DiscussMormonism.com

According to its editor, Professor Daniel C. Peterson, The FARMS Review was established because "the Book of Mormon has not received the attention that it deserves." That statement is abundantly true and remains so to this day. For all of its cultural and historical significance, the Book of Mormon has been relatively neglected by scholars. The Review set out to begin to address that problem by offering scholarly critiques of literature produced on the subject of the Book of Mormon, and the editor was concerned that the critiques of these books not be fair:

Daniel Peterson wrote:Criticism in the commonly used sense of the term--and the reviewing of books written by fallible mortal authors will always entail a certain amount of such criticism--is something that our culture is wary of, and with some justification. Too often, it can be unhelpful, unfair, cruel, and self-aggrandizing. Of Babylon, and not of Zion. I hope that we have successfully avoided that tendency in our first attempt.

The Review was not only established to provide a constructive critique and answer anti-Mormon criticism, but also established for the purposes of peer review:

Daniel Peterson wrote:There is value for anyone in peer review. That fact has long been recognized in academic fields ranging from chemistry to comparative literature. We often fail to notice, even in daily life, the things that we do amiss. It requires someone else to point them out to us--a wife, a child, a friend, sometimes even an enemy. The garden of Book of Mormon studies will produce more abundantly and healthily if its gardeners and consumers are adept at distinguishing edible plants from weeds.

I am struck at how the editor inaugurated the first issue with intentions that resonate strikingly well with some of the guidelines for scholarly book reviews that I posted earlier. There was even an avowed welcome of diversity:

Daniel Peterson wrote:We welcome diversity of viewpoints and approaches. A varied diet, to continue the metaphor....Each approach has its value. One of the great testimonies to the Book of Mormon, I feel, is that it stands up so well--and yields so very much--to all manner of readings. Thus, we have included in this Review not only materials that might be expected to appeal to people (like much of the leadership of F.A.R.M.S.) who have special interests in the ancient world, in Mesoamerica and the Near East, but also writing of a more devotional kind. And we have included something from the anti-Mormon camp, as well.

Interestingly, one might have expected, based on this introduction, that he has meant to say that the diversity of viewpoints would include non-believers and skeptics writing reviews. It is true that non-believers have contributed on occasion, but skeptics? I think he meant that books by skeptics would be reviewed, not that their viewpoint would be represented in the reviews themselves.

So there we have the editor's introduction to the very first issue of the FARMS Review. Obviously, the Review has evolved over time, expanding in scope to include reviews of books on subjects other than the Book of Mormon, and on occasion reviews of websites, like Dr. Shades', and even, to an extent, the people who write or participate in these online fora.

As I have strived to show, there has been a tendency in the review to misrepresent the authors and their viewpoints. The editor claimed that criticism "too often... can be unhelpful, unfair, cruel, and self-aggrandizing," but one wonders whether he always remembered that problem as he published multiple unfavorable reviews of single books, published reviews that insinuated that LDS authors were spiritually deficient in some way, and authored reviews in which he apparently could identify no positive contributions in a scholarly work published through an academic press, and so forth.

It is this latter problem that raises this author's eyebrow, particularly since the maiden voyage of the Review promised so much and exhibited an editor who professed an awareness of these pitfalls. More concerning is the fact that, although FARMS was later officially incorporated into Brigham Young University, one of the largest private institutions of higher learning in the Intermountain West, this did not seem to ameliorate these particular problems. Instead, they have continued, unfortunately contradicting the high aspirations of this first issue and raising important questions of both an ecclesiastical and academic nature.

1) BYU is an accredited, degree conferring institution, with a responsibility for providing a quality education to its students and for maintaining a strong academic reputation. It is unclear what value the FARMS Review brings the university as an academic publication, particularly when a number of reviews fail to live up to commonly accepted standards for constructive criticism on scholarly works, and sometimes focus excessively on the personality and motives of the author in a tone that is snarky and insulting.

