Welcome question for Mr. Peterson: Where is the stone box?

[_Mister Scratch]

Further, why not simply ask Michael Watson for a fresh copy?

Indeed. That's what I've invited you to do.

Huh? I was not the one making claims about the letter in the first place! I really think it ought to be up to you and Prof. Hamblin to get a second copy. Why is it, I wonder, that you seem so reluctant to do so? Embarrassment? Or, heaven forbid, something worse....?

Until then, I personally think that you ought to withdraw your assertion that such a letter even exists.

I know you do. Pretty bizarre.

It passed a thorough source-checking process. What appears in the printed Review is perfectly accurate, right down to punctuation.

A "thorough source-checking process"? Sort of like the one that allowed Bob Crockett's painfully distorted MMM quotation to appear in the Review? The issue here is not whether the printed letter is correct in terms of punctuation, spelling, and grammar. The issue is whether the letter actually exists or not.

Also, since you raised the issue of FARMS Review, I'd be interested in learning more about its daunted [vaunted? yes---precisely. Thanks for that.] peer-review process.

I've already explained it. In detail. In print.

I've said more than enough to satisfy any reasonable inquirer. I realize, of course, that you're not really inquiring, and that you're not reasonable. As elsewhere, my explanations are not principally aimed at you.

Based on what you have said elsewhere, it seems I have good reason to believe that you guys are engaging in a kind of "stacking the deck."

You have no good reason for believing that. I've explained why. In detail. In print.

I, too, have explained in print why I see problems with your explanation.

Would you care to name your peer-reviewers?

No. I've explained why. In print.

It seems transparently obvious that you don't want to name them because doing so would reveal just how biased and tendentious---and therefore un-scholarly---the FARMS Review actually is.

[Guest]

Huh? I was not the one making claims about the letter in the first place! I really think it ought to be up to you and Prof. Hamblin to get a second copy. Why is it, I wonder, that you seem so reluctant to do so? Embarrassment? Or, heaven forbid, something worse....?

Look at it this way, Scratch: Your dream of discrediting us publicly could be achieved in one fell swoop if the secretary to the First Presidency were to confirm that we had invented this letter out of whole cloth, or that we had falsified its contents for publication.

No more laborious research, tedious but creative spinning, and arduous mind-reading would be required. You would be free to target others. We would be openly disgraced. Our lucrative, lying mopologist careers would be finished. We would probably lose our jobs, and, conceivably, even our membership in the Church. (Forging letters from the First Presidency and using them publicly has got to be some sort of punishable offense, wouldn't you think?)

I say, Go for it!

I, too, have explained in print why I see problems with your explanation.

I've seen your response.

I thought it was silly, and not worth further attention.

It seems transparently obvious that you don't want to name them because doing so would reveal just how biased and tendentious---and therefore un-scholarly---the FARMS Review actually is.

That will serve as a good example of why I thought your response was silly, and not worth any more attention.

[_rcrocket]

It seems transparently obvious that you don't want to name them because doing so would reveal just how biased and tendentious---and therefore un-scholarly---the FARMS Review actually is.

I couldn't resist. I'm back.

Hey, Scratch. In what academic journal are the peer reviewers known?

I mean, my experience with peer reviewers of my articles is that the authors themselves don't even know who they are. At least in my experience, the papers are in a double-blind. Are there academic journals which use a process different than that?

I remember in the past you refused to answer this question and basically turned it back on me with, "you tell me." If FARMS Review's peers' blind is the same as other academic journals, then why is it defective?

You've also in the past criticized the fact that FARMS Review's peers are "hand picked." But, aren't other academic journals' peers "hand picked?" I mean, I am not aware of any election process that occurs.

Also, since I have served as a "peer" in the past, on a legal journal, and was "hand-picked," I observed that I was "hand-picked" because I was knowledgeable in my field and friends with the editor. Is there something wrong with that?



rcrocket

[_asbestosman]

Look at it this way, Scratch: Your dream of discrediting us publicly could be achieved in one fell swoop if the secretary to the First Presidency were to confirm that we had invented this letter out of whole cloth, or that we had falsified its contents for publication.

