Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_beastie]

Are Katherine and the others prominent advocates of Mormonism and/or theism? Are they, in the main on these boards, advocates of it at all?

LOL! So here’s your original question:

Would you care to point to any believer on this board, or at the Maxwell Institute or at FAIR, say, whose belief in Mormonism you regard as rational, honest, intelligent, and informed?

So I pointed to several believers that I stated were rational, honest, intelligent, and informed.

Now DCP changes it to PROMINENT advocates of Mormonism!!!

Katherine the Great is a frequent poster on MAD. Go check out her posts for yourself if you have doubts about her qualifications as a believer. Do the same for alter idem. Jason does have more questions about aspects of the faith, but is still a believer.

I believe that atheism can be, and, in the hands of good thinkers, often is, rationally founded, intelligent, based upon an honest survey of the evidence, and sane.

Do you believe that belief in Mormonism can be rationally founded, intelligent, based upon an honest survey of the evidence, and sane? Are there any good thinkers -- honest, sane, intelligent, rational, and well-informed -- who argue prominently and publicly (and honestly, sanely, intelligently, rationally, and on the basis of solid information) for the validity of orthodox Mormonism?

There are many different truth claims that Mormonism makes, and some can be believed based upon rationally founded, intelligent, honest survey of the evidence, and sane. There are other truth claims that are more problematic. I mention the historicity of the Book of Mormon as one I have studied and interacted with others about. Most people who believe that the Book of Mormon makes sense as an ancient Mesoamerican document do not possess a significant amount of background information in order to make that judgment based on an “honest survey of the evidence”. But they are honest and rational people. There are lots of areas I haven’t studied enough to make informed judgments about, either. There are some people who are very well informed about ancient Mesoamerica and still believe it makes sense as an ancient Mesoamerican document, and I believe they are rational, intelligent, and sane. However, I believe their preexisting bias – namely their spiritual testimonies – precludes them from an honest survey of the evidence. John Clark admitted that surveying the evidence will only be persuasive if one already believes in the Book of Mormon for “other reasons” – which is, of course, the testimony. If all that was required was an honest surveying of the evidence to be persuaded that the Book of Mormon makes sense as an ancient Mesoamerican document, then the preexisting testimony would not be required. Here is John Clark’s statement from the Q/A session of his BYU devotional:

[John Clark:] Those who choose not to believe it [i.e., the Book of Mormon] will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. ...
But I'm, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it's not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you're on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You're free to think that—we're not doing anybody any harm.
[Mp3 Time: c. 26 mins.]
[John Clark:] And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

Now other truth claims of Mormonism make a great deal of sense, such as their teachings on family, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility and accountability, etc.

Now as to whether or not the belief in Mormonism – as a whole – can be sane, rational, based an honest survey of the evidence, and intelligent depends entirely upon how one interprets and understands Mormonism overall. And as anyone who has engaged in discussions with believers on the internet knows, there is hardly a consensus on that.

So let’s take it down to a more basic level – do I believe that people can believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead based on rationality, honesty, intelligence, and an honest survey of information? No. There is zero evidence that human beings resurrect from the dead. The only evidence we have for it is a record that is thousands of years old that contains other dubious claims. But that doesn’t mean that believers, themselves, are not sane, honest, and intelligent.

Belief is a very complex mechanism. You are over-simplifying it to try to score some imaginary point.

But let me ask this: do you believe that the belief in Scientology – as a whole – can be sane, rational, based on an honest survey of the evidence, and intelligent?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Supplemental information:

You don't know Bill Hamblin personally, I think. But I do. I first met him in Cairo in 1980, so I've known him for nearly three decades. We've been colleagues at BYU for something like two decades. He's among my best friends, and one of my favorite people.

I'm quite confident, of course, that he's not insane. I'm also quite confident -- though I know this conflicts with Scratchworld dogma -- that he's not a brazen liar. Quite the contrary, in fact: He speaks his mind very freely (which can be uncomfortable for administrators, etc.), has a wicked, irreverent, and somewhat anarchic sense of humor, and has a peculiarly stubborn integrity that can even frustrate me sometimes. (If you knew his father, you would understand where he got it.)

