Let's see. I first met with Matt in January to discuss his article that purported to prove Joseph Smith wrote the Times and Seasons articles linking the Book of Mormon to Guatemala. As a reminder, here it is: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2891&index=7
So I not only specifically addressed this article on this blog and in my book, but I visited Matt three times, in person, all on my own initiative, to discuss it with him. His response was to stonewall, make promises he wouldn't keep, and then accuse me of not addressing the literature.
Which is pretty much what everyone told me to expect.
Don't get me wrong. I like Matt, I think he's a capable scholar, and I'm sure he has good intentions. But as I've shown in numerous posts on the blog, the articles he's published need a lot of work.
In my view, he has an impossible task. They're defending an impossible theory, in my opinion. He and his collaborators are doing everything they can to keep the Mesoamerican theory alive. Maybe they don't realize it's on life support. Certainly they refuse to acknowledge it is based on a faulty premise--or at least they're not admitting it yet. And, to be sure, they give me a lot of great material for my presentations.
But my objective in all of this is to reach consensus. How is that possible when one side refuses to engage?
I'll continue pushing on the string, regardless. On this blog I've done peer reviews of several of Matt's articles. I'll continue doing so, I suppose, although the point I'm making about confirmation bias and result-oriented research has already been documented many times. Maybe one of these days I'll run across an article that holds up, with rational arguments, well-researched facts, and sound conclusions. I'll be sure to put it in the headline if I do.