DiscussMormonism.com

Well, it seems that the de rigueur crowing about the newest issue of FARMS Review is underway over on the aptly named MADboard. Interestingly, DCP is indulging rather heavily in the usual self-deprecation. First of all, note his new signature line:

DCP wrote:Delusion:
"Defaming the character of other people based on innuendo mind-reading, . . . like what routinely happens in the pages of FARMS Review of Books"
-- "'Dr.' Shades" (self-described "visionary," 8 April 2008, revealing his close acquaintance with the FARMS Review by referring to it under a title that it shed five years ago)

Reality:
http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/reviewmain.php

Apparently, he really feels very self-conscious about the charge that FARMS Review is primarily an "attack" journal, rather than a serious scholarly publication. Check out these posts:

Daniel Peterson wrote:Aficionados of character defamation, innuendo, and mind-reading will be pleased to know that the latest issue of the FARMS Review has just come from the press. It's so hot that even I haven't seen it yet.

Details to come.

DCP wrote:Here's a brief summary overview of the mind-reading, character-defaming, innuendo-laden contents of FARMS Review 19/2:

Daniel Peterson (on Christopher Hitchens's atheistic rant god is Not Great)
Louis Midgley (on the memory of the Saints)
Steven Olsen (on Mormon historical consciousness)
Gary Novak (on remembrance and the past)
John Murphy (on preserving written records)
Jim Faulconer (on remembrance)
Raphael Jospe (on Maimonides)
Larry Morris (on Brodie and Brooks)
Allen Wyatt (on plural marriage)
Craig Foster (on the Mountain Meadows Massacre)
Kevin Barney (on the New Testament)
John Tvedtnes (on baptism for the dead)
David Grandy (on atheism)
John Gee (on the Joseph Smith Papyri)

In addition, there are a number of innuendo-laced, mind-reading, character-defaming book notes.

DCP wrote:Those who would enjoy watching a master of innuendo, character defamation, and mind-reading at work, but who simply can't wait for the new FARMS Review to arrive in their mailboxes or even on their computer screens, should see Larry Morris, "'I Should Have an Eye Single to the Glory of God’: Joseph Smith’s Account of the Angel and the Plates," review of Ronald V. Huggins, "From Captain Kidd’s Treasure Ghost to the Angel Moroni: Changing Dramatis Personae in Early Mormonism," which was published in Dialogue 36/4 (2003): 17–42.

Larry Morris's characteristically vicious (and utterly substance-free) essay, originally published in a previous issue of the ever-snarling FARMS Review, is the currently-featured FARMS Review article on the Maxwell Institute web site, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/

P.S. We've moved from "character assassination" to "character defamation" in the hope that people who don't understand the meaning of the word defamation will assume that we've become kinder and gentler. (Mwahahahahaha!)

P.P.S. The Review will probably be up on line in the very near term. Our defamatory goals are too ambitious to be satisfied by mere print publication alone.

Indeed, this is a bit much, no? At least one poster, mbeesley, sure seemed to think so:

mbeesley wrote:The scholarly content and the respect the FARMS publications deserve are ill-served by sarcastic comments about the content coming from one who should know better.

Overly-active fingertips on the keyboard at apologetic sites can be poison to one's judgment.

I guess I am left wondering whether this Board serves any useful purpose any more.

Apparently, The Good Professor's silly, self-deprecatory rant is enough to practically drive mbeesley off the board! Ouch! Realizing that he stepped off a cliff, DCP immediately begins to backpedal:

DCP wrote:Here, for any who object to irony or flair in writing, is a non-ironic flat-propositional translation of the basic points of the thread, formulated to be as devoid of the thread originator's toxic personality as the said thread originator is capable of making it:

(1) The newest number of the FARMS Review has arrived from the press.

(2) A previously-published FARMS Review article by Larry Morris is currently featured on the Maxwell Institute web page.

(3) The claim, cited in the thread originator's current signature, that the FARMS Review routinely engages in character-defamation, innuendo, and mind-reading, is false -- which is to say that it is not congruent with reality.

(4) The falseness of the claim to which allusion is made in (3), above, is illustrated by the contents of the Morris article to which reference is made in (2), above, and by the contents of the newest number of the FARMS Review, mention of which occurs in (1), above.

