The Interpreter Radio Show

[_Philo Sofee]

I would love to work out an online newsletter like Interpret has as well. I got very good at editing and organizing and writing up stuff for things like that. We could make that work beautifully with this fine,august group as well!

[_Symmachus]

Wow.....

Let’s get it on! Good fight, good night!

Brilliantly hilarious, Tom.

[Guest]

I think it's worth zeroing in on this:

Bizarrely, Peterson does what appears to be a mocking, high-pitched imitation of Wyatt's speaking voice: "I'm fine! I'm fine!"

It really occurs to me that this is *exceptionally* mean. Peterson is the credentialed, Ph.D.-holding "authority" figure in the room, and here he is belittling Wyatt to his face. Not only that, this was being broadcast all along the Wasatch Front. I think there is good reason to criticize Allen Wyatt and/or to take issue with things he's done, but this was just straight-up disrespect. People have observed in the past that DCP and the apologists are contemptuous of the "Sister in Parowan," or, really, anyone they see as being beneath them. Usually they make an effort to conceal that tendency, but here it sprang loose (and you can almost hear Peterson catching himself). This is yet more evidence of how true that observation really is.

That was a truly stunning moment. According to the standard narrative, Dr. Peterson was fired from his lifelong position as editor of the Mormon Studies Review in 2012 as part of a coup. Almost immediately, he spearheads the creation of a new apologetics organization and journal. Six years later, we learn that Wyatt is essentially working a second full-time job at the Interpreter as the journal editor. Before Wyatt, Jeff Bradshaw did the same. Yet, a reader will look in vain in the journal's pages for any indication that Wyatt is the editor. Wyatt does all the work and Dr. Peterson receives all the glory: Peterson publishes a rote introductory essay for the Interpreter every four months on the importance of doing apologetics and being a tool, and he lends support by calling Wyatt "every once in a while" to ask him how he is "doing."

Speaking of what he is doing, Wyatt says here that "[t]here is nobody who knows [Interpreter's peer-review] process better than me," noting that he "employ[s] a single-blind system of review." He goes on to confess:

We receive quite a few submissions. Some submissions I reject outright; they never make it to the peer-review process for any number of reasons. Of those that do, the majority are reviewed by 2 reviewers, while others are reviewed by more. (I had one paper for which I arranged 5 reviews.) I select reviewers based upon their qualifications in the topic area of the submitted paper. Reviewers do their work concurrently and are not aware if anyone else (or who else) is reviewing a paper. When I receive comments back from all reviewers, their comments are used to determine if the paper is rejected or not. Further, if their comments are positive in the aggregate, I pass the comments on to the author to revise the paper according to the comments received. (Before comments are passed to the author, any identifying information is removed from those comments; that is the nature of a single-blind system.)

It was an active decision on my part to NOT use a double-blind system.

Other remarkable moments during the show:

9:05: Gee says the Interpreter's "editorial staff deserves a lot of credit. The editorial staff has done a better job than some of the professional ones that I've worked with in academia." Gee doesn't name names.

34:23: Gee, discussing the new Gospel Doctrine curriculum: "It will be interesting to see how this works because it works a little bit differently depending on which unit you're in and how both the leaders and the teachers take it. I think we've often underestimated the influence that individual teachers have in the curriculum even though it's been correlated. Some of the individual teachers do their own thing."

35:07: Peterson:

I teach Gospel Doctrine . . . . I do it by systematically ignoring the manual anyway. [laughter] I probably deserve condemnation for that. [Peterson chuckles] What I do is I look to see the scriptural passages that are to be covered and I talk about those. . . . When I was serving on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for almost a decade, I was also teaching Gospel Doctrine in my ward. The stake Sunday School president came into the class. I didn't know who he was; I didn't recognize him . . . . and he realized that I was not following the manual exactly. I always cover the scriptures, but I don't cover them the way the manual wants them to be covered. And he came up to me afterwards and said, "You do understand these manuals are given by revelation?" And I said, "Well, before you go much further on that, you should know that I'm on the committee who writes the manuals." And at least with those manuals at that time, I just don't think that way. I could write them, but it's not the way I teach.

59:17: Gee, talking about a question he received at the FairMormon conference:

I was asked if I had any intention to respond to a certain critic's response to the church's Gospel Topics essay ... on the Book of Abraham. And somebody had written a response to that. I think you know that's a little bit like a non-Catholic writing a response to a section of the Catechism for the Catholic church. It just puzzles me why you would feel the need to do that. It's not your religion, you're not part of it, why are you so obsessed about responding to something that they teach their people. I don't see the need to respond to any Catholic material. And was I planning to respond to it? No, I don't really see the need to. And there's not really an appropriate venue to do that, either, because Interpreter isn't interested in getting into any slugfests and neither are the professional journals. This is mostly an issue they'd rather not talk about. That's fine.

