Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_Daniel Peterson]

Let me point out, Prof. P., that this is essentially the same thing you do with Mike Quinn. You repeatedly tell TBMs that his work is "misleading" or "dishonest" and then try to claim that your statements aren't an attack on Quinn's character.

I wonder if I've ever termed his work "dishonest." It's not impossible, but I doubt it. That's not how I would choose to characterize his writing.

If you get a free pass, then I do believe you are going to have to extend the same courtesy to Beastie.

I have to admit that it's striking to see a call for fair play and courtesy from my Malevolent Stalker.

Truly, this is a watershed moment in the history of apostagetics.

Actually, they are advocates of Mormonism and theism. As far as their prominence, it depends on how you define prominence.

The point of my refinement of the question was this: I'm aware of the claim of some ex- and anti-Mormons, that, while Mormons can be rational, etc., in their ordinary life, they throw rationality to the winds when it comes to their transparently absurd religious beliefs. They are, in a sense, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. So I wanted to know whether a well-informed Latter-day Saint can rationally, sanely, and honestly advocate Mormonism. That is, can Mormons be sane, rational, well-informed, and intelligent in the very act of asserting and arguing for their beliefs?

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.

Here we go.

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 [emphasis mine].

Wonderful. Thanks!

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.

I think, actually, that you're misinterpreting what Professor Clark thinks.

A theory, or a name, can sometimes cause us to see things that were there all along but that were invisible to us beforehand. I like to tell of an experience I had when I was a high school kid. We went to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, to see an exhibit by the Norwegian lithographer Edvard Munch. I wandered through the exhibit and thought nothing of it. Then I heard a brief lecture on Munch from a docent, went through the exhibit again, and loved it, seeing things I hadn't noticed before.

Data is given significance by theory. The same data, on the whole, were there for Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe as for Copernicus and Kepler. But, after the latter two, astronomers saw the data, and the solar system, fundamentally differently.

A person whose interpretative framework for the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic doesn't include the Book of Mormon will view it one way. A person whose framework does include the Book of Mormon will see it slightly differently, and will place significance and stress on certain things that the other person won't.

Professor Clark is entirely correct in saying that the current data certainly doesn't entail acceptance of the Book of Mormon. But he's also saying that the data are increasingly consistent with acceptance of the Book of Mormon, but that one won't be inclined to see that without some sort of commitment to the paradigm of the Book of Mormon.

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.

My point, precisely.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, I disagree. As I hope to show in a book that I plan to publish a few years from now (it's in the queue), I think that belief in the resurrection of Christ is rational, based on the historical data -- though I don't believe it's a slam dunk or logically compulsory.

But that doesn’t mean that believers, themselves, are not sane, honest, and intelligent.

But, I take it, they aren't sane, honest, intelligent, and well-informed when they affirm or even argue for the resurrection of Christ. Right?

If so, again, that is precisely my point.

[_beastie]

Before we proceed, I need you to answer this question:

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?

[_Daniel Peterson]

First, thank you for your sincere answer.

I have to admit that I find it depressing -- really, I do -- that you plainly think that a sincere answer from me is a rarity for which I should be congratulated.

I can guarantee you that I'm not the unprincipled, mercenary scoundrel depicted in Scratchian demonology.

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?

They can do so honestly, I suppose -- you left honest out of the first list of modifiers -- only if they're ill-informed.

Do you believe that a sane, intelligent, honest, and well-informed person can sanely, intelligently, and honestly affirm theism and/or Christianity and/or Mormonism?

[_guy sajer]

First, thank you for your sincere answer.

I have to admit that I find it depressing -- really, I do -- that you plainly think that a sincere answer from me is a rarity for which I should be congratulated.

I can guarantee you that I'm not the unprincipled, mercenary scoundrel depicted in Scratchian demonology.

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?

They can do so honestly, I suppose -- you left honest out of the first list of modifiers -- only if they're ill-informed.

Do you believe that a sane, intelligent, honest, and well-informed person can sanely, intelligently, and honestly affirm theism and/or Christianity and/or Mormonism?

Yes I do. I see it every day in my wife, my parents, my in-laws . . . and in you too.

For what it's worth, Dan, I don't think that Beastie meant to imply that it is shocking in any sense that you were sincere. I think you should take it for what it was, a well-intentioned (without hidden meaning) compliment.