Hope is expressed by the thread originator that this formulation will be acceptable. However, further complaints may be registered here on this thread, and attempts will be made by the thread originator to accommodate them.

It's a real pity that Prof. P. thinks that this lone Larry Morris example (more on that in a moment) is enough to undo the countless smear articles, such as Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic", which have appeared in the pages of this publication. As for the Morris piece, it is mild by FARMS Review standards, but it does nonetheless contain the usual innuendo and ad hominem attacks. The Morris piece is rife with accusations of "sloppy scholarship," dishonesty, and suppression of evidence. Here's one small example:

Along with obscuring the timeline and neglecting key primary
documents, Huggins suppresses important details.

Here Morris attacks Huggins's professionalism:

Huggins has violated a basic standard
of good history.

This seems needlessly aggressive:

More important, a check of the
original source shows that Ahmanson makes his “Captain Kidd”
claim without giving any source whatsoever. His having reported a
rumor therefore has no evidential value, and Huggins has no business
bringing it up.

Perhaps one of these days a non-bellicose and properly professional, non-attack/smear piece will appear in FARMS Review. This Larry Morris hit-piece, I'm afraid, just isn't it. Sorry!

I am not surprised by any of this. I will note, however, that Peterson's position is more nuanced than it was when I first approached him about his rhetoric through a close friend of his. When I voiced concern about his dismissive treatment of Brooke's Refiner's Fire, he responded through his friend "stupid books deserve to be ridiculed." I would say the rhetoric you quoted should be marked as a real improvement by comparison.

On that same thread, Gtaggart posted twice:

You know what you've done don't you? With John Gee/JSP in the new Review, this board is sure to be flooded with threads populated by the likes of Brs. Metcalfe, Graham, and their acolytes. Talk about a bittersweet announcement.

Make no mistake: I respect John and his work. It's the flood of threads libeling his character and denigrating his scholarshihp that I dread.

I posted this:

You know what you've done don't you? With John Gee/JSP in the new Review, this board is sure to be flooded with threads populated by the likes of Brs. Metcalfe, Graham, and their acolytes. Talk about a bittersweet announcement.

DCP then posted this:

Make no mistake: I respect John and his work. It's the flood of threads libeling his character and denigrating his scholarship that I dread.

Some people, though, seem to think it's funny to do such things:

I suppose it's a matter of perspective -- and definitely a case where it's easier to give than to receive.

Isn't it great how DCP recontextualizes my smilies in order to libel me as a libeler? How cute and clever of him! I just love DCP's sense of humor!

-Chris

Trevor wrote:I am not surprised by any of this. I will note, however, that Peterson's position is more nuanced than it was when I first approached him about his rhetoric through a close friend of his. When I voiced concern about his dismissive treatment of Brooke's Refiner's Fire, he responded through his friend "stupid books deserve to be ridiculed." I would say the rhetoric you quoted should be marked as a real improvement by comparison.

Wow, he actually said that? Perhaps it's time to update *my* sig line!

DCP wrote:Delusion:
"Defaming the character of other people based on innuendo mind-reading, . . . like what routinely happens in the pages of FARMS Review of Books"
-- "'Dr.' Shades" (self-described "visionary," 8 April 2008, revealing his close acquaintance with the FARMS Review by referring to it under a title that it shed five years ago)

Oops! Well, at least I didn't accidentally call it "FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon."

But beyond that, I really don't understand the negative reaction. Just consider all the innuendo mind-reading that Midgley did regarding Grant Palmer or that William Hamblin did regarding D. Michael Quinn, for just two examples among many.

Dr. Shades wrote:

DCP wrote:Delusion:
"Defaming the character of other people based on innuendo mind-reading, . . . like what routinely happens in the pages of FARMS Review of Books"
-- "'Dr.' Shades" (self-described "visionary," 8 April 2008, revealing his close acquaintance with the FARMS Review by referring to it under a title that it shed five years ago)

Oops! Well, at least I didn't accidentally call it "FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon."

They shouldn't call it a "review" at all. It should be called FARMS Diatribe, or something more accurate.

But beyond that, I really don't understand the negative reaction. Just consider all the innuendo mind-reading that Midgley did regarding Grant Palmer or that William Hamblin did regarding D. Michael Quinn, for just two examples among many.