Wyatt: We've gotten into slugfests before, though.

Gee: Well, no. Sometimes you say something that's controversial and people do respond to it. I was told--I haven't really seen it--that some people on Twitter--who weren't at the conference--exploded at my presentation before I was even finished. . . . I looked at the response that the critic had made, and I wasn't impressed with it. I'm not sure it merits a response. That is the sort of question you get, and it didn't really have anything to do with my presentation, but that's what's on people's minds. And if you have something on your mind, you can call us at 801-254-1640.

Beautiful segue by Dr. Gee there.

1:04:22: Peterson, talking about interviews he is conducting for an upcoming film on the Book of Mormon Witnesses:

Professor [John] Turner--who is, by the way, an exceedingly nice guy; he was a really, really nice person--he's written a book on the Mormon Jesus, but he also wrote a biography of Brigham Young, which some Latter-day Saints didn't take to all that kindly. In fact, he did bring up to me--he stuck around after the interview was done while we were taking down the equipment and chatted quite a while; he was very friendly--and he wanted to know how Interpreter was doing. And I said, "Well, really well." And I said, "we've published a lot of things. Some of them really good and maybe some of them won't stand the test of time." And he said, "Well, about that review of my biography." [Peterson laughs] He was not pleased because it had been somewhat critical.

Peterson doesn't mention whether Turner asked why a self-described "journal of Mormon scripture" reviewed a biography of Brigham Young.

1:05:29: Peterson:

The object is to do a . . . full-length film on the witnesses to the Book of Mormon . . . . It's going to be a docudrama--we have a preliminary script in hand by Mitch Davis, who's the same guy who wrote and directed "The Other Side of Heaven" . . . . We have most of the crew of the people who did the recent "Joseph Smith: American Prophet," the PBS film.

No word from Dr. Peterson on whether the casting call has gone out.

1:08:20: Peterson:

[Elder Pearson] realizes, the church realizes now that if the church comes out with a film on the Witnesses, it's going to be dismissed, upfront, as propaganda, one-sided propaganda, and it almost should be. It's not the church's mission to air criticisms and so on--that's not what it's about. We are actively going out of our way to interview non-Latter-day Saint historians to get their perspectives on the Witnesses, their experiences with the angel and the plates and so on. We want to hear those voices. Now I will not conceal the fact that I come down very strongly on the side of there having been an angel and real plates . . . . And I think the evidence will show that, at least point strongly in that direction. But in order to gain credibility, we want to go after the strongest counterarguments that we can find--not from the nut cake, fringe anti-Mormons who don't have academic credibility and they're not serious, but from people who've really given it serious hard thought but are not believers. What do they have to say? And we'll address those. I've let it be known that in doing this film, we want to address every single serious objection or concern or criticism or reservation that's been expressed about the Witnesses.

[_Lemmie]

I select reviewers based upon their qualifications in the topic area of the submitted paper.

He left out that MI peer reviewers are required to not be hostile to the truth claims of the lds church.

[_Gadianton]

There are some gems in there, Tom.

The last quote about looking for "real historian" feedback on the witnesses and plates and angels is interesting. Isn't that kind of like looking for "real mammalogist" feedback on the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot?

I wonder what their expectations are? He says they want the strongest counterarguments. I wonder how much time "real historians" are going to spend thinking about it?

[_Philo Sofee]

There are some gems in there, Tom.

The last quote about looking for "real historian" feedback on the witnesses and plates and angels is interesting. Isn't that kind of like looking for "real mammalogist" feedback on the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot?

I wonder what their expectations are? He says they want the strongest counterarguments. I wonder how much time "real historians" are going to spend thinking about it?

I bet Phil Jenkins ain't involved because they didn't think of inviting him.... neither Michael D. Coe or Robert Ritner........ I'm just sayin.....

[_Gadianton]

Well that's just it, Philo, how are they ever going to receive the best "counterarguments" without judging the source as either an anti-Mormon or not familiar enough with Mormon Scholarship to have an opinion?

As far as witnesses go, they do have one promising avenue that I can think of. Maybe there are some Christian historians who are sold on the eyewitness account of the resurrection, and the apologists can use that against them. If you believe that eye witnesses establish the resurrected Jesus, where do the witnesses of the Book of Mormon fail to meet that standard?

