The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Morrissey]

As I've learned debating with Mak, he tends to portray disagreement with him, his methods, and his conclusions as evidence of bad faith, intellectual dishonesty, lack of reasoning skills, or some other character flaw. He did it with me, he's doing it with Schmo, and here he's doing it with Thama.

Caveat emptor.

A poor substitute for engaging the issues with your assessment. If you take issue with a specific aspect of my criticisms then address it, but this generalized "Gosh, he always does this" doesn't mean jack to me. Either engage the issue or go away.

As I stated previously, I don't recall agreeing to take orders from you. It's immaterial to me if my postings here meet with your approval. I'll come and go as I please, thank you.

I tried to engage with you on specific issues, and all it got me was what I described above. This despite the fact that at least a couple of other people indicated that they understood clearly what I was arguing and even supported it, you consistently accused me of intellectual perfidy.

And you are doing it yet again with Schmo and Thama.

Whatever chip you are carrying on your shoulder, it is getting in the way.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The proof is in the pudding:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/review/

If there were "non sympathizers" among the peer reviewers, I'm confident that the finished product would look very different. But, your goal has never been balance and fairness, so that's that.

By which Scratch admits that he has no actual knowledge of the peer review process itself. He simply thinks that the FARMS Review ought not to be what it is, but ought to be what he would like it to be, and concludes, on that basis, that the peer review process is rigged.

The Review can be whatever you want it to be. But let's not pretend that it's not bellicose, and that it's not using a stunningly rigged peer review system. (One wonders why a review-based "journal" would need peer reviewers at all. Most scholarly book reviews, after all, don't receive peer review. Then, of course, one remembers that you need this component to add credibility to what is, on the whole, essentially a jokey---or "satiric," in your phrasing---attack journal. Cue the predictable response: "Hey! You criticize us for having a rigged peer review, and then you criticize us for having peer review at all!" If you are going to have a peer review, at least use one that brings some even-handedness and balance to the publication; or, you can dispense with the process entirely. I mean, it's not really relevant to what you're going, in the end, is it?)

Look, I don't deny for a moment that there are, and will be, those who dislike the FARMS Review.

The territory being, of course, the bellicosity, the smear campaigns, the gossip-mongering, the snideness, etc.

Especially among those who disagree with its overall stance. That goes with the territory. The Review deals with controversial matters, and it does so from a pronounced position and in an often (though not always) forceful style, with an ironic and satirical bent.

You yourself have said that satire far too often is used to do harm. How interesting, then, that you'd admit that the Review "often" has a "satirical bent." As for "ironic".... Well, I've never seen any evidence that you know what the word actually means. For many years you used to call RfM the "ironically-named Recovery Board," though when it was pointed out to you that, in fact, there wasn't much surprising or "ironic" about the fact that people who'd lost their faith would be angry and upset, you mysteriously ceased calling it "ironic."

But many people like the Review -- including people whose opinions I value.

The issue was not whether "people whose opinions [you] value" like the Review. The issue is whether "fair minded" people, following the links you endlessly post, would "like" it, or would approve of the "ironic, satirical bent." The total number of "fair minded people" you've so far named is: Zero.

If you want to persuade people that "fair minded" readers (non-TBMs, presumably) see the Review the way you claim they will/do, you ought to cite actual people. Heck, even apologist sympathizers like Richard Bushman have chided you for your belligerence. You don't have a case here at all.

Please refresh my memory about Richard's comment.

No. Surveying three decades of your vendetta-fueled treatment of critics has shown me that you are the last person for whom I should do any favors. Use the search engine if you want a memory refresher.

Incidentally, I'll be lecturing for him in one of his classes down there in Claremont next March. We just set that up yesterday.

That's terrific. It does nothing to undo his criticism, but, hey---bully for you.

I'm not going to cite names for you

What a surprise! Lol.

,

but I've received very positive comments about the Review from a number of reputable historians and other scholars, to say nothing of ordinary readers (one of whom, a complete stranger, stopped me at the airport last week, to make some embarrassingly positive comments about the Review and my writing.)

Right. And this sure helps to establish that these are "fair minded," non-TBM readers who are merely following the links you provide. I'm surprised that you weren't able to muster any better evidence that this. Well, okay---maybe I wasn't surprised after all.

Some specifically get a kick out of its style and sense of humor.

