Tuesday, October 10, 2023

The good stuff 1

I've often said that the Interpreter publishes some good material. People ask me for examples. Here's one:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/moving-beyond-the-historicity-question-or-a-manifesto-for-future-book-of-mormon-research/#more-64352

This is a thoughtful review of the book titled Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide. The review does an excellent job summarizing and explaining this important and useful book.

Predictably, the review is a little defensive about the Interpreter. 

There are thirty references from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies in the [Page 307]appendix, but only a single, must-read reference from the Interpreter... Finally, the description of Interpreter in Book of Mormon Studies is far from kind.

Toward the end, the article ironically describes the "Gatekeeper problem."

The Gatekeeper Problem

Another problem with the book and its contents is that it feels somewhat inbred. I greatly admire much of the work done by the authors, but I also admire work done by other scholars not affiliated with the organizations in which the authors exercise gatekeeping power. The authors have been remarkably productive researchers and have made valuable contributions to our understanding of the Book of Mormon, but so have others unaffiliated with the Maxwell Institute, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the Latter-day Saint Theology Seminar, and the Academy of Book of Mormon Studies. The authors of Book of Mormon Studies complain42 about too restrictive gatekeeping and a lack of openness to alternative perspectives in the FARMS era. Whether those concerns have merit, the authors themselves generally include in their list of contemporary scholarship work primarily done by the authors and others affiliated with the organizations in which they serve as principals. The value of their survey would be greater if their canon of worthwhile research were more open and broader.

The Gatekeeper problem is the primary deficiency in the Interpreter (apart from the arrogant name of the journal). The Editorial Board of the Interpreter would be well served to reconsider their gatekeeping approach.

Monday, October 2, 2023

they want papers that support certain preapproved narratives.

Article in the Wall St. Journal helps explain the Interpreter's editorial bias against alternative faithful narratives.

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Science

Especially in climate and Covid research, abuse of peer review and self-censorship abound.

Oct. 1, 2023


Excerpts (emphasis added):

Scientists were aghast last month when Patrick Brown, climate director at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., acknowledged that he’d censored one of his studies to increase his odds of getting published. Credit to him for being honest about something his peers also do but are loath to admit.

In an essay for the Free Press, Mr. Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.” Editors of scientific journals, he wrote, “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Nature’s editor, Magdalena Skipper, denied that the journal has “a preferred narrative.” No doubt the editors at the New York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.

[As would editors at the Interpreter.]

Mr. Brown’s criticisms aren’t new. In 2005 Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an essay titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” He contended that scientists “may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Dr. Ioannidis argued. “Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure.”

In addition, many scientists use the peer-review process to suppress findings that challenge their own beliefs, which perpetuates “false dogma.” 

[Exactly what the Interpreter does.]

As Dr. Ioannidis explained, the more scientists there are in a field, the more competition there is to get published and the more likely they are to produce “impressive ‘positive’ results” and “extreme research claims.”

The same dynamic applies to Covid research. A July study in the Journal of the American Medical Association purported to find higher rates of excess deaths among Republican voters in Florida and Ohio after vaccines had been rolled out. Differences in partisan vaccination attitude, the study concluded, may have contributed to the “severity and trajectory of the pandemic.”

But the study lacked information on individuals’ vaccination and cause of death. It also didn’t adjust for confounding variables, such as underlying health conditions and behaviors. Charts buried in the study’s appendix showed excess deaths among older Republicans started to exceed Democrats in mid-2020—well before vaccines were available.

Despite these flaws, the study was published and pumped by left-wing journalists because it promoted their preferred narrative. ...

Journals often don’t compensate peer reviewers, which can result in perfunctory work. The bigger problem is that reviewers often disregard a study’s flaws when its conclusions reinforce their own biases. One result is that “a large share of what is published may not be replicable or is obviously false,” Dr. Ioannidis notes. “Even outright fraud may be becoming more common.”

As scientists struggle to publish against-the-grain research, many are turning to preprint servers—online academic repositories—to debunk studies in mainstream journals. Yet even some of those sites, such as the Social Science Research Network, are blocking studies that don’t fit preapproved narratives.

...

Scientific journals and preprint servers aren’t selective about research quality. They’re selective about the conclusions. If experts want to know why so many Americans don’t trust “science,” they have their answer. Too many scientists no longer care about science.

Monday, August 28, 2023

SITH origin: Dehlin, Smoot, MacKay, Dirkmaat

 Because this involves an article in the Interpreter, I'm archiving it here from one of my other blogs.