[_Lemmie]

Good point philo. If I recall correctly, Jenkins already expressed his opinion re: the witnesses. Let's just say he'll never get asked to peer review anything by Peterson because there is no way he can pass the "not hostile to lds truth claims" requirement.

[_Philo Sofee]

Good point philo. If I recall correctly, Jenkins already expressed his opinion re: the witnesses. Let's just say he'll never get asked to peer review anything by Peterson because there is no way he can pass the "not hostile to LDS truth claims" requirement.

Yes, Peterson must load the dice before hand, or else the conclusion he badly wants just cannot be reached legitimately. They don't want a valid historical conclusion based on evidence, they want a faith based conclusion based on testimony. And now that Richard Lloyd Anderson has died, they will lionize and emulate and praise his work as the world famous and most powerful material of all, utterly unassailable. Unassailable, of course, because we already know they certainly won't get anyone who reviewed that book negatively in that film they are producing. (Eyeing Rodger Anderson's outstanding slaughter of Richard's biased carefully selected materials and conclusions)

[_Doctor Scratch]

1:08:20: Peterson:

[Elder Pearson] realizes, the church realizes now that if the church comes out with a film on the Witnesses, it's going to be dismissed, upfront, as propaganda, one-sided propaganda, and it almost should be. It's not the church's mission to air criticisms and so on--that's not what it's about. We are actively going out of our way to interview non-Latter-day Saint historians to get their perspectives on the Witnesses, their experiences with the angel and the plates and so on. We want to hear those voices. Now I will not conceal the fact that I come down very strongly on the side of there having been an angel and real plates . . . . And I think the evidence will show that, at least point strongly in that direction. But in order to gain credibility, we want to go after the strongest counterarguments that we can find--not from the nut cake, fringe anti-Mormons who don't have academic credibility and they're not serious, but from people who've really given it serious hard thought but are not believers. What do they have to say? And we'll address those. I've let it be known that in doing this film, we want to address every single serious objection or concern or criticism or reservation that's been expressed about the Witnesses.

Thanks for posting this, Tom. My God, what stamina you have. I am going to go ahead and go out on a limb and make a public prediction: this film will never see the light of day. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that, but you heard it here first. The movie will never be completed.

Earlier on in the thread, the Hon. Rev. Kishkumen complained about apparent lack of candor and authenticity, but I must respectfully disagree. This radio "program" was perhaps the most unguarded that we've seen DCP in quite some time. The nugget I've quoted above is a perfect example. DCP, ego-driven as always, fails to see all the pieces of the political puzzle even though they're right there in front of his face, and he is even spelling them all out in a very public way. I mean, think about it: "[Elder Pearson] realizes..." Huh? Why even mention a GA? What this tells you is that they've had to try to persuade the Brethren that their film won't drive people away from the Church, and/or that it won't make the Church look bad. (Are the Brethren helping to fund this Mopologetic venture, I wonder?)

Another reason why I think the film won't come to fruition is along the lines of what Dr. Robbers has said. I can't think of any way that they'll be able to stage the "counterarguments" in a way that's convincing. What, are they going to smear the historians who agreed to be in their film? "Oh, yes, Professor Z has dismissed the Witnesses' testimonies, but we happen to know that she's an anti-Mormon who watches pornography and drinks alcohol." "We acknowledge that Professor with. has a PhD from Brown, but we can confirm that he's never read the Book of Mormon, by his own admission." They are, of course, going to cherry-pick whichever non-LDS appear in the film, and, really--I admit I was joking about the *type* of smear that's likely to appear, but in all honesty, what kind of "response" are they going to be able to mount against whatever supposed "counterarguments" they collect?

There is just no way that this proposed film can turn out well. Again, I want to emphasize that I totally, truly, sincerely *hope* that this movie gets made. But I really think that this is a really low-rent version of Jodorowsky's Dune: an insane, fever-dream of a project that seemed interesting for certain reasons, but was just not doable in the end. Just the way that DCP is pitching this--way blown out of proportion, far too ambitious: "we want to address every single serious objection"--spells disaster, in my opinion. (And as an aside, doesn't it count as a "serious objection" if we have a problem with the ethics of the people who are making the film?)

If they *do* manage to make it, however.... Wow. I am thinking Heaven's Gate. Waterworld. Something akin to that. I am really hoping for an LDS version of The Room: "John Dehlin! You're tearing me apart!!!!"