Mister Scratch wrote:I looked at those sources, LoaP, and I've got to say, I just don't see how your argument has any merit. Would you care to elaborate, or are you cashing in your chips?
Then I am forced to say that we see things differently. I think it is a very open/shut case in favor of Coe not being aware of what the Book of Mormon text actually says.
No, not really. I think Bushman's feelings towards the bulk of what turns up in FARMS Review are rather lukewarm. He seems far more positive about *other* areas of LDS scholarship, but with respect to FARMS Review, his attitude seems lukewarm at best.
I see you didn't read the Bushman transcript to which I linked you. This damages your credibility in my eyes.
Why? Because in that very link I provided above Bushman praises FARMS and then offers his take on what he'd like to see in Mormon intellectual attention for the future. Had you read the article this would be patently obvious. As it is, you show a lack of knowledge on the subject, even when a link is expressly provided for your perusal.
In other words: you have no real evidence, and the fact that they commission everything remains unchanged.
I think it is pretty clear here who is lacking in evidence. Not clear enough to you, evidently.
Enough to know that FARMS Review's "submission process" is highly irregular. C'mon, LoaP. All you need is one contrary example. We all know how much you love coming up with the one example that topples the whole argument. Go for it! What have you got to lose?
In this case we have already discussed how different journals have different submissions guidelines. One contrary example in this case does not topple anything, other than that the FR guidelines differ from one particular journal or another. Not all, as we have agreed. (Actually I think you are hedging on that now, despite all of your "most" comments earlier.)
It may be simple, but it is also strange, and it suggests that the Powers that Be are finagling with the process. FARMS Review wants to be seen as a respectable, reputable publication, and yet they are unwilling to be transparent about their submission process. I wonder why that is?
I was under the impression you understood the submission process. Is this not the case?
Except that the strangeness of this submission process bespeaks to an additional layer of "screening." It suggests that they are trying to ward off anything critical or contrary.
This argument would hold some water if we had some actual examples of that happening. As it currently stands, it's mere speculation.
And the fact that it goes against typical academic practice. (And the fact that this is a journal which gets attacked frequently for being "unscholarly".) Really, if everything is on the up-and-up, then what have they got to hide?
Again, aren't you familiar with the process? And you use the word "typical." Do you think there are
any reputable journals which require one to contact an editor or to submit an abstract before submitting a complete article? IF there are, then your argument is mere special pleading. In this case, one counter-example introduces the special pleading aspect. You use words like "most" and "typical," which suggests there are "some" and "atypical" reputable journals that may have similar submission guidelines; right?
Yes, that's true, and we can also observe what kinds of articles never seem to make it into FARMS Review, and which kinds of vicious smear pieces are allowed to stand.
Compared to what, though? What other articles are being struck down? To me, the overriding purpose of the FR seems to be reviewing books. I've seen the FR laud books written by LDS and non-LDS alike. I've seen it completely pan books written by LDS and non-LDS alike, as well.
Which is what? Please be as descriptive as possible.
I apologize, but I don't have the interest. I don't memorize your posts, or save them on my computer. I don't analyze each and every one looking for little clues. The simple truth is you come across as a woman to me. It's a personal view.