to produce apologia, or you can deceive yourself into believing he produces quality, timely, and peer-reviewed material within his field of "expertise". It's up to you.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You, Good Sir, can correct anything you deem in need of correction. That right, Sir, is yours. Furthermore, you are correct in your assessment of Mr. Peterson and his employers. They are, indeed, forthrightly pleased with the tonnes of apologetic scrabble Mr. Peterson heretofore has amassed instead of academically suited material dealing with Islamic Studies and Arabic reference Asian and Near Eastern Languages. It ills me to know of your displeasure since, Sir, you are someone whose acumen regarding Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America quite clearly exceeds my own. I thusly concede the issue to your superior credentials and keen insight. Good luck, and God speed.

You couldn't just say "you're right"? You had to act like Balaam's ass and blather on? Why didn't you do a little meta-analysis and find out exactly what percentage of Daniel's publications are apologetic in nature and which are related to his purported field of study? Maybe track down which of his publications are self-published (in that he's the editor of the Review, so essentially everything he puts in that is self-published)?

Gladly it seems antishock's irresponsible rants are not looked upon as credible around here. This is good to know.

[_Trevor]

Mr. Daniel Peterson is less a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic and more a professional Mormon apologist. That's a fact. You can either accept that BYU, a Mormon owned and ran institution pays him to produce apologia, or you can deceive yourself into believing he produces quality, timely, and peer-reviewed material within his field of "expertise". It's up to you.

Oh, so that is the point of your tirade. You are angry that Peterson will not admit to being a paid apologist. I don't know how I could have been wrong about that when I wasn't taking up that argument. Well, there are continuing-status (they do not do tenure at BYU) faculty there who have published less in their fields than Peterson. So, Peterson can't be denied legitimate status as a scholar in his field by BYU standards. Still, I think that an argument can be easily made that he is being indirectly subsidized in his apologetic activities. It is arguable, yes.

[_rcrocket]

Which aspect of the Book of Mormon? Historicity? Language? Metalurgy? Geography? DNA? It would be very easy for FARMS editors to contact non-LDS scholars in any of the fields for peer review.

Take some of the outspoken folk, for example, like Coe. Coe shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic Book of Mormon geography based on actual Book of Mormon text.

Oh, he does? How so? Is this because he lacks understanding of Meso-American geography? Or because the Book of Mormon does not match up with known Meso-American geography?

Whoever said anything about "objectivity"? Bushman himself has condemned FARMS authors for their hyper-aggression and reliance on ad hominem attack.

You said the FARMS folk need to write more objectively, and that they ought to look to the example of Bushman. See your previous post. Additionally, Bushman has praise for FARMS in addition to criticism. Why overlook his praise?

"Objective" in the normative, academic, peer-reviewed sense, of course.

What makes you think I haven't?

Well, the best way to clear that up would be to tell me whether you have or not. Perhaps you could even provide me with what you submitted. That would be pretty easy. But not as fun, of course. I'm well aware that some folk around here feel good when they hold stuff over people's heads.

Lol. C'mon, LoaP. All along you've been pretending like you actually know something about the submission process at FARMS. You *did* know that this is one of the major deviations in FARMS Review from typical academic journals, right? Or, maybe not, hence your completely meaningless/useless Gardner/Beastie example.

Tell me: How is it that articles find their way into FARMS Review, LoaP?

I don't speak for FARMS Review but I have been through its editorial process, as well as the editorial process for other journals.

Articles arriving at FARMS Review are solicited and unsolicited. Articles in both the solicited and unsolicited category may be rejected if they are inadequate, can't be fixed, or do not survive peer review. I know of one previously published author who was asked to submit a piece and it did not survive peer review.

FARMS Review has published competing points of view, although this is not the norm. I particularly liked an EV's challenge (Michael Heiser) to Peterson's Psalm 82 analysis in 19/1 at http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=645. I liked the article very much because it caused me to re-read Peterson's 2000 article in The Disciple as Scholar, and I developed a better understanding of the LDS use of Psalm 82.

FARMS Review articles undergo peer review, although the eclectic nature of the articles call for differing rigor. For instance, my two articles were historical pieces and they were reviewed by history professors as well as undergoing approximately 12 months of cite-checking for both articles combined. I suspect that the articles that don't produce much original material, or are mere didactic essays undergo little review. Just a suspicion.

Peer reviewers are selected just like any other ideological journal. If a 50-page article comes in reviewing a work on the LDS view of the Constitution, I imagine that the editors would call their buddies who have some expertise in constitutional law and such. If the Review is like other journals I've worked on there is no "stable" of "go-to" peer reviewers.

I am interested in your comment that Bushman has condemned FARMS Review for its style. I too have criticized FARMS Review for the same thing on occasion, but I would be interested in your cite to Bushman.

[_harmony]

Mr. Daniel Peterson is less a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic and more a professional Mormon apologist. That's a fact. You can either accept that BYU, a Mormon owned and ran institution pays him to produce apologia, or you can deceive yourself into believing he produces quality, timely, and peer-reviewed material within his field of "expertise". It's up to you.

You don't know your audience very well, do you? I'm not exactly the quintessential Daniel fan. Actually, I'm the reason he left Z all those years ago, and he still gets upset when reminded that a woman actually had the balls to call him, the Great One, to repentence (actually, I told him he didn't live his religion, which he didn't and still doesn't). So stow your shipload of baloney, antishock. I'm not fan of the Great One. I am, however, a fan of accuracy, and you're so far off the mark, it's ludicrous.

A person would think you mistakenly thought you were on MAD or something. Good Grief!