Yet More Evidence that FARMS is not "Scholarly"

[_Doctor Scratch]

I had a few free moments today in between my classes here at Cassius, and I decided to utilize this time to do a bit of investigation. In lieu of the upcoming release of the new Mormon Smear Review, I thought it would be interesting to backpedal yet again to examine a very important old question: is FARMS an "academic" or "scholarly" enterprise? Obviously, to any sensible person, the answer is, "No."

But let me sketch out my point in a bit more detail. Every undergraduate who learns how to do research is eventually tasked with the problem of determining whether or not a given text is "scholarly." E.g., is Time magazine "scholarly"? What about Nature? How about the New Yorker? For the uninitiated, this can be difficult to ascertain. Beginning writers are often advised to look at certain features of the text, and to ask certain questions: Was it written by a professor, or someone with a Ph.D. (i.e., an expert)? Does it have the citation features of scholarly writing (a bibliography, and either parentheticals or footnotes)? Was it published by a university press, or by an organization associated with a university? Were the articles therein peer reviewed?

Obviously, most of these are both essential to the process of good scholarship, and convenient ways of dressing up twaddle to look like legitimate academic writing. If you can "fake" the above elements, you stand a good chance of being able to dupe a good chunk of the populace into thinking your "scholarship" is legitimate. This clearly presents a problem with respect to the FARMS Review, since it contains all of the surface features of scholarly writing, and it (allegedly) uses a legitimate peer review process.

In the past, I have suggested that the Review has a "modified" peer review process that differs in substantive ways from the sort of legitimate process that takes place at respectable and genuinely academic publications. I have said that, if the articles in the FARMS Review were 100% scholarly, then there would be no need to fear that they'd face rejection in the market place of ideas. Sadly, this is precisely what has happened.

I mentioned out the outset of this post that I had a few free moments today, and so I took advantage of this to peruse a few of the academic search engines that allow one to access full-text articles, abstracts, and so on in literally hundreds--perhaps thousands--of online scholarly databases. So I went ahead and began searching for the FARMS Review in these databases, and I perused the results. Ladies and gentlemen, I must tell you that I did not find a single entry for the Reveiwamong any of the entries! Not in ProQuest; not in JSTOR; not in ATLA Religious Index. What is going on here? Am I simply looking in the wrong place?

The reality seems to be that the Great and Spacious building known as "The Academy" does not view the work in the Review as legitimate scholarship. I really cannot how significant it is that the Review absent from these databases. Librarians world wide make a very concerted effort to make sure that *all* scholarly journals get archived in these online indexes. Let me say that again, in all caps: LIBRARIANS WORLD-WIDE WANT TO ARCHIVE *ALL* SCHOLARLY JOURNALS IN THESE INDEXES. Thus, the absence of the Review from these lists is a huge countering smack-down against the claim that the Review is anything more than a smear fest.

I can already sense that some Droopy type is going to exclaim, "Well, the academy is biased against religion in general, and against Mormonism in particular!" To which I say: it ain't so. A simple search for "farms review" on ProQuest Religion pulls up hits for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, along with entries for the Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society and the Trinity Journal (this last was an article written by our old pals, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen).

In any case, this is remarkable, I hope it will at last demonstrate to critics and TBMs alike that the Review has no stature whatsoever in the larger academic, library indexing, and research communities. While the *actual* scholarly work of people like John Sorenson, Louis Midgley, and John Gee might have traction in the real work, it must be pointed out yet again that the stuff in the Review simply isn't real scholarship. Even if the FARMS editor gets positive feedback from the internally selected "peer reviewers," the fact remains that FARMS has miserably failed the most important peer review of all.

All that said, I do admit that I performed this search rather quickly, during the brief break I had in between my teaching assignments at Cassius. (My graduate seminar on Mopologetic Rhetoric and Theory does tend to leave me somewhat exhausted.) If I've neglected to look in the proper academic database, I hope that someone will set me straight. If not, though, it needs to be settled once and for all: the Review is not scholarship.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Is Evangelical Review scholarly?

Judaica?

Should non-peers review the journal?

[Guest]

So, ProQuest Religion pulls up hits for "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" and nothing for "FARMS Review".

That should give the MI apologists pause. I would love to see an explanation for this. Where is DCP when they need him?

It clearly can't be the often used reason that nobody is interested in Mormonism. Must be the quality of the scholarship (or rather the complete lack thereof).

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, Bob. I find it striking that Dialogue appears in the databases, but FARMS Review does not. The Review, unless I'm mistaken, has always been regarded as the "flagship" publication of the MI. Well, if they are getting their rear-ends handed to them by Dialogue in the court of public opinion, I think that speaks volumes.

[_Gadianton]

Wow professor, this is a tremendous amount of research you've done! And amidst all your many other duties no less.