He was not even slightly repentant after l'affaire du Butthead came to light. While other members of the FARMS board were surprised and upset by it and while even I thought it had gotten considerably out of hand, he attended the next FARMS board meeting dressed in a Beavis and Butthead t-shirt. He sensed no motivation to lie about what he did, wasn't embarrassed by it, and he didn't lie.

I can't think of anything he would have had to gain by misleading anybody on the very peripheral issue of whether jokes sometimes occurred in other manuscripts sent to me, when he had already admitted, quite cheerfully, his full responsibility for the Main Event. It simply doesn't make any sense.

As for the "prominent believers" issue:

I'm simply trying to smoke out whether you're capable of acknowledging that Mormons can be sane, honest, intelligent, and rational in the act of advocating their beliefs. That you like some Mormons who, on the whole, don't spend much time arguing for their particular beliefs is interesting and encouraging, but, ultimately, not fully relevant.

[_Mister Scratch]

And, this is significant.

A watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics, no doubt.

Well, I don't know about that. Certainly, it's not on the same plane as the admission that apologists get paid.

Critics have long asserted that publications such as FARMS Review don't employ a typical peer review process,

By "critics" you mean essentially yourself and perhaps two or three mini-Scratches.

No. I've seen it from well over two dozen separate posters. One might even say that it is a widespread belief in certain circles.

But, the evidence, as it continues to surface like submerged flotsam and jetsam, demonstrates that peer review at FARMS Review is a long cry from what is usually practiced at serious academic journals.

Not even your cherry-picked and highly selective little anthill of "evidence" demonstrates that. It's logically irrelevant, for the most part.

Oh, yes it does! Feel free to show where an editor---any editor at all!---of a serious academic journal has knowingly passed along something akin to "Metcalfe is Butthead" to a peer reviewer.

I mean, can you imagine a contributor to JAMA sticking bogus footnotes or sophomoric acrostics into his or her article?

Easily.

Well, I would be horrified if I learned that they were engaging in this kind of stuff. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to think that serious scholars usually treat their work....seriously.

This "Butthead Incident," coupled with the very strange fact that you guys apparently commission virtually 100% of your articles,

We don't commission 100% of our articles,

Notice that I said "virtually 100%."

but the FARMS Review is primarily a book review publication and book reviews in academia are very commonly commissioned.

Yes, that's true, but you are overlooking the key distinction to be made here, which is that you guys commission articles based on ideological orthodoxy rather than expertise. I defy you to prove that this is not the case.

Until just this past year, for instance, when I volunteered a review for a friend's journal, every single academic book review I had ever written (for the International Journal of Middle East Studies, The Medieval Review, al-‘Arabiyya, Muslim World, al-Masaq, Religious Studies Review, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Hugoye, and the like) had been commissioned.

Right, and how many of these commissions were based principally on your expertise? How many were commissioned because it was known ahead of time that you could be expected to produce an absolutely orthodox, "boot-lick" piece aimed at attacking a given movement's critics?

shows that the publication is really little more than a tendentious tool for apologists, and not a rigorous scholarly journal.

Ignorance militant.

Sorry, Prof. P., but you have yet to establish a clear case that the peer review process at FARMS hasn't been tainted either by cronyism or juvenile revenge tactics. Feel free to supply the names of the peer reviewers. I bet you are terrified of doing so, since it would reveal the "cabal" of "Church yes-men" behind apologetics. In all likelihood, the reviewers are all close friends of yours, and are selected primarily on the basis of ideological purity, rather than expertise.

[_beastie]

I actually believe that Hamblin was telling the truth. I think he probably did insert little jokes for you to find in his articles. He wrote his email directly after the fact, and he included details that were unlikely to be fabricated. I trust that he is not disconnected to reality. I agree that it doesn’t make sense for him to make any of this up. The most likely option is that you simply don’t remember all this, or that you’re uncomfortable admitting it. The only reason this has entered “overkill” is because of your overreaction to it.

As for the "prominent believers" issue:

I'm simply trying to smoke out whether you're capable of acknowledging that Mormons can be sane, honest, intelligent, and rational in the act of advocating their beliefs. That you like some Mormons who, on the whole, don't spend much time arguing for their particular beliefs is interesting and encouraging, but, ultimately, not fully relevant.

