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

[_Daniel Peterson]

This isn't true. The poster called "Ref," in fact, was banned from MAD/FAIR for asking after the letter.

I wasn't aware of that.

So there may be two of you.

Of course, for all I know, "Ref" was you.

Since the content comes about as a result of the finagled peer-review process,

A process that you've speculated ex nihilo into existence.

why wouldn't I object to the content? It has been tainted, after all.

It's been tainted by the defective peer-review process for the existence of which your evidence is the tainted content which is known to be tainted because it was produced through a peer-review process that is defective and which is known to be defective because the content is tainted by the defective peer-review process whose existence is demonstrated by the content that has been tainted by the deficient peer-review process whose deficiency is demonstrated by the fact that it produced tainted content whose taint is demonstrable by virtue of the defective peer-review process that produced it . . . and so on, forever and ever, in an eternal loop of sheer malevolent loopiness.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I just find it odd that a particular document is cited/quoted in a journal (and continues to be relied upon by apologists), yet no one (including the author) apparently has a copy.

It's unfortunate that Bill mislaid it.

As did, apparently, anyone with a copy. Unfortunate, indeed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

genuinely peer-reviewed journals will allow the publication of articles on opposing sides of any argument.

That's simply, flatly, untrue. I've provided numerous examples, in print, where that is plainly not the case, yet these journals are entirely reputable.

I've read essentially everything published in LDS publications, including those claiming to be academic (and "peer reviewed") and not once have I seen a single piece on the opposing side of any argument.

Again, flatly untrue. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and the FARMS Review have both published articles in opposition to one another on several occasions. And, to choose another obvious example, the Moody/Rhodes article in the recent FARMS book Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant clashes directly with the Gee/Hamblin/Peterson article in the same volume.

What I have seen, though, are articles and reviews riddled with an excessively level of gratuitous ad hominem attacks (now a signature element of LDS apologetics), and (with few exceptions) real problems with parallelomania run wild and extremely poorly supported conclusions. A good example is Clark's now famous claims of Book of Mormon parallels based on Mesoamerican societies which engaged in warfare ("How could Joseph Smith have known?" the apologist asks). Well, what societies in the real world don't engage in warfare? Many of Clark's "parallels" are ludicrous on their face. For your information, the level found in LDS so-called "peer-reviewed" journals of ad hominem attacks, parallelomania run wild, and extremely poorly supported conclusions is simply not normally found in actual peer-reviewed academic journals because they would be rejected for poor quality. The difference in quality between the vast majority of LDS "scholarly" articles and reviews and those in real peer-reviewed academic journals outside LDS circles is spectacular.

Again, a gross distortion, and largely untrue.

But enough of such nonsense. What a waste of time.

And you didn't even address Bob Crockett's actual point.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I cannot recall ever outrightly accusing him of forgery, either.

Perhaps not. But you've insinuated it often enough, and none too subtly.

The level of activity (or lack thereof) in order to try and procure a real copy of the letter is, I would agree, Rollo, quite odd.

I agree. You think this urgently important, yet you won't take the most simple and obvious step, which is to contact Michael Watson and reveal our villainy to the entire world.

It's likely that you know the dawg won't hunt.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I just find it odd that a particular document is cited/quoted in a journal (and continues to be relied upon by apologists), yet no one (including the author) apparently has a copy.

It's unfortunate that Bill mislaid it.

As did, apparently, anyone with a copy. Unfortunate, indeed.

Do you have any reason to believe that they "mislaid" their copies? I don't. I said they probably threw them away. There was no reason whatever to retain them. I suspect, anyhow, that no more than one photocopy ever existed in the first place. No additional copies would be needed for the source-checking process.

Nobody knew that Bill would mislay it. Anyway, all of us know where the entire text of the letter is to be found. And none of us doubt the letter's existence. "Ref" (whoever he was) evidently did, and Scratch claims to. I've heard of nobody else.

[_Mister Scratch]

I cannot recall ever outrightly accusing him of forgery, either.

Perhaps not. But you've insinuated it often enough, and none too subtly.

The level of activity (or lack thereof) in order to try and procure a real copy of the letter is, I would agree, Rollo, quite odd.

I agree. You think this urgently important, yet you won't take the most simple and obvious step, which is to contact Michael Watson and reveal our villainy to the entire world.

Actually, I think it would be simpler to rummage around in Bill Hamblin's office. (Then again, I haven't seen his office....) I don't think it's "urgently" important, but I do nonetheless think that it *is* important, and, along with Rollo and others, find it odd that you, and apparently everyone else, haven't bothered to try and produce a second copy. It's worth pointing out that you "won't take the most simple and obvious step" either, and moreover, that it is you and your apologist friends who are relying on the letter for evidence in the first place.

[_rcrocket]

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

I guess I don't see your argument.

