Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:06 am
Not too long ago I received a very provocative message via PM. Apparently, this material was posted to RfM, though I haven't read the commentary over there. Many here are no doubt aware of the infamous "Metcalfe is Butthead" debacle which has permanently saddled Bill Hamblin with an indescribable mantle of shame. Well, it turns out that the rigor at FARMS Review is actually more akin to what one might expect at a magazine such as Cracked or Stuff:
Very interesting! Apparently, this is de rigueur at FARMS! One has to wonder if Hamblin learned anything from his embarrassment, or if he continues to include sloppy footnotes and "comments about space aliens" in his current FARMS publications. Further, one has to wonder if these "jokes" are passed along to the peer reviewers. If so, this seems an awful waste of "scholarly" time and effort. Why send out juvenile material to serious peer reviewers?
In any case, here is Brent Metcalfe's reply:
Of course, this has long been a serious, arguably crippling blow to FARMS's crediblity. It is bad enough that most of the articles are riddled with name-calling and ad hominem attack. But, to think that one of the key contributors is routinely tossing in false endnotes and "comments about space aliens"? These guys ought to know better. I know that the Church has deep pockets, but surely it would be easier to simply adhere to academic standards rather than having to shell out for academic credibility, as was done at the Yale conference.
My "informant" was kind enough to include this news clipping in his/her PM to me:
Now, this I find interesting, especially in light of all the new information which has come to light concerning the financing of Mopologetics. Essentially, the wealthy LDS who donated to apologetics got to pay for the privilege of reprinting this book!!! Boy, no wonder DCP doesn't want us talking about "fundraisers," and the way that apologetics are financed. If any of the donors found out that their money was being squandered in this fashion, I have no doubt that the funds would be yanked ASAP.
(emphasis added)"'I am writing to apologize for my private practical joke. Whenever I write a paper Dan Petersen [Daniel C. Peterson] will be editing, I always include a joke or two for his enjoyment--fake footnotes, comments about space aliens and the golden plates, etc. The acrostic was simply a light-hearted joke for Dan's amusement. . . .' (computer message by William Hamblin, dated March 14, 1994)
Very interesting! Apparently, this is de rigueur at FARMS! One has to wonder if Hamblin learned anything from his embarrassment, or if he continues to include sloppy footnotes and "comments about space aliens" in his current FARMS publications. Further, one has to wonder if these "jokes" are passed along to the peer reviewers. If so, this seems an awful waste of "scholarly" time and effort. Why send out juvenile material to serious peer reviewers?
In any case, here is Brent Metcalfe's reply:
'When I heard rumors that William J. Hamblin, FARMS board member and BYU historian, had a caustic encryption in his review, . . . I summarily dismissed them. Surely no legitimate scholar would stoop to such an inane level. However, it seems that I underestimated Hamblin's 'scholarly' prowess. In the latest 'Review of Books on the Book of Mormon' Hamblin had the first letter of succeeding paragraphs spell out the message: 'METCALFE IS BUTTHEAD'
I say 'Hamblin HAD because the "Review" has gone back to press to rectify Hamblin's demeaning remark. I have been told that Daniel C. Peterson, FARMS board member and "Review" editor, approved its inclusion--I am unaware of other FARMS board members who may have known. Frankly, I'm stunned. Hamblin and Peterson's behavior is contrary to all Mormon ethics I was taught.
'Do Hamblin and Peterson's methods typify the brand of "scholarship" FARMS, [the] BYU Department of History, and [the] BYU Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages cultivates and endorses? Evidently some have shifted from apologist to misologist.' (computer message by Brent Metcalfe, dated March 8, 1994)
Of course, this has long been a serious, arguably crippling blow to FARMS's crediblity. It is bad enough that most of the articles are riddled with name-calling and ad hominem attack. But, to think that one of the key contributors is routinely tossing in false endnotes and "comments about space aliens"? These guys ought to know better. I know that the Church has deep pockets, but surely it would be easier to simply adhere to academic standards rather than having to shell out for academic credibility, as was done at the Yale conference.
My "informant" was kind enough to include this news clipping in his/her PM to me:
(emphasis added)"'SALT LAKE CITY—Independent Mormon scholar Brent Metcalfe is shaking his head over a practical joke . . .
"'Metcalfe edited the 1993 "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon,'" published by Signature Books, which raised the hackles of many traditional scholars into the scripture that is foundational of the Mormon faith.
"'Indeed, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, or FARMS, planned to release on Wednesday a 600-page book rebutting the essays in Metcalfe's book.
"'And thereby hangs the tale.
"'According to Metcalfe, the rude message was to have been spelled out in the first letter of the first words of the opening paragraphs of an article written for the FARMS book by William Hamblin, a history professor at Brigham Young University.
"'The coded message was to have read, "Metcalfe is butthead," Metcalfe said. He said he learned about it from someone who had seen the article.
"'Metcalfe said that according to the, er, scuttlebutt, FARMS learned about the encryption just as the volume was going into print, quickly halted the press run and rewrote and reprinted the offending pages.
"'But FARMS editor Brent Hall would not confirm that Tuesday.
"'"The book will be out tomorrow. The book that will come out tomorrow will not have that," Hall said. "We had some problems with the book — footnote problems, binding problems, and an article that we thought needed some revision, which was done."
"'Was the article Hamblin's?
"'"That was the article," Hall said. . . . '"'
Now, this I find interesting, especially in light of all the new information which has come to light concerning the financing of Mopologetics. Essentially, the wealthy LDS who donated to apologetics got to pay for the privilege of reprinting this book!!! Boy, no wonder DCP doesn't want us talking about "fundraisers," and the way that apologetics are financed. If any of the donors found out that their money was being squandered in this fashion, I have no doubt that the funds would be yanked ASAP.