_____

No one has a problem with historians (or anyone else) proposing interpretations of the historical record. We all understand the concept of multiple working hypotheses, and we all agree people can believe whatever they want.

But we expect people to at least be clear about the facts and the assumptions, inferences, and theories that lead to their hypotheses and conclusions. 

When we pursue clarity, charity, and understanding, we start with clarity for a reason. Obfuscation and misdirection don't lead to understanding but to confusion. People can't make informed decisions when they don't have clarity about the facts--and about the difference between facts and assumptions, inferences, etc. When people simply omit facts to persuade others to accept their hypotheses, we all want an explanation for why they omitted those facts. 

IOW, don't just omit relevant facts without at least explaining why. We may or may not agree with your explanation, but we want to know you have one.

_____

In the pursuit of clarity, we've seen previously how M2C originated with a map published in 1917 (and 1918, 1919, and 1923) by an RLDS scholar named L.E. Hills* whose theory that the "real Cumorah/Ramah" was in Mexico was promptly rejected by both RLDS and LDS leaders who reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught. But LDS scholars who rejected what the prophets taught about Cumorah persisted in promoting Hills' M2C theory. They've raised and spent millions of dollars from faithful Latter-day Saints to all but erase the New York Cumorah/Ramah from the collective memory of the Church.

Fortunately, no amount of money can erase what everyone can read right in the Joseph Smith Papers.

And, as always, if anyone thinks I've erred or misstated anything, feel free to email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com and I'll make the corrections. 

_____

A similar process is underway to establish SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory), particularly by John Dehlin, Stephen O. Smoot, Michael Hubbard MacKay, and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat.

As we'll see, Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat omitted highly relevant facts about SITH and invented an opposite narrative instead that they've promoted heavily. In the pursuit of charity, we can assume they have a good faith reason for doing so, but it's difficult to imagine what that might be. At any rate, they should have disclosed the facts and explained why they omitted them.

Here's the problem. Not only did they publish this false narrative years ago with no pushback from the LDS scholarly community, but as recently as this year--2023--they persuaded Deseret Book to promote the false narrative with additional embellishments--all to establish SITH as the only acceptable explanation for the Book of Mormon.

_____

Some people think SITH became prominent among Latter-day Saints because of Richard Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling, published in 2007. But Bushman accurately reported the historical accounts. He could/should have clarified a few things and added additional references, as suggested here, https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review, but he didn't change the historical record to promote an agenda. 

John Dehlin's 2013 "Faith Crisis Report" took SITH a step further by claiming SITH was the actual origin of the Book of Mormon and that there was a "gap" between the "true" SITH accounts and the "false" teachings of the Church regarding the Urim and Thummim. Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast has repeated that theme ever since.

(click to enlarge)

Dehlin's report led to the publication of the Gospel Topics Essays, including the essay on Book of Mormon Translation which adopted Dehlin's narrative. The essay doesn't even quote what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation; instead, it selectively quotes from other sources to promote the Dehlin narrative. For an analysis, see https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html.

The 2015 book From Darkness Unto Light, by Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, quoted original sources and wove a narrative that further persuaded many Latter-day Saints to accept SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory). However, without explaining why, the authors omitted original sources that contradicted SITH. Worse, they also falsified the historical record to promote SITH. 

Specifically, they invented a narrative around Jonathan Hadley, who published the first known account of the translation. 

Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat claim Joseph Smith visited Hadley to ask if he would publish the Book of Mormon. They claim Joseph related the SITH account to him. They claim that Hadley was initially amiable toward Joseph Smith, and that Hadley's account should be accepted on its face.

Yet in an account they don't even cite (let alone quote), Hadley himself said it was Martin Harris alone who visited him. Hadley never said Joseph visited him. He never said he ever met Joseph. And he explained that he not only refused to have anything to do with the publication, but that he would "expose" the "whole Mormon gang" if they succeeded in publishing the Book of Mormon.

IOW, Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat claim SITH originated with Joseph Smith, when the historical record shows us that it originated with an avowed antagonist who had never even met Joseph Smith.

Stephen O. Smoot wrote an enthusiastic review in the Interpreter.