If the blind system is the same as most other journals, and the hand-picking (picking friends and cronies) is the same that other academic journals employ (I notice that economic journals tend to stick to their own "bias"; I deal with the University of Chicago's antitrust articles and note that they stick to same theory over and over again in the subject area in which I practice), I can't see why you would contest the blind system for reviewers for FARMS Review or the hand-picking of cronies.

My questions remain unanswered by you. What academic (let's change it to university) journals publish the names of its reviewers to the public, and what university journals pick reviewers other than by "hand" of "cronies?" I mean, any might be interesting to discuss.

But being a published author, and being a peer reviewer in one non-religous journal, I just can't see a whole lot of difference between FARMS Review and, say, the The Los Angeles Lawyer where I was an editor, or the Western Historical Quarterly where I have been through initial peer reviewing for one article (rejected, in the end, on a 5-4 vote by the peers; alas), or another western journal where I am currently in the middle of being peer reviewed.

rcrocket

Let me see if I can clarify this for you, Bob. Let's take your submission to the Western Historical Quarterly, and let's say that you were doing an article on MMM. Your submission there would be analogous to FARMS Review if the editor and his peer-reviewers all belonged to the same club that also happened to espouse the same absolutist beliefs. While the intellectual content of your article carries some weight, ultimately, it cannot Trump the ideology of these "absolutist beliefs." What's more important is that the article, above all, conforms. So, let's say that the underlying ideology here is to smear the Church and implicate BY. You have found evidence that exonerates Brigham and speaks favorably about the Church. For Western Historical Quarterly to be similar to FARMS Review, the editor would need to know that he had a reliable cabal of pals who would give the "thumbs down" to the piece, since it didn't do a good enough job attacking BY.

Oh, and the journal would also need to contain copious amounts of ad hominem attack.

Don't clarify things. Just answer my questions, because therein lies the folly of your argument.

Name one university journal which does not use a blind peer system. Name one university journal where peers are elected rather than hand-picked cronies of the editors.

Waiting.

rcrocket

[_Tarski]

You're the only person I'm aware of (although perhaps Rollo Tomasi will back you up) who has raised any "suspicion" on this issue. Nobody else has. Nobody else has suggested that Bill Hamblin and I would forge a First Presidency letter and publish our forgery in order to score a polemical point.

I have not accused you of forging anything.

I'm pleased to hear it. That's why I said "perhaps."

I just find it odd that a particular document is cited/quoted in a journal (and continues to be relied upon by apologists), yet no one (including the author) apparently has a copy.

It's unfortunate that Bill mislaid it.

I for one find it extremely unlikely that you forged anything and am assuming that the document exists.
If it turns out that I am wrong I would be both surprised and disappointed.

On the other hand, I am sometimes surprised. I never could get a good explanation as to why FARMS continues to have this on their site at http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/faq.php ... =questions

Why has no evidence of horses been found in the Americas in Book of Mormon times?
The Book of Mormon never claims that the horse was universally known or used in the New World. For example, Book of Mormon references to horses suggest that they may have been relatively uncommon, being limited only to certain regions during specific periods of Book of Mormon history. One horse specimen, discovered in Florida, was carbon-dated to about 100 B.C. Other horse remains have been found in precolumbian archaeological contexts in Mesoamerica (at Loltun and Mayapan), but these have not as yet been carbon dated.

It seems deceptive since after much searching, arguing, begging and inquiring, and yes, emailing of experts, no one has come up with an authenticated case in Florida that warrants the bold assertion in bold. So why is that answer still there? Becuase it is faith promoting?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's worth pointing out that you "won't take the most simple and obvious step" either, and moreover, that it is you and your apologist friends who are relying on the letter for evidence in the first place.

I saw the letter. This isn't an issue for me. I don't doubt its existence, and I know that what's published in the FARMS Review is a verbatim transcript of the letter in its entirety. I no more need the original letter in my hand to reference it than I need the original of the U.S. Constitution.

You're the one who doubts its existence. (You and "Ref," which may well mean you again.)

If this were a big issue, bothering a number of people, I would give it some effort. As it is, it's you and maybe you again, and maybe Rollo Tomasi. That's, at most, a third to half as many as the number of people who actually saw the letter after its arrival in Provo.

And, given your implacable hostility, your relentless malevolence, and your unswerving conviction that I'm a "mean-spirited liar," I can't see that there would be much to gain by devoting much effort to some project to convince you that the letter was genuine. If I did, you would simply move on to another issue with which to question my honesty and assault my character. And you have a very fecund imagination. I could spend my life trying to convince you that I'm not what you fervently believe and hope me to be, and, at the end of that life, would have accomplished nothing worthwhile at all. You would have invented several hundred more "proofs" that I'm a lying mopologetic hack.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So why is that answer still there? Becuase it is faith promoting?

I know nothing about the situation and have nothing to do with the statement on the website.

Have you dropped a note to FARMS?