It's got to be at least a little embarrassing that EVs are publishing scholarly articles and they are not!

In the past, I have suggested that the Review has a "modified" peer review process that differs in substantive ways

You know, when you think about it, what journal doesn't have a peer review process of some kind? Does the Globe publish anything without anyone but the auther having read it? Surely, at least one "peer" on the staff of the Globe will "review" any given article before it's put to print.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow professor, this is a tremendous amount of research you've done! And amidst all your many other duties no less.

It's got to be at least a little embarrassing that EVs are publishing scholarly articles and they are not!

That's a great point. In the past, the apologists have tried to make it seem as if *they* were the ones doing Mosser and Owen a favor by allowing them to publish in the Review. The reality seems to be that the FARMS apologists were drooling over the piece that Mosser and Owen wrote in Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society, and that they had to beg M & O to lower themselves to participate in that FARMS piece.

[_Dr. Shades]

If FARMS is not scholarly, then what does it say of William Schryver's scholarship that not even FARMS will publish it?

(I'm not trying to prove some sort of point; I really am seeking an answer here.)

[Guest]

Dialogue is not in JSTOR nor is Evangelical Review.

FARMS Review is intended to be an apologetic platform and not a place for social scientists. Although many of its pieces would qualify for publication in a traditional venue many don't.

The Review publishes speeches of general authorities. That demonstrates that it is a quasi-religious journal along the lines of Evangelical Review. Or the [Baptist] Journal of Theology. Such journals have their own peers.

I think it ridiculous to argue that FR be run like a Marxist journal at Cal.

[_Kevin Graham]

It depends on what you mean by "scholarly." By definition, FARMS is scholarly. Scholars frequently write for them. However, the problem we have with FARMS isn't one of scholarship, but rather intellectual honesty. Nibley for example, is often considered the icon of modern LDS apologetics, but his methods were dishonest. His followers have tried to mimic him and his methods, but are more easily exposed because in today's age, critics are more organized and socially engaging with Mormon apologetics, thanks to the internet. Fifty years ago Nibley could get away with publishing a rant of nonsense and impressing those less familiar with the subject by piling up hundreds of footnotes. The assumption was that this guy was a genius who was honest with the source documents. But through time, as critics began to look closer at Nibley's scholarship, it became obvious that he was exaggerating what the sources supported. I found this out the hard way when I came across a Nibley claim that the Book of Mormon quotes the Book of Enoch. I mean it really took a leap of the imagination to pull any meaningful parallel between the two passages, but for Nibley, he felt it was OK to say it was a direct quotation! And when I was writing my response to JP Holding back in 2002, I decided to check up on a Nibley citation before I used it in my apologetic response. I'm glad I did, because he quoted an Evangelical in a scholarly journal claiming he agreed that the Biblical God had a body. But when I looked up his source, the scholar he referenced made no such claim. In fact, I couldn't even begin to imagine how he could have honestly made such a mistake. It wasn't even close!

Later I read a blistering critique of Nibley by LDS scholar Kent Jackson, who took Nibley to task for making ridiculous generalizations about the "Ancient World." Nibley referred to anyone who lived a long time ago as "the ancients" and would constantly talk about how the Book of Mormon has so much in common with what was believed by "the ancients." I mean this is truly embarrassing stuff that no modern student would ever be able to get away with. But Nibley got away with it for so long because few people bothered to look at his scholarship with a critical eye. Now that we have, idiots like Robert Crockett don't know how to respond except to attack the critics for daring to "sneer" at one of his religious icons.

There is nothing in the definition of "scholarly" that requires intellectual honesty, though we tend to assume intellectual honesty is synonymous with legitimate scholarship. FARMS was traditionally dishonest, intellectually speaking. No matter how many times dishonesty was pointed out, its editor turned a blind eye, and in fact would frequently engage in the same kind of dishonest scholarship. OF course, this is to be expected from a journal published by a Church that survives only because it can continue to muddle truths and hide facts. It uses BYU to give it this presence of scholarship, but we all know BYU is owned by the Church.

[Guest]

Dialogue is not in JSTOR nor is Evangelical Review.

FARMS Review is intended to be an apologetic platform and not a place for social scientists. Although many of it's pieces would qualify for publication in a traditional venue many don't.

The Review publishes speeches of general authorities. That demonstrates that it is a quasi-religious journal along the lines of Evangelical Review. Or the [Baptist] Journal of Theology. Such journals have their own peers.

.

I think that the audience of the journal needs to be looked at. I don't believe that FARMS' audience are scholars but certainly scholars are encouraged to read the journal. But, the main audience is people interested in Mormonism. It is not a scholarly audience at all that farms sets out to capture with obtuse language but rather people who have an interest in Mormonism. And this is what makes FARMS' journal available for most Mormons and those interested in Mormonism.

This is something that Scratch can not seem to understand.