For what it's worth, I don't consider you an unprincipled, mercenary scoundrel. I'm not convinced you're a Saint (I don't know you well enough), but I'm willing to accept that you generally act in good faith (although I've seen examples where I don't think you are--that's ok, I can be an asshole too).

I think you hold some very strange beliefs, but hey, so does my wife, and I think she's pretty ok.

Not all of us are Scratchistas or find his conspiracy posts necessarily convincing.

[_beastie]

They can do so honestly, I suppose -- you left honest out of the first list of modifiers -- only if they're ill-informed.

Do you believe that a sane, intelligent, honest, and well-informed person can sanely, intelligently, and honestly affirm theism and/or Christianity and/or Mormonism?

First, my compliment was sincere. By "sincere" I didn't mean "honest for a change", but I meant that you took the question seriously and produced a thoughtful reply that wasn't just some sarcastic one-liner. You must admit that you are prone to sarcastic one-liners on this board, for reasons you feel are justified, and sometimes are justified. But I was glad that you were willing to take the question seriously because I am trying to make a serious point.

Now we're making progress. You qualified the honesty involved. So this leads to my next question:

In regards to this setting:
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?

You qualified honesty in your response. Is it possible that the believer in question is not being deliberately dishonest?

[_EAllusion]

Do you believe that a sane, intelligent, honest, and well-informed person can sanely, intelligently, and honestly affirm theism and/or Christianity and/or Mormonism?

I'll field this one. I get this question from time to time and more often than not there is an equivocation going on. I'm not saying DCP is doing this, but let me elaborate on what I mean.

I think a person can be generally sane, intelligent, honest, and well-informed - rational too - and affirm theism, Christianity, or a flat earth. People can be rational in their dealings with the world most of the time while occasionally going off the rails. However, I do not think a person can informed, intelligent, honest, sane, and affirm theism, Christianity or a flat earth and be rationally warranted in that affirmation. I'll grant all the other qualities but not the previously mentioned "rational." So depending on what is meant, I will either say yes or no. The funny thing is that the yes position is fairly trite - of course rational people can believe in a flat earth - and the no position is obvious if you have scant familiarity with my views on theism, Christianity, or a flat earth.

But this is where the equivocation comes in. This has happened to me on more than one occasion. If I say yes, that is taken to imply that I am "admitting" that believe in X can be rationally warranted. If I say no, them I'm represented as taking the ridiculous view that a person who believes X isn't rational at all, not when thinking about theism and not when driving their car. I'm not saying DCP is doing this, but when you unpack his question, I think the answer is very easy. You just have to be careful people walk away with the wrong impression. Similar equivocations can happen with words like "sane" (which is a legal term) and "intelligent." After all, I think a person can be generally smart, but I don't think affirmation of theism is the smart conclusion.

[_beastie]

I'll field this one. I get this question from time to time and more often than not there is an equivocation going on. I'm not saying DCP is doing this, but let me elaborate on what I mean.

I think a person can be generally sane, intelligent, honest, and well-informed - rational too - and affirm theism, Christianity, or a flat earth. People can be rational in their dealings with the world most of the time while occasionally going off the rails. However, I do not think a person can informed, intelligent, honest, sane, and affirm theism, Christianity or a flat earth and be rationally warranted in that affirmation. I'll grant all the other qualities but not the previously mentioned "rational." So depending on what is meant, I will either say yes or no. The funny thing is that the yes position is fairly trite - of course rational people can believe in a flat earth - and the no position is obvious if you have scant familiarity with my views on theism, Christianity, or a flat earth.

But this is where the equivocation comes in. This has happened to me on more than one occasion. If I say yes, that is taken to imply that I am "admitting" that believe in X can be rationally warranted. If I say no, them I'm represented as taking the ridiculous view that a person who believes X isn't rational at all, not when thinking about theism and not when driving their car. I'm not saying DCP is doing this, but when you unpack his question, I think the answer is very easy. You just have to be careful people walk away with the wrong impression. Similar equivocations can happen with words like "sane" (which is a legal term) and "intelligent." After all, I think a person can be generally smart, but I don't think affirmation of theism is the smart conclusion.