Especially those who are hell-bent on revenge against critics. (E.g., Gary Novak, Scott Lloyd, William Schryver, Stan Barker, William Hamblin. Wow! See how easy it is to cite actual people?)

Well, you don't know this for certain. For all you know, I *have* written for the Review, or I'm friends with one of the peer reviewers, etc. Best not to make assumptions, Dr. Peterson.

I'm quite confident that you haven't written for us. But, even if you had, how would that qualify you to make any comments about the overall peer review system that we run? You would only know what went on between you and me (or, perhaps, between yourself and one of my other editors). You would know nothing, thereby, about the identities of any of the other peer reviewers (and, very possibly, not even the identities of those who reviewed your own piece), and you would know nothing about their interactions with me, which are confidential.

The same would be true if you were a friend of one of our peer reviewers. (D you have friends?) Knowing one would identify none of the others. Knowing what he said would tell you nothing about any of the others, nor about their interactions with the Review's editors.

Please try to make at least minimal sense.

It makes perfectly good sense: one or two (or three or four, for all you know) instances of "insider contact" with the method, plus reading the final issues = quite a reasonably good understanding of the peer review process. Let's not forget, as well, that you expounding on the whole thing at length in "The Witchcraft Paradigm." It seems to me that you'd be better off admitting that it is indeed "rigged," and that you stack the deck in such a way that the articles will have maximum assault power against critics.

The bad parts of the Review persist, probably due in part to your malign influence.

LOL. I certainly hope so!

You "certainly hope" that reasonable and fair-minded people will continue to have a problem with the journal's unfortunate vindictiveness and pettiness? Okay.

[_Some Schmo]

If you say so.

Oh, well played.

You think? I just thought we were at an impasse and I had nothing else to say.

OMG... dude, you need to stop talking as if you were there to observe it.

I have a much better perspective than you.

Hmmm... well, if your judgment of Joe Smith's perspective is as good as your perspective of mine, color me doubtful.

It's interesting how there seems to be a correlation between religious belief and psychic powers. Fascinating.

Of course I'm imagining the past. You are too, aren't you?

I'm reconstructing it using objective methods of historical inquiry.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but in order to be objective about it, you'd have to disinvest yourself from your preset conclusions. Again, color me doubtful.

I am the only one in this exchange whose ideas coincide with rational thought (which excludes supernatural ideas).

Again you presume to insist the viability of the supernatural is a legitimate aspect of an evaluation of the motivations for Joseph Smith's actions.

OK, let me see if I have this straight: I'm supposed to rely on the “evidence” of the historical record in order to speculate on what might have motivated Joe Smith to do what he did (which was to maintain that all he'd written about god and the church was true - surely we can agree on that historical fact, can't we?), but then it's entirely valid to dismiss the requirement of evidence when it comes to considering the supernatural as part of the Joe Smith equation?

Hmph. Well that's a convenient double standard, isn't it?

I'm done with this conversation.

I am not surprised at all, my friend.

[_Morrissey]

Along with an incredibly naïve set of assumptions about when, how, how often, and why people lie.

Take for example, the James Strang witnesses:

Who says that that the Strangite witnesses were lying?

I don't think they were.

There really were plates there, and they really saw them dug up out of the ground.

James J. Strang translated metallic plates and eleven witnesses signed testimonies that they saw the plates—none ever denied their testimony. The testimony of the Voree Plates is published in the Revelations of James J. Strang; and the testimony to the Book of the Law of the Lord is published in front of that law.

If one set of witnesses is telling the truth, the other is lying.

On what basis do you make that claim?

In any case, it establishes that people do lie about these things, and they are capable of engaging in a conspiracy, as it were, to lie about these things.

Again, why do you assume that the Strangite witnesses were lying?

