Page 1 of 2
More Evidence of a FARMS 'Cabal'
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:42 pm
by _Mister Scratch
I was nosing around in some old MAD threads when I came across this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:IMHO, Daniel, if [Grant Palmer's] book is such bunk, then why didn't Farms just ignore it? Instead of reviewing it not once or even twice for good measure, but FIVE times?
Whether the book is bunk or not, some people, as I say, have found it persuasive. Anyway, here's the scoop on the five reviews:
I first sought a single review. One person agreed to do it. He then recruited a colleague to help. Eventually, they decided they would prefer to write two separate reviews. Then two other people contacted me and asked me if they could say something about Palmer. Since they were both interesting writers, I said yes. But, by this point, I couldn't gracefully have told the first two reviewers to drop their writing even if I had felt so inclined -- which I didn't. That led to four reviews. And then, when my friend Jim Allen sent me a copy of his review, which he had been asked to write for BYU Studies but which had grown too long, I offered to run the full version (since I liked it), while BYU Studies ran a shorter version. Hence, five reviews. No panic, and no initial plan to publish so many. But I like them, and I'm happy to have published them.
The MAD thread in question can be accessed here:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=5277
What's intriguing about this quote, in my opinion, is the way that it reveals the sort of "Good Ol' Boy" network that is responsible for the output of
FARMS Review. This DCP posting, coupled with the recent mention of the mysterious "l-skinny" BYU listserve, only helps to bolster the theory that
FARMS Review truly is without serious academic merit, and is instead run by a "cabal" of Church "yes-men" who plot revenge on Church critics via their "l-skinny" gossip channel. Furthermore, the fact that The Good Professor was "happy to have published" a whopping
five attack articles dealing with one "terrible" book, shows that the primary purpose of this journal is to launch "academic"-sounding character assassinations.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:51 pm
by _Trevor
Don't you think using the term 'cabal' is perhaps giving these guys a little too much credit? The strike me more like the staff of a vanity press, like the guys in Ecco's Foucault's Pendulum or the guys who hang out by the fence drinking their afternoon beer on Fox's King of the Hill, but 'cabal'? Nah.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:55 pm
by _Mister Scratch
Trevor wrote:Don't you think using the term 'cabal' is perhaps giving these guys a little too much credit? The strike me more like the staff of a vanity press, like the guys in Ecco's Foucault's Pendulum or the guys who hang out by the fence drinking their afternoon beer on Fox's King of the Hill, but 'cabal'? Nah.
Perhaps. Certainly, I think that referring to
FARMS Review as a "vanity press" is quite accurate. They know all too well (and have admitted) that this sort of crap simply would make it into a serious academic publication.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:00 pm
by _Trevor
Mister Scratch wrote:Perhaps. Certainly, I think that referring to FARMS Review as a "vanity press" is quite accurate. They know all too well (and have admitted) that this sort of crap simply would make it into a serious academic publication.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of crap that passes for serious academic writing, but that doesn't make it worthwhile. FARMS seems to me to be a kind of hobby for a few educated Mormons whose egos are tied up in arguing that the claims of the LDS Church are plausible.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:04 pm
by _Bond...James Bond
Trevor wrote:Don't you think using the term 'cabal' is perhaps giving these guys a little too much credit? The strike me more like the staff of a vanity press, like the guys in Ecco's Foucault's Pendulum or the guys who hang out by the fence drinking their afternoon beer on Fox's King of the Hill, but 'cabal'? Nah.
LOL! I get an image of DCP as Hank Hill saying: "I sell Mormonism and Mormon accessories."
I wonder who would be Boomhauer? Couldn't you just imagine him rambling off a testimony? Man-I-tell-you-what-I-believe-Joseph-Smith-man-was-God's-One-True-Prophet-man-and-that-the-BoM-is-a-true-story-of-the-Americas-man-possibly-figuratively-speaking-man.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:12 pm
by _The Dude
Bond...James Bond wrote:LOL! I get an image of DCP as Hank Hill saying: "I sell Mormonism and Mormon accessories."
I nominate our own LifeOnAPlate as Bobby Hill.
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:20 pm
by _Trevor
The Dude wrote:I nominate our own LifeOnAPlate as Bobby Hill.
Finally, the man behind the mask...or sock, rather.
Be free, Bobby!
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:21 am
by _EAllusion
FARMS Review is quite obviously an incenstuous affair, as all publications dedicated to dubious fringe views tend to be. Pointing out the incestuous nature of the peer-review process is very important in explaining why the type of peer-review it offers is essentially useless. The same goes for creationist journals and the like.
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:42 am
by _antishock8
They've essentially, like every other word that tends to work against them in any context when discussing Mormonism, created their own defintion of "peer review" and their own standard for "peer review" when it comes to their apologetic material. You know what I'm talking about. Bob's recent foray into redefining "publish" in order to counter the idea that the Mormon church suppresses temple content is just one of a myriad of examples where Mormons redefine a word, or use an obscure definition out of context in order to "win" a debate. Same goes with these clowns. The little Mopologist Cabal uses a mostly incestuous "peer review" to edit, clean up, and make a few pointers before publishing their attack pieces.
Remember:
Ad Hom
Insult
Obfuscate
Repeat
Claim piece meets "academic standards" because it's been "peer reviewed" by "experts" in "Mormon apologetics".
Re: More Evidence of a FARMS 'Cabal'
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
by _moksha
Mister Scratch wrote:... shows that the primary purpose of this journal is to launch "academic"-sounding character assassinations.
Oh yeah, well don't the Scientologists do something similar and what about Tomás de Torquemada?