DCP reacts very violently to any attack on this "baby" of his. And, of course, you're absolutely right that the pages of FARMS Diatribe are littered with "innuendo and mind-reading." It is unfortunate for The Good Professor that Trevor has now supplied us with a quote from DCP in which The Good Professor essentially admits that at least one purpose of FARMS Diatribe is to "ridicule" others.

Mister Scratch wrote:They shouldn't call it a "review" at all. It should be called FARMS Diatribe, or something more accurate.

Indeed.

You know, I think it was a bad move to shorten the name to simply "FARMS Review." If I had encountered that name for the first time with no knowledge of its predecessor, I would've thought, "FARMS Review of what? FARMS Review of sports? FARMS Review of architecture? FARMS Review of graduate degree programs?"

At least with "FARMS Review of Books," you knew exactly what the publication was about.

It is unfortunate for The Good Professor that Trevor has now supplied us with a quote from DCP in which The Good Professor essentially admits that at least one purpose of FARMS Diatribe is to "ridicule" others.

While we're on the subject, I think it was his article "Chattanooga Cheapshot, or the Gall of Bitterness," in which, probably alluding to Midgley, he said that some of his reviewers seemed to be "born with the nastiness gene."

If he realized it back then, it's too bad he didn't put the kibbosh on such shenanigans before FARMS's reputation was cemented in place.

To be frank, FARMS review is a bit saddening to me.

I'd actually love for it to be a robust, healthy academic journal.

There's some of that in Dialogue (repeat, probably lifelong, subscriber), but, honestly, I just couldn't care less about reading the second half of each edition: Mormon fiction and poetry (no offense to its constituency).

Sunstone's a bit too lightweight, generally speaking, for my taste.

Where's the real, front-to-back, academic journal on things Mormon?

It's certainly not FARMS.

Is it out there somewhere?

Does someone need to create it?

CKS

The camera pulls away from Dr. Peterson, hunched in front of his computer, snacking on an overmeated sandwhich, furiously typing away at all the missives and slights directed at his faith, and quickly spans the globe in time to capture a car bomb exploding in Tehran for which 9 people are murdered. The image quickly spins to India where the finishing touches of a new mosque, which sits squarely on top of a razed Hindu temple, are applied. A Brahman quietly swears to avenge this indignity with Muslim blood. The scene pulls away quickly and refocuses on a St. Petersburg Orthodox priest looking out the window, quietly stewing, as a loud and raucous Evangelical concert mesmerizes Russian youth who praise Jesus in fervent praise.

Dr. Peterson has his Purpose. This is just what he does. He's myopia. He's pride. He's, oddly enough, vanity.

Meanwhile, as Mormonism continues down its path of irrelevancy, the rest of the world spins round and round riding a cosmic wave to oblivion. Kind of makes you understand why he does what he does when faced with the alternative of an existential crisis. Praise God.

Sandwich, anyone?

They shouldn't call it a "review" at all. It should be called FARMS Diatribe, or something more accurate.

Not a bad point. Hitchens is at least honest with himself.

Here's Hitchens:

"god is Not Great:

All the problems in the world are rooted in Christianity, Christians are really anoying and ignorant and though I'm not a historian by profession,it really seems clear that religion has made a mess of everything and I may sound harsh but I feel like I just need to tell you what I really think."

Here's FARMS:

"Analysis of the third Equus Molar from the 1997 Jones Dig"

We are pleased to report on some important recent academic discussions in archeology and their implications for studies of the Book of Mormon. Dr. Johnson, an evangelical detractor of Mormonism, ironically considering his charge of lack of professionalism amongst Mormon scholars, earned his degree from an unaccredited college and can't be trusted. A recent paper by a secular anti-Mormon proposes that the Book of Mormon is of 19th century origins. We've identified 342 logical fallacies in his recent three page paper and will explore those in detail over the next 134 pages. We also have some humorous observations about his skills as a thinker and would like to report on some classroom experiments that we did which demonstrate the average BYU freshman is far more capable to do work in the field this "scholar" professes to specialize in. We would also like to assure our audience that all of us involved in this project are working Phds in important fields and we can be trusted by the Saints. As the Prophet Joseph Smith once said, "The work will Go Forth!"