DiscussMormonism.com

Is it just me, or has it been an extremely long time since we saw a new "steaming" edition of the FARMS Review? I know there have been noticeable delays in the past (and indeed I commented upon them at the time), but this just seems egregious. In my commentary on those earlier delays, I wondered aloud if the alleged budget cuts at the MI had anything to do with it. Now I can't help but wonder yet again. The increasingly long delays...the change in the Review's title...the rumors about Elder Oaks looking to "chop some heads"....

Indeed, Oaks recently delivered some remarks which, if one reads into them a bit, could very well be referring to the Mopologists:

Elder Oaks, as reported by the DesNews wrote:"I describe these principles to you young adults because you are current members and future leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, and you will need to decide these kinds of questions sooner than you think," Elder Oaks said. "You need to understand how our efforts in the public square are informed by the balance between truth and tolerance."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7001 ... spect.html

I wonder if 2011 will pass with no new edition of the Review. That would be a stunning development....

I just learned that the new issue of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review) is hot off the presses.

Some of the contents are:

The Neal A. Maxwell lecture on the Book of Mormon by Marilyn Arnold.

John E. Clark on "A Key for Evaluating Nephite Geographies."

Brant Gardner's "Nephi as Scribe."

Brian Hauglid's review of Bradshaw's "In God's Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses."

Gregory Smith on recent discussions on same-sex marriage.

Matthew Roper and Paul Fields on " The Historical Case against Sidney Rigdon's Authorship of the Book of Mormon" .

Richard Bennett's review of Grow's book on Thomas L. Kane.

"Beyond Politics," an essay of Hugh Nibley.

A review by Noel Reynolds of Bauckman's "Jesus and the Eye Witnesses."

A review by Louis Midgley of Catherwood's "Church History: A Crash Course for the Curious."

Thanks, Blixa! Am I mistaken, or do the titles of the articles suggest that the "polemical edge" of the journal has been dulled somewhat?

Doctor Scratch wrote:Thanks, Blixa! Am I mistaken, or do the titles of the articles suggest that the "polemical edge" of the journal has been dulled somewhat?

Well, I would not characterize the line up as "incendiary" or even "provocative."

Blixa wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Thanks, Blixa! Am I mistaken, or do the titles of the articles suggest that the "polemical edge" of the journal has been dulled somewhat?

Well, I would not characterize the line up as "incendiary" or even "provocative."

Do you happen to know who's writing the "Editor's Introduction"? Or will this newly retitled journal be free of such things?

I'm glad to see Prof. Nibley is still active and publishing.

Wow, the new name sounds like a desperate attempt to sound "relevant" and "with the times".

I wonder if this next edition will put one of their fellow Mormons, of the Chapel variety, on the block?

If they don't, then kudos to them. I'm glad some of our scholarship at Cassius has helped them understand why this is wrong to do.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Am I mistaken, or do the titles of the articles suggest that the "polemical edge" of the journal has been dulled somewhat?

That's the impression I got, too. If the articles themselves bear that out, then it'll go a long way toward proving the reliability of your informants.

Blixa wrote:I just learned that the new issue of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review) is hot off the presses.

Packer is going to have a crap fit when he hears the new name of the journal!

BKP, April 2011, by way of commandment directly from above wrote:Obedient to revelation, we call ourselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than the Mormon Church. It is one thing for others to refer to the Church as the Mormon Church or to us as Mormons; it is quite another for us to do so.

Dr. Shades wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote:Am I mistaken, or do the titles of the articles suggest that the "polemical edge" of the journal has been dulled somewhat?

That's the impression I got, too. If the articles themselves bear that out, then it'll go a long way toward proving the reliability of your informants.

The impression I get is that if Scratch were to read the white pages, that would go a long way toward proving the reliability of his informants too.