The Strangite plates and witnesses are not closely comparable to those of Joseph Smith. Here's something I wrote about them for the 2006 FAIR conference. I haven't bothered to include the footnotes:

Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith's successor and was clearly seeking to imitate the Prophet. That his plates really existed is beyond serious dispute. The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had brought to the appropriate site. Inscribed on both sides with illustrations and "writing," the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size -- small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket. Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One not altogether reliable source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies. The eighteen "Plates of Laban," likewise of brass and each about 7 3/8 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and, in 1851, were seen by seven witnesses. Their testimony appeared at the front of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strang said he translated from the "Plates of Laban." (Work on the translation seems to have begun at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) The statement of Strang's witnesses speaks of seeing the plates, but mentions nothing of any miraculous character. Nor did Strang supply any second set of corroborating testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. One of the witnesses to the "Plates of Laban," Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang's movement and denounced it as mere "human invention." Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the "Plates of Laban." The well-read Strang had been an editor and lawyer before his brief affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his subsequent career as a schismatic leader. Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those associated with Joseph Smith, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months, and, unlike the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Strang's witnesses did not remain faithful to their testimonies. Milo Quaife, in his early, standard biography of Strang, reflected that "It is quite conceivable that Strang's angelic visitations may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them. But the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality." If we are unwilling to accept The Book of the Law of the Lord as authentically divine, he says, "we can hardly escape the conclusion . . . that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers" and, accordingly, that "Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture." Roger Van Noord, Strang's most recent biographer, concludes that, "Based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang -- or someone under his direction -- manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang's advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion."

Good reply Dan. I don't have time to respond (report due and all). The two may indeed not be directly comparable (I don't concede this to be the case but acknowledge the possibility, as I don't have time to read and consider this carefully). If someone else wants to take this up, feel free.

By the way, how did your event in Vegas with Schermer go? Or has it happened yet?

[_Some Schmo]

I tried to engage with you on specific issues, and all it got me was what I described above. This despite the fact that at least a couple of other people indicated that they understood clearly what I was arguing and even supported it, you consistently accused me of intellectual perfidy.

And you are doing it yet again with Schmo and Thama.

Whatever chip you are carrying on your shoulder, it is getting in the way.

Sometimes, I imagine (of course, this is pure speculation; I'm not stating it as fact, not trying to suggest I know this for sure, and am only basing it on my subjective experience with reading various apologists on this board - thought I better make that clear in case someone wanted "evidence") that it's got to be tough and frustrating for the apologists when the deck is so highly stacked against them. I suppose I'd probably get angry and start acting the way they do if I were fighting an impossible battle too, especially if I couldn't admit to myself that it was a lost cause.

At what point do they just say to themselves, "All this intellectual dishonesty isn't worth it any more" and stop making crazy arguments? I suspect their resistance is due to comfort, and perhaps to a greater extent, ego. Some people just can't admit to themselves they're wrong (even though it's part of learning and being human).

It's sad, really.

*shrug*

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Review can be whatever you want it to be. But let's not pretend that it's not bellicose, and that it's not using a stunningly rigged peer review system.

I don't have to "pretend."

It's not "bellicose," though it can be combative. (The two words have very different connotations.) And it certainly doesn't use "a stunningly rigged peer review system."

Remember, I'm the one who runs the confidential peer review system for the FARMS Review. You're the one who knows nothing about it, and makes stuff up. So, if we're not going to pretend, let's not pretend any more that you have any real idea what you're talking about.

One wonders why a review-based "journal" would need peer reviewers at all. Most scholarly book reviews, after all, don't receive peer review.

That's correct. I've made that point to you a great number of times. It seems that you've finally begun to internalize it.

Here's the reason we use peer review: It helps us with quality control. We don't need it, but we do it anyway. For which, predictably, you damn us.

Then, of course, one remembers that you need this component to add credibility to what is, on the whole, essentially a jokey---or "satiric," in your phrasing---attack journal.

If we had ever made a big deal about our peer review, you might have had a point. But we never even mentioned it -- for years -- until a few critics such as yourself began to criticize us for supposedly having none.

Cue the predictable response: "Hey! You criticize us for having a rigged peer review, and then you criticize us for having peer review at all!"

That response was predictable because it's so precisely spot-on.

You criticize us no matter what we do. You criticize me for everything I do and, even, for things that I don't do -- including, irrelevantly, my alleged taste in music, humor, literature, movies, and art. Your hostility is bizarre, obsessive, virtually unlimited, and transparently irrational.

If you are going to have a peer review, at least use one that brings some even-handedness and balance to the publication; or, you can dispense with the process entirely. I mean, it's not really relevant to what you're going, in the end, is it?)

It helps us produce a better product. That the product represents a point of view, and specifically one that you abhor, is perfectly fine with me.