No more laborious research, tedious but creative spinning, and arduous mind-reading would be required. You would be free to target others. We would be openly disgraced. Our lucrative, lying mopologist careers would be finished. We would probably lose our jobs, and, conceivably, even our membership in the Church. (Forging letters from the First Presidency and using them publicly has got to be some sort of punishable offense, wouldn't you think?)

I say, Go for it!

ROTFLMHO

Oh man, Scratch, you gotta admit that Dr. Peterson has a point there. The worst thing that could happen to you is that you'd be proven wrong. The best thing that might happen is if you were ignored. Either way, I think you'll have to back down your assertions until you give it a shot.

Or maybe you think that writing them for the information would give them information to send a Danite hit squad after you. Mwahahaha

[_Mister Scratch]

It seems transparently obvious that you don't want to name them because doing so would reveal just how biased and tendentious---and therefore un-scholarly---the FARMS Review actually is.

I couldn't resist. I'm back.

Hey, Scratch. In what academic journal are the peer reviewers known?

Hi, Bob. It's great to have you back. Your question seems irrelevant to me, especially given the fact that DCP himself has noted more than once that FARMS Review is an "atypical" journal. (I believe the phrase he use was sui generis.)

I mean, my experience with peer reviewers of my articles is that the authors themselves don't even know who they are. At least in my experience, the papers are in a double-blind. Are there academic journals which use a process different than that?

I remember in the past you refused to answer this question and basically turned it back on me with, "you tell me." If FARMS Review's peers' blind is the same as other academic journals, then why is it defective?

For one thing, I do not believe that it is "the same as other academic journals." I believe that Prof. P. handpicks reviewers who will come up with the desirable results---i.e., results that will unfailingly support Church orthodoxy.

You've also in the past criticized the fact that FARMS Review's peers are "hand picked." But, aren't other academic journals' peers "hand picked?" I mean, I am not aware of any election process that occurs.

Also, since I have served as a "peer" in the past, on a legal journal, and was "hand-picked," I observed that I was "hand-picked" because I was knowledgeable in my field and friends with the editor. Is there something wrong with that?

rcrocket

There is a clear difference between "hand-picking" someone for their expertise vs. "hand-picking" them for their bias.

[_Tal Bachman]

The stone box is right where it has always been - in the imaginations of everyone who believes young Smith's yarn.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Or maybe you think that writing them for the information would give them information to send a Danite hit squad after you. Mwahahaha

To protect Scratch's identity, perhaps we should organize a complex system of bump passes, dead drops, and other espionage type tricks to protect both ends of the line. I'm sure Dr. Shades and DonBradley won't mind dressing in drag to hide their identities and act as couriers in SLC. Everybody remember to swallow your Black Capsules in case you're apprehended.

;)

[_Blixa]

The stone box is right where it has always been - in the imaginations of everyone who believes young Smith's yarn.

Nuh, uh. I got washed down the slope of Cumorah in the spring run off. I think someone already posted their "evidence" of that here before.

Maybe it got broken into peices and distributed as souvenirs ala Adam's altar?

[_Blixa]

I couldn't resist. I'm back.

How can you tear yourself away from all your lunch dates?

[_Mister Scratch]

Look at it this way, Scratch: Your dream of discrediting us publicly could be achieved in one fell swoop if the secretary to the First Presidency were to confirm that we had invented this letter out of whole cloth, or that we had falsified its contents for publication.

I harbor no dream of "discrediting [you] publicly." Frankly, I think the lot of you do a pretty good job of that all on your own. (For instance, have you not read Prof. Hamblin's insane, anti-Semitic tirade, which he posted on RfM?) Further, I think that it would be a very, very bizarre day indeed that the Secretary to the FP would make any move which might reflect badly on the Church's chief apologetic organ. They would have good reason to want to protect you.

(Forging letters from the First Presidency and using them publicly has got to be some sort of punishable offense, wouldn't you think?)

I don't know. It could be that the 1st Watson Letter was seen as a major-league slip-up, and that the Brethren saw the need for a "2nd Letter," even if it was a contrivance of yours and Prof. Hamblin's. I guess the bottom line is that this whole "The dog ate our homework" excuse seems awfully shady.

It seems transparently obvious that you don't want to name them because doing so would reveal just how biased and tendentious---and therefore un-scholarly---the FARMS Review actually is.

That will serve as a good example of why I thought your response was silly, and not worth any more attention.

Mmhmm. And your reticence really helps your case.