You keep moving the goalposts. I provided the names of people who DO post on MAD or here, who ARE believers, and who DO defend their beliefs. How in the world do YOU know if they don’t “spend much time arguing for their particular beliefs” when you apparently don’t even know who they are?

I understand that this is inconvenient for your theory, but I have adequately answered your question, and your theory is baloney.

I remain interested in this question:

Do you believe that the belief in Scientology – as a whole – can be sane, rational, based on an honest survey of the evidence, and intelligent?

[_Daniel Peterson]

No. I've seen it from well over two dozen separate posters.

Wow. More than twenty-four internet posters?

One might even say that it is a widespread belief in certain circles.

One might.

Which "certain circles," I wonder?

Oh, yes it does!

Oh no it doesn't!

Feel free to show where an editor---any editor at all!---of a serious academic journal has knowingly passed along something akin to "Metcalfe is Butthead" to a peer reviewer.

I'm not aware of any. But, having been around academics most of my life, I know from personal experience that many of them have senses of humor and play practical jokes. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if comparable jokes have occurred.

One of my favorite stunts is the famous Alan Sokal article in Social Text:

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/soka ... ca_v4.html

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to think that serious scholars usually treat their work....seriously.

Professor Hamblin's article is a serious one. The acrostic didn't affect that, and, in any event, the version of the article that was actually distributed doesn't contain the acrostic.

you guys commission articles based on ideological orthodoxy rather than expertise. I defy you to prove that this is not the case.

That's why, when we were responding to the Amerindian DNA issue, we published articles from Michael Whiting (molecular biologist), Ryan Parr (archaeologist/geneticist), John Butler (forensic DNA specialist), David McClellan (population geneticist), and the like.

That's why, when we responded to a piece on population sizes in the Book of Mormon, we published an article by one of the leading authorities in the world on ancient demography.

That's why, when we needed a reviewer for Blake Ostler's first book on Mormonism and philosophical theology, we published a review by a professor of philosophy at Utah State.

That's why, when we reviewed an attempted psychobiography of Joseph Smith, our reviewer was Michael Jibson, M.D., Ph.D., who teaches psychiatry at the University of Michigan.

That's why, when we wanted a review of Michael Marquardt's work on Joseph Smith, we turned to Richard Bushman.

That's why, when we wanted an essay on the Jesus Seminar, we turned to Tom Wayment, with his Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Claremont.

That's why, when we wanted an exchange on Psalm 82 and the divine council, we turned to the Protestant biblical scholar Michael Heiser, one of the foremost authorities on the subject, and the Latter-day Saint David Bokovoy, who's doing his dissertation on the topic at Brandeis University.

That's why, when we wanted an essay on Mormon studies as a rising academic discipline, we published an essay by M. Gerald Bradford, who took his Ph.D. in religious studies under Mircea Eliade, Ninian Smart, Walter Capps, and Thomas O'Dea at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

That's why we've featured articles on history by Davis Bitton, the inactive Mormon historian Klaus Hansen, James Allen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Steven Harper, and the like.

That's why we've featured articles on philosophical subjects by James Faulconer and Benjamin Huff and Codell Carter and Daniel Graham and James Siebach and Dennis Potter and Ralph Hancock.

And on and on and on.

Feel free to supply the names of the peer reviewers.

They're anonymous, silly fellow.

Which is pretty standard practice.

I bet you are terrified of doing so, since it would reveal the "cabal" of "Church yes-men" behind apologetics. In all likelihood, the reviewers are all close friends of yours, and are selected primarily on the basis of ideological purity, rather than expertise.

What unthinking foolishness.

They're not.

It would be complete idiocy on my part to rig a private anonymous review process (which reports only to me) in order deliberately to ensure that my little journal can publish low quality, fatally flawed work. Rough anonymous peer review comments that are never published would be far easier to handle than justified public criticism of poorly done scholarship. My plain interest is in avoiding the latter -- not in purposely assuring, by means of devious cunning, that we humiliate ourselves.

At least once in a while, poor fellow, you ought to think about your accusations. They should be at least minimally coherent.

[_Enuma Elish]

I'm not aware of any. But, having been around academics most of my life, I know from personal experience that many of them have senses of humor and play practical jokes. I wouldn't be even slightly surprised if comparable jokes have occurred.