But perhaps the most fascinating insight to be found in this section of the book is the discussion of Jonathan A. Hadley’s 1829 account of his visit with Joseph Smith. Printer of the Palmyra Freeman, Hadley reported in August 1829 that the Prophet had recently come to him seeking to contract the publication of the Book of Mormon. Although he contemptuously dismissed his account of the recovery of the plates, Hadley nevertheless reported Joseph’s description to him of the physical dimensions thereof. 

This is the type of "peer approval" at the Interpreter that we've all come to know and love. It's what happens when people rely on what others write without looking at the original sources.


MacKay and Dirkmaat were so enamored with their Hadley narrative that they included it on the first page of their latest book, Let's Talk About the Translation of the Book of Mormon, published in 2023 by Deseret Book.

Consequently, Deseret Book is officially on record for promoting the false narrative that SITH originated with Joseph Smith.

I posted a detailed analysis about all of this. It's an excerpt from the appendix in an upcoming book about LDS apologetics. You can read it here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/the-jonathan-hadley-account-and-sith.html 

Here's a brief example of the Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat narrative, compared to what Hadley actually said. 

Smoot, MacKay, Dirkmaat

Hadley

Though Hadley's small-time operation could not accommodate the herculean project of printing the Book of Mormon, he went from amiable to incensed after Joseph eventually agreed to terms with the recalcitrant Grandin rather than Hadley's more well-positioned friend in Rochester.

Joseph had described to Hadley many of the remarkable events that had let him to the plates and how they were translated. Now Hadley determined to undermine Joseph Smith by relating the fantastical events Joseph had told him.

Soon after the translation was completed, I was one day waited upon by Harris, and offered the printing of the Book of Mormon. This was in the summer of 1829, at which time I was carrying on the printing business at Palmyra. Harris owned a good farm in that town, and offered to mortgage it to secure the expense of printing. Though he was a subscriber to my paper, and had frequently "labored" to convert me to the Mormon faith, I was so sceptical as to utterly refuse to have any "part or lot" in the imposition, telling him at the same time, that if he proceeded with the publication, I should feel it my duty, as the conductor of a faithful public journal, to expose him and the whole Mormon gang. He took the work, however, to the other office in the village, and it was soon put to press. It was then I wrote and published an article, which you may recollect, headed "THE GOLDEN BIBLE," giving a history of the humbug up to that time. This article was extensively copied, it having been the first ever published about the Mormons.

The MacKay/Dirkmaat narrative as it appears on the first page of Let's Talk About:


Smoot promoting SITH in the Interpreter:




_____

*The simulation winked at us by having a guy named "Hills" promote the idea of "two hills Cumorah" or M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). We should have known all along it was fake news.

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

A new paper helps explain why the Interpreters (including FAIRLDS, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Mormon Stories, and the CES Letter) all coalesce around SITH.

These groups all promote the prevailing bias that Joseph Smith didn't really translate anything.


_____

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False



"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."


Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Dan Peterson turns a new leaf?

A friend sent me this fine-sounding article:

https://www.ldsliving.com/why-latter-day-saints-need-to-defend-our-beliefs-even-as-we-avoid-contention/s/89635

It's wonderful to see Dan call for no more contention after I started my blog nomorecontention.com.

This could be another breakthrough from the Interpreters. 

Imagine how different the conversation would be if, when speaking or writing about fellow Latter-day Saints with whom they disagree, Dan and the Interpreters changed course and chose to "call upon them to meet you both in public and in private" instead of taking potshots and hiding behind the racist Peter Pan pseudonym to engage?

I would be happy if they ever accepted my invitations to meet and work through differences, but so far they've consistently refused. And I've never declined an invitation from them to meet in private or in public.

_____

Part of this article is an excellent sentiment that everyone should endorse. Avoiding contention is the purpose of the nomorecontention.com site.

But what about the "defending our beliefs" part? 

The very terminology'--"defending"--invokes contention. The King James translators thoughtfully used "answer" instead of "defense" because the passage refers to someone "asking for a reason" for the hope that is in us. This calls for an explanation or an answer, not a defensive assumption that an answer is an attack. 

Framing it as a "defense" implies an accusation. While maybe more technically correct to translate it as "defend" from the Greek, the KJV translators suggested an answer is a non-contentious way to respond when people ask about the hope that is in us. Instead of being defensive, simply answer or explain our reasons in a positive, confident and enthusiastic way.

This involves clarity and understanding, not offensive and defensive posturing.

And what beliefs is Dan defending, anyway?

Certainly Dan is entitled to defend his beliefs, which are squarely in the "Some" category.

Believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed

All

Some

None

Believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

Disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon


There's nothing wrong with the "Some" category, but we all need to be crystal clear about what beliefs were are explaining.

Maybe in the future, Dan and the other Interpreters will take his own advice. 

Maybe Dan will come to disavow, discontinue, and discourage the long-standing practice of the Interpreters who continually criticize, mock and belittle fellow Latter-day Saints who disagree with him.

Let's all hope so!


Thursday, April 27, 2023

How the Interpreters perpetrated the racist Peter Pan fraud

Apparently Dan has decided to perpetuate the Peter Pan disaster by discussing it on his blog.

Some, probably most, of the readers of the Interpreter have not watched Bill Reel's expose of the Peter Pan fiasco. Here is part of a summary.

At one point, Bill points out that Mike Parker and other Interpreters apparently claimed that Bill would show excerpts from the video Mike did with Robert Boylan. Instead, as anyone can see, Bill played the entire thing. What Bill adds is that it was Mike and Robert who edited out a key part of their recording!

In the since-deleted passage, Mike describes the complicity of the Interpreter magazine and labels the entire episode as a "sort of a joke."

Here is the transcript from the part of the video in which Bill played a portion of the video that Mike and his friends edited out of the one they put up on youtube.

Mike Parker and Robert Boylan talking 

People can watch it starting here: https://youtu.be/Jhu3TSjDHj0?t=9136

2:32:16 Bill Reel: they accused us, they said we were going to cut up clips and take everything out of context. We didn't do that. We played the whole thing. uh I don't think there's anything that we needed to do like I think it's so plain to people who are watching this this obfuscation and dishonesty that I don't have a need to paint a new narrative. 

We're the ones I think who are telling the truth on this issue but it is important to note that they actually did cut out a clip and we'll play that right now.

2:32:46 Mike Parker: but about this same time um Spencer Krause is getting ready to publish his reviews in Interpreter of two of Jonathan Neville's books and he offered as kind of a lighthearted uh sort of humorous thing in his acknowledgments at the bottom that he was going to thank several people and he mentioned me by name you know thanks so-and-so and Mike Parker for this and I also thank the pseudonymous Peter Pan who operates the Neville Neville land blog, you know. 

And so this was kind of a haha sort of a joke but also you know maybe a light way of kind of just throwing people off the scent.

Bill: It's another admittance of throwing people off the scent.

At this point of the video, Bill shows where the Interpreters first invented their racist alter ego for Peter Pan.



on the left hand side you can see

18:08

Robert Bolin at LDS apologist or apologen and he's got an image of

18:15

Brigham Young holding a firearm and he's not it's not even pointing it at uh

18:21

ex-mormons or anti-mormons right which you sort of can get instead he says

18:26

Brigham Young has a message for progmos Progressive Mormons these are believing uh Latter-Day Saints on some level

18:34

and they're active in the church on some level and he's got Brigham Young pointing a firearm at him so if that's

18:40

any indication of the kind of messaging he seems really comfortable with

18:45

uh it's also of note that he has worked closely with Fair Mormon I've got an image of one of the podcasts that they

18:50

did a Sunday special with Robert and he also works closely with The

18:56

Interpreter I'm gonna play the audio of him for the very first time this is the

19:01

very first mention of Richard Nygren uh anything you want to say before we play the video well I just want to say I'm

19:07

friends with a lot of progressive Mormons um very good friends and I when I look at this image

19:14

and I think of the who he wants to have that gun pointed at I'm I find that to be very sad and very

19:20

unchristian yeah it's super absolutely offensive for sure um okay so here uh is that video clip

19:28

and if you'll just give me a thumbs up as it starts to play to let me know if the sound is playing okay and uh we'll

19:34

be good oh I should have mentioned uh loudly

19:40

life into true.blogspot.com and of course there's also Russian migrants blog Neville Neville land a

19:47

Blog critique in Johnson Neville mainly but also other Herbert proponents where he posted a nickname Peter Pan uh

19:54

Richard is one of only a few African-American apologists in the church at the moment and he lives in

19:59

Birmingham Alabama um so be sure to check those out as well in

20:05

the show notes Okay so

20:11

and it's important to note that nowhere else on the internet

20:17

anywhere is is there a uh black believing Latter-Day Saint defending the

20:23

church under the name of Richard Nygren this is the very first time that anyone in the LDS Mormon World heard the name

20:32

Richard Nygren and it comes out of the mouth of Robert Bolin