Interpreter Publishes Bokovoy Article 9 Years Later...Without His Permission

[Philo Sofee]

...I entirely agree it was truly unprofessional to do it the way they did it, but it is no surprise. Apologists can't grasp what professionalism is.

Exactly. I don't quite know why, maybe it's the isolation? Or the feeling of superiority the lds church apparently gives them leaking over into every aspect of their lives? Who knows. It is an astonishing level of immaturity, shown over and over and over. It truly surprises me.

And if they actually hung around real professionals rather than each other, they sure don't show any learning how to be or act from the pros. Perhaps all they do have as examples is their own leadership and own selves. Sad when seen...over and over and over and over and GAWD! ***OVER*** again in a continual stream.

[Dr Moore]

I don't get it. What would be the harm in giving David a courtesy notice, if not either a request for approval or any potential updates to his 10y old scholarship? Wasn't David a co-founder of Interpreter?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I have no doubt that David Bokovoy feels slighted, but only because The Interpreter is such an embarrassing and crappy venue.

[Kishkumen]

It would have been best to consult David regardless of the terms of the original contract.

[Dr Exiled]

Not classy to not consult with the author prior to publishing the article. Perhaps legally, the interpreter owns the article, but seriously, Dr. P, not a good move. Sometimes what is technically legal is not the right move.

[Philo Sofee]

Not classy to not consult with the author prior to publishing the article. Perhaps legally, the interpreter owns the article, but seriously, Dr. P, not a good move. Sometimes what is technically legal is not the right move.

Agreed entirely, but look at it from Peterson's point of view. Bokovoy he feared would NOT let him put his article out now that Bokovoy is out, and Lou the moron has ridiculed Bokovoy, and Peterson is totally desperate for some kind of actual credibility because the articles in Interpret just SUCK and he KNOWS it, but is more interested in keeping his loony track record in tact than have valid information and good quality. This every friday thing is so amateur stupid as to be beyond words. But, so, Peterson just throws it out there as an actual SCHOLARLY and SOLID piece of research he can NOW point to and crow "See? We DO have scholarly and good peer reviewed materials." Remember, Mormonism and her scholars are all about image. There has not been substance for decades.

[Dr Moore]

I highly doubt this move has anything to do with questions about "peer review."

In my mind, more likely a passive-aggressive way of sticking it to the new David, like sanctimoniously bearing testimony to David by using David's own words.

Either that, or they just really liked the article and needed quality entries for whatever collection/anthology this was.

[Lem]

And if they actually hung around real professionals rather than each other, they sure don't show any learning how to be or act from the pros. Perhaps all they do have as examples is their own leadership and own selves. Sad when seen...over and over and over and over and GAWD! ***OVER*** again in a continual stream.

Speaking of unprofessional, look at what Peterson is comparing same-sex liaisons to....

gemli Michael Hoggan • 18 hours ago

You have a right to disagree with anyone or anything. You also have a right to be wrong. And I have an actual graduate degree in Psychology, so there. Sadly, the degrees people hold don't qualify them to speak for a nonexistent deity. Same-sex liaisons exist throughout the animal kingdom, and, believe it or not, we're animals.


−---
DanielPeterson Mod gemli • 14 hours ago

gemli: "Same-sex liaisons exist throughout the animal kingdom."

So do cancer and diabetes and cannibalism.

So what?

http://disq.us/p/2hwkpaw

Dear God. Same-sex liaisons, cancer, and cannibalism. Will Peterson never learn.

[Moksha]

−---

DanielPeterson Mod gemli • 14 hours ago

gemli: "Same-sex liaisons exist throughout the animal kingdom."

So do cancer and diabetes and cannibalism.

So what?

http://disq.us/p/2hwkpaw

Dear God. Same-sex liaisons, cancer, and cannibalism. Will Peterson never learn.

Hasn't Dr. Peterson also pointed out that polygamy and being sealed to the flock, pride, or bevy are also very much part of the animal kingdom and even extends down into the act of one elder amoeba splitting into two elder amoebas through the sacred process of Latter-day fission?

[Lem]

DanielPeterson Mod Daved6 • an hour ago • edited

Daved6: "One must wonder, why was he not notified when it was decided to republish his piece?"

I didn't know that he wasn't.

Daved6: "That seems to be the height of disrespect."

David voluntarily presented his paper at an Interpreter conference. He granted Interpreter the right to publish his paper in an Interpreter volume, which we did. Years later, without making even the slightest substantive change to the paper, Interpreter decided to make it more easily accessible to a wider audience.

Would it have been okay to have notified him in advance? Sure. Was it necessary? I don't think so. (By the way, I wasn't specifically notified in advance when my previously published paper on "Mormonism and the Trinity" was republished two or three months ago in precisely the way that David's has now been republished. I happened to know simply because of my role in the organization.)

If you regard this as "the height of disrespect," you must live a very charmed life.

Daved6: "Also, since he indicated he disagreed with your decision to republish it without his permission, would you also consider taking it down?"

No, not really. The paper was given at an Interpreter conference and then, with David's ready permission, laid out and formatted and published in an Interpreter volume. We made no changes in it, and we didn't grant republication rights to a third party. It's not at all clear to me why we would need specific permission simply to make it more accessible to readers than it had already been.

Daved6: "Out of respect for him if for nothing else."

I think it arguable that the more disrespectful move would have been to silently suppress David's paper. Certainly we would have caught flak for that. Very possibly even from you.

http://disq.us/p/2hxe7hb

I find it eye-rollingly ridiculous that Peterson thinks the opposite of re-publishing someone’s paper without notifying or asking them is the silent suppression of said paper. His story about not being notified when his own papers are re-published is too laughable to even consider.