A grad student, a post-doc, and a professor are walking through a city park and they find an antique oil lamp. They rub it and a Genie comes out in a puff of smoke.

The Genie says, "I usually only grant three wishes, so I'll give each of you just one."

"Me first! Me first!" says the grad student. "I want to be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat with a gorgeous woman" Poof! He's gone.

"Me next! Me next!" says the post-doc. "I want to be in Hawaii, relaxing on the beach with a professional hula dancer on one side and a MaiTai on the other."

Poof! He's gone.

"You're next," the Genie says to the professor.

The professor says, "I want those guys back in the lab after lunch."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Overheard at FARMS headquarters (a secret transcript, supplied by Scratchworld informant Consuela M., a.k.a. Scratch Network Agent #63952):

Eeevil Peterson: "Bwahahahaha! I have a fiendish secret plan!"

Igor: "What is it, master?"

Eeevil Peterson: "No submissions to the FARMS Review shall be read by anybody competent to evaluate them. Only my small and secretive Cabal of Yes-Men shall read them before press time. That way, all of the private peer review messages seen by my eyes only shall be entirely positive and uncritical, and egregious mistakes and lethal errors shall survive through to publication!"

Igor: "And what is the purpose of your fiendish secret plan, master?"

Eeevil Peterson: "Ha! That's the beauty of it! Because there will be no mechanism in place to privately correct errors or block publication of potentially embarrassing things, our risk of eventual public humiliation will be exponentially increased!"

Igor: "That's brilliant, master!"

Eeevil Peterson: "Yes, Eeyore, it is! A masterstroke, one that will utterly destroy our enemies!"

Igor: "Hey. That's Igor, pal."

[_beastie]

Don't want this to get buried -

Dan - do you believe that the belief in Scientology – as a whole – can be sane, rational, based on an honest survey of the evidence, and intelligent?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Don't want this to get buried -

Dan - do you believe that the belief in Scientology – as a whole – can be sane, rational, based on an honest survey of the evidence, and intelligent?

Quite candidly, while what little I know of it seems extraordinarily bizarre, I have never read anything about Scientology that was longer than a short newspaper article, so I don't feel myself competent to pronounce judgment on the mental apparatus and attitudes of those who accept it.

I have never, ever, encountered a pro-Scientology argument, though I assume that such things exist. So I can't say whether they're even slightly persuasive or not.

I've had too much experience with things that seemed implausible at first hearing, but then turned out to be true (or at least not unreasonable), to be comfortable with hasty responses.* I also know how silly my own faith, or any faith, can look to an outsider upon cursory (and maybe not entirely accurate) inspection.


* Some examples: There is a traditional site in Jerusalem that I long thought transparently bogus; I now believe it may be entirely authentic, one of the most important sites in Israel. I did all of my early studies of Islam in Sunni Palestine and Sunni Egypt, and regarded Shi‘i Islam as absurd schism and Iran as the world's largest open-air lunatic asylum; my doctoral advisor, though, was a (lapsed) Isma‘ili Shi‘i, and I did my dissertation on a Shi‘i philosopher, so that I now have considerable respect for the Shi‘i position, overall. As I've read Trinitarian theology from Catholics and Protestants over the past while, my respect for Trinitarian reasoning has increased and my sense of the ridiculousness of metaphysical or ontological Trinitarianism, which I still reject, has drastically decreased. For several months a few years ago, I read intensively in Catholic apologetic literature for a project that I was working on; I had imagined that Catholics could frame no serious biblical arguments for many of their practices and beliefs, but I no longer think that Marian devotion and things of that sort are as plainly unbiblical as I once did.

[_beastie]

First, thank you for your sincere answer. I agree that some things that seem bizarre on the surface can actually turn out to be correct.

Quite candidly, while what little I know of it seems extraordinarily bizarre, I have never read anything about Scientology that was longer than a short newspaper article, so I don't feel myself competent to pronounce judgment on the mental apparatus and attitudes of those who accept it.

I have never, ever, encountered a pro-Scientology argument, though I assume that such things exist. So I can't say whether they're even slightly persuasive or not.

So do you concede it is possible for sane, intelligent, and rational people to believe in a belief system, and yet that belief itself is not based on a sane, rational, intelligent, and honest survey of the evidence?