I generally agree, although I equivocate more on the word “honest” than “rational”. Human beings are inherently prone to all sorts of logical fallacies in our thinking, unless we strictly adhere to a disciplined method of analyzing ideas (which is the beauty and power of science). The human brain – without the volition of the person who happens to have that brain in his/her cranium – has the habit of editing information for our consideration – The Invisible, Patronizing Editor (IPE – my own “cute” creation). I’ve seen this over and over in conversations with believers, and I’m sure they’ve witnessed the same thing from their side. Neither side is immune to this phenomenon. We can train ourselves to be more aware of it – one of the reasons Darwin was such a great thinker was that he was aware of this tendency in human thought, and deliberately sought out disconfirming data whenever he was exploring a theory. But it is difficult, and we tend to be selective in terms of when we choose to be more careful and aware of the IPE. I fully recognize I am more aware of it in religious conversations, and less aware of it in political conversations. Likely this is due to the heightened emotions associated with the particular item under consideration (and I tend to believe politics affects my life more than religion, so tend to have more emotions associated with that, which is why I avoid political boards like the plague).

But at any rate, the person may actually be thinking in a rational manner, but has the disadvantage of having limited data to consider due to the IPE. But this is not a deliberate act of dishonesty, hence my question to DCP. Yet it does address the crux of why I think that very smart, honest, sane and rational people can believe in things that are not particularly smart or rational. Is it fair to use the word “dishonest” to describe someone who has not deliberately engaged in an act of dishonesty, but who have fallen victim to his/her own IPE? The IPE edits threatening information – out of confirmation bias, prejudice, cultural inclinations.

My favorite example to demonstrate this from internet conversations is repeated discussions I, or others, had with cdowis about the horse in ancient Mesoamerica. One of his favorite saws is that the actual horse could have existed in ancient Mesoamerica, but was never heavily used, and hence had no cultural impact, due to the unfriendly geography of the area. I provided specific evidence from John Sorenson that contradicted this assertion (briefly, Mesoamerica is geographically diverse, and while parts are, indeed, unfriendly to the use of the horse, other regions are very horse friendly). I saw other poster provide information from other sources that directly contradicted this assertion. And yet, sure enough, like the old whack-a-mole (or to recycle an old joke of mine, whack-a-horse), given a couple of months, Cdowis would pop back up with the same argument. None of the information we had provided had registered in a meaningful way with him. I’m sure he actually read the posts, and thought about the words. But something happened during the mental process to “erase” that information from his memory banks. I believe the “something” was the IPE that determined this information was not worthy, was threatening to a belief that was important to charles, and hence, should be “erased”, so to speak.

Was charles being deliberately dishonest? I really don’t think so, because he’d do it in front of people like me who would be able to call him on it. He genuinely did not register the information – even when it came from a highly respected LDS source like Sorenson.

So has charles honestly surveyed the information in order to create his belief? It all depends on how you define “honestly”. This is not a process that he deliberately invoked in the attempt to deceive, and yet, it is a process that occurred within his mind. Yet if he truly wanted to, he could control it. Hence, my hedging.

I hedged because I wanted to be honest about it, yet I knew that this hedging would create an opening for DCP to try to construct his fallacious accusation – that I view all people who disagree with me about religion as insane, dishonest, or stupid. This is the argument he was trying to construct. Of course, I hope careful readers recognize the difference between saying people are insane, dishonest, or stupid, and saying that a particular belief they hold is not based on a fully honest survey of the information. Their IPE edits out information, which is not a conscious process – BUT once one is aware of that danger, one can exercise caution and try to minimize the impact of it.

Believers, since the beginning of time, have recognized that there is a gap that must be crossed somehow between evidence and belief – hence the need for faith. If a sane, honest, intelligent survey of all available information naturally led to the belief X, then faith would not be necessary in the first place.



DCP’s accusation that I believe all people who disagree with me about religion are stupid, insane, or dishonest, is patently ridiculous and not worthy of serious conversation. However, I believe that the conversation that can take place around that accusation is worthy.

DCP’s original accusation:

People who don't share your view of theism and Mormonism are, it appears, invariably either mad or dishonest or stupid or some satisfying combination of the three.

[_EAllusion]

DCP’s original accusation:

People who don't share your view of theism and Mormonism are, it appears, invariably either mad or dishonest or stupid or some satisfying combination of the three.

[/quote]
Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Of course, DCP is known for this kind of *ahem* conversation when he isn't dealing with an easy mark. Take it as a compliment.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

How many of these folks are TBM? How many of them were reviewed by TBMs?

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.

Was this person TBM, or reviewed by a TBM?

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.

Was the prof TBM?

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.