2) The more important issue for the LDS Church is perhaps the ecclesiastical one: how do reviews that question the spiritual well being or motives of a member of the LDS Church in good standing fit in with the established doctrinal and institutional mandates to "bring all unto Christ"? In practical terms, is a member of the LDS Church who is accused, either explicitly or implicitly, of being spiritually deficient more or less likely to draw closer to the Church as a result of this treatment?

How might such reviews actually frustrate one of the major missions of the Church, which is "perfecting the saints"? Are members who are given this kind of treatment placed in greater risk of disaffection, further conflict with authorities, or actual Church discipline? These are important questions to address.

It is time for a discussion of this kind to take place. And this post is just the beginning. It may move to other fora. Perhaps a paper will be given at a conference. A letter may be written to an editor of one of the LDS-themed publications. Eventually, an article may appear in Sunstone or Dialogue. I invite all comments and anecdotes here, because I want to weigh all the variables, see different perspectives, and try to come to an honest understanding of what is going on.

How does negative criticism of Church members in good standing in the FARMS Review stand to benefit or harm these members and others?

Thoughts? Suggestions? Criticisms? Rebuttals? I am wide open to all comments.

In assessing the Review today, it is important to know where it has come from. Certain habits begin early, and they follow the journal as it evolves. Although we cannot judge the journal of a private foundation the same way we would judge the academic merits of a journal published from Brigham Young University, the latter started as the former.

In the thread on guidelines for academic book reviews, it was mentioned that multiple reviews of a single book are rare. Why? Because one review from a qualified expert is usually all that is necessary, and if you pick a good reviewer, that person will do an adequate job. Now, it could be that two different people will provide a kind of balance. Perhaps one person's perspective is more favorable than another's, so you want to provide readers both views.

In the first issue of the FARMS Review, there are three reviews of a single work: "Deciphering the Geography of the Book of Mormon" by: F. Richard Hauck.

These reviews are written by John E. Clark, William Hamblin, and Mark V. Withers. Of the three authors, one is an expert in the field of New World archaeology, John Clark. William Hamblin is a medievalist, and Mark V. Withers is a law student at BYU. The first two reviews are mostly negative. Clark's is a lengthy and thorough analysis. In my opinion, one should be satisfied to publish this review and call it good. Hamblin's offers a different take, and one that represents a surprisingly measured assessment of what appears to have been a problematic work.

Only Mark Withers offers a positive review, but it is one that reads like an undergraduate book report more than a scholarly review.

Mark V. Withers wrote:This critique is a general overview of a recent study of Book of Mormon geography. Having minimal book review experience, I have endeavored to give a general overview based on subjective standards rather than objective standards.

You get the idea. This gives you a taste of the first issue. It lays the groundwork for a tradition of publishing multiple reviews of a single work, but it is one of questionable utility and benefit. Were all three reviews really necessary? Could Clark's alone have sufficed? And, where, ultimately, does this lead? We all know the dog-piling that Grant Palmer and others will be treated to in the future, wherein we get such repeated quibbling questions such as "what constitutes a real insider?" Here is the germ from which that begins. In the first instance, it is not bad, but it does leave the impression of overkill.

There's so much in this post it's hard to know what parts to respond to. Some very provocative questions are raised here though, reverend.

I disagree slightly with how things are stated in the beginning; I do not believe the Book of Mormon deserves attention, I think it should be ignored. It deserves attention only in the way that say, the works of Ayn Rand deserve attention. Movement becomes popular; book appears to be the foundation of the movement, thus, the book apparently deserves attention.

Volume 1 of the review was quite good considering all the controversy even going on back then. Notwithstanding the hostile treatment of Huack, I think the apologists overall had a work to be proud of. I own volume 1 in hard copy and probably would never burn it or give it away.

The 3 reviews could be a set up, like, have the weakest reviewer say something positive to make the journal appear to be objective, but then trash it over hundreds of pages from the others. even then, however, I still think volume 1 was a real achievement. Who knows, it could have foreshadowed the Mormon studies revolution if it evolved from there and the negative elements fell away instead of the positive ones. But we know how it went, the positive elements were stripped straightaway by volume 2. That's not evolution, it's an extinction event.