You yourself have said that satire far too often is used to do harm. How interesting, then, that you'd admit that the Review "often" has a "satirical bent."

I think satire can be misused. That doesn't mean that satire, as such, is bad.

As for "ironic".... Well, I've never seen any evidence that you know what the word actually means.

Whatever.

For many years you used to call RfM the "ironically-named Recovery Board," though when it was pointed out to you that, in fact, there wasn't much surprising or "ironic" about the fact that people who'd lost their faith would be angry and upset, you mysteriously ceased calling it "ironic."

I don't remember this saga, and I still find the name "Recovery Board" ironic.

The issue was not whether "people whose opinions [you] value" like the Review. The issue is whether "fair minded" people, following the links you endlessly post, would "like" it, or would approve of the "ironic, satirical bent." The total number of "fair minded people" you've so far named is: Zero.

What would be gained by naming them? If you think I'm lying now, I could just as easily make up their names. What difference would it make? Would it reduce your hatred of the Review or of me? Wouldn't it simply expose them, at least potentially, to your obsessive malevolence? They haven't done anything to merit your malignant attention.

Please refresh my memory about Richard's comment.

No. Surveying three decades of your vendetta-fueled treatment of critics has shown me that you are the last person for whom I should do any favors. Use the search engine if you want a memory refresher.

LOL. Fine.

Richard and I get along really well. We're friends. This will be the second time I've spoken for him down in Claremont.

If he really doesn't like what I do, I'm sure he'll tell me himself someday. It's not as if I trust you to represent anybody else's opinion on anything. You virtually never get mine right.

Especially those who are hell-bent on revenge against critics. (E.g., Gary Novak, Scott Lloyd, William Schryver, Stan Barker, William Hamblin. Wow! See how easy it is to cite actual people?

I see how easy it is, yet again, for you to make things up.

Not one of these people is among those I had in mind. Nor do I agree with your characterization of them. (But that's hardly news. I see you projecting your malevolence onto others virtually every day.)

It seems to me that you'd be better off admitting that it is indeed "rigged," and that you stack the deck in such a way that the articles will have maximum assault power against critics.

How would telling a lie benefit me?

Your lies don't seem to have done much good for you.

You "certainly hope" that reasonable and fair-minded people will continue to have a problem with the journal's unfortunate vindictiveness and pettiness? Okay.

Your malignant misrepresentations aren't even subtle.

[_Daniel Peterson]

By the way, how did your event in Vegas with Schermer go? Or has it happened yet?

It was a couple of weeks ago.

I had a separate presentation on the Book of Mormon. That went well.

The panel with Michael Shermer was a bit of a disappointment. The major thing was that there were five panelists (a Mormon, a Sikh leader, a Muslim imam, a Protestant minister, and a rabbi), and only fifty minutes. So there wasn't much depth.

Shermer started things a bit late, too, and gave a pretty lengthy opening statement. And then he asked several questions that weren't focused on the theme ("Sacred Texts") -- e.g., about Mormons and gay marriage, and that sort of thing.

It was okay, but not a great session. He's a nice guy. We got along well, chatted briefly afterwards, etc.

Not really very much to report, I'm afraid.

[_harmony]

The panel with Michael Shermer was a bit of a disappointment. The major thing was that there were five panelists (a Mormon, a Sikh leader, a Muslim imam, a Protestant minister, and a rabbi), and only fifty minutes. So there wasn't much depth.

What was the point of the panel? Who was the audience?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What was the point of the panel?

In retrospect, I have no idea what Shermer thought its point was. It came as the culmination of a series of introductory lectures on "Sacred Texts" (by the Mormon, the rabbi, the minister, the Sikh leader, and the imam mentioned above).

Who was the audience?

It was a session at this conference:

http://www.freedomfest.com/

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't really buy the pious fraud idea either. I mean, he was a known conman. He told people he could find lost buried treasure using supernatural means!

It's just really easy to imagine that here's this guy who's scammed hundreds of people, slept with multiple women/girls, and sacrificed several people's lives; there was no way he was going to let the truth be known, no matter what the situation. He had to protect his house of cards. I'm sure he felt there was a lot less personal danger involved in maintaining the scam than letting the cat out of the bag.

Hello,

I would humbly suggest Joseph Smith was as pious as Jimmy Lee Swaggart.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me