Is Dr. Jibson TBM?

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

Bushman is LDS, and I feel certain that you guys would have felt that you could depend on him to deliver a Mopologetics-friendly review.

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.

Is Wayment TBM, and/or was his essay peer reviewed by a TBM?

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.

I've seen you use this example before when you're trying to establish that FROB isn't a cesspool of orthodoxy and rigged conclusions. But, does one---and one only!---example really establish a good case?

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.

Again, how does "TBM-ness" figure into this, if at all?

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.

How many of these articles challenged the predominant viewpoints of Mopologetics?

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.

Rather than listing a bunch of names, Professor P., don't you think you'd do better to explain how these articles and authors disprove my charge of "cronyism" and "strict adherence to orthodoxy"?

Feel free to supply the names of the peer reviewers.

They're anonymous, silly fellow.

Which is pretty standard practice.

Sure. But then, FARMS Review isn't exactly a "standard" journal.

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.

Oh, really? Feel free to prove it.

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.

But, Dr. Peterson---that *is* what your "little journal" does. Your descriptor: "low quality, fatally flawed work" more or less perfectly describes the bulk of the content of FARMS Review. Sure, a decent piece occasionally squeaks in, but for the most part, it is bellicose drivel.

I think the real reason you bother using peer review at all is in order to present the patina of real scholarship. That, and it helps you and your friends---that "cabal" I mentioned earlier---feel more unified. You pass along these crap attack pieces, and, in reviewing them, your friends get to feel like they are making a significant contribution to the "field," or to the "war on anti-Mormonism."

Rough anonymous peer review comments that are never published would be far easier to handle than justified public criticism of poorly done scholarship.

This doesn't make any sense. "Rough anonymous peer review comments"? You mean comments that are (supposedly) sharply critical of the stuff that finds its way into the finished journal? Well, supposing that such things exist, I'm sure they *are* "far easier to handle"! You can just toss them in the the trash, without anyone ever knowing!

See: your reply does not make any sense in light of the criticism I've been delivering.

My plain interest is in avoiding the latter -- not in purposely assuring, by means of devious cunning, that we humiliate ourselves.

Again, it seems that you are either deliberately or inadvertently distorting what I've been saying. I don't think you are "trying" to humiliate yourselves. I think that, instead, you are trying to portray a unified apologetic front. Nowhere have I ever suggested that you select peer reviewers with the express intent of humiliating yourselves---that is completely absurd, of course. Rather, I have been arguing that you select peer reviewers on the basis of ideological orthodoxy and purity. You select articles and peer reviewers that will not "rock the boat" for apologetics. You select peer reviewers that will turn a blind eye to gross character assassinations and argumentum ad hominem. *That* is what I'm getting at. I don't think you are deliberately trying to "humiliate" yourself. I have never said that and don't believe it to be true.

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

They are, your spin notwithstanding.

[_dblagent007]

I hedged because I wanted to be honest about it, yet I knew that this hedging would create an opening for DCP to try to construct his fallacious accusation – that I view all people who disagree with me about religion as insane, dishonest, or stupid. This is the argument he was trying to construct. Of course, I hope careful readers recognize the difference between saying people are insane, dishonest, or stupid, and saying that a particular belief they hold is not based on a fully honest survey of the information. Their IPE edits out information, which is not a conscious process – BUT once one is aware of that danger, one can exercise caution and try to minimize the impact of it.

Believers, since the beginning of time, have recognized that there is a gap that must be crossed somehow between evidence and belief – hence the need for faith. If a sane, honest, intelligent survey of all available information naturally led to the belief X, then faith would not be necessary in the first place.

DCP’s accusation that I believe all people who disagree with me about religion are stupid, insane, or dishonest, is patently ridiculous and not worthy of serious conversation. However, I believe that the conversation that can take place around that accusation is worthy.

DCP’s original accusation:

People who don't share your view of theism and Mormonism are, it appears, invariably either mad or dishonest or stupid or some satisfying combination of the three.

Wouldn't a believer be jusitified in believing that your characterization of the believer's IPE, which, incidentally, non-believers don't seem to have (at least in the realm of religion), is a wee bit condescending? Maybe even to the point of concluding that you are saying that the believer is stupid (after all non-believers don't have this IPE problem), dishonest (ignoring evidence), or mad?

Could you accept that believers may have weighed the same evidence as you did and just came to a different conclusion?