DiscussMormonism.com

A consistent refrain from the Mopologists has been an assertion that the FARMS Review was consistently a source for "cutting edge research." I have to admit, I'm baffled by this. I halfway suspect that the lower-tier Mopologists are really just lamenting that loss of the BYU connection, and the implied formal endorsement of the MI apologists' crappy behavior, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Which articles in this (as described by its editor) "review journal," represent "cutting edge research"? Is it the material from Gee on the Book of Abraham? Or Sorenson's LGT stuff? Brant Gardner's work? Welch's chiasmus articles? I halfway wonder if these people ever bothered to even read the publication, or if they misunderstand what is meant by "research." (Maybe they mean "cutting edge polemics"?)

I'm just curious. They asked us to provide examples of ad hominem and/or problematic material in FAIR/FARMS and we gave them dozens of examples. Can they cite examples of "cutting edge" research from FARMS?

obviously the introduction of Margaret Barker's works was a cutting edge revelation from FARMs and of course James Smith's piece: Nephi's Descendants? Historical Demography and the Book of Mormon reshaped population geography studies.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=1&id=141

Good Doctor,

I think it might be helpful to view the claim in relative, rather than absolute terms. Compared to the pap that the average TBM gets spoon fed in gospel doctrine, seminary, and institute, FARMS is cutting edge. And they were pretty much the only organization that took LDS scripture seriously. Places like Sunstone and Dialogue infrequently deal with LDS scripture, so FARMS was really the only game in town.

There was one way in which FARMS was cutting edge in absolute terms, and that was the fact that FROB usually dealt with timely issues, it was the nature of the publication. If a Mormon wanted to figure out how to deal with something like Palmers Insider's View, FROB was the only place to find anything. Was it good stuff? Nope. But it was the only resource for that Mormon.

Interesting replies, lostindc and AS--certainly I don't disagree. A couple of thoughts, though: does the resignation of DCP really mean that Margaret Barker no longer has a venue to publish her stuff? Does the response to Grant Palmer really represent "research"? (Rather than, say, polemics?) Is "timely" the same thing as "cutting edge"? Finally: are these really the things that commentators view as being "cutting edge research"? Do the people signing up for the "I Stand With Dan" Facebook page think that DCP was responsible for this "cutting edge research," and if so, which of his editorials would they cite?

Just curious....

Doctor Scratch wrote:Interesting replies, lostindc and AS--certainly I don't disagree. 1) A couple of thoughts, though: does the resignation of DCP really mean that Margaret Barker no longer has a venue to publish her stuff? 2) Does the response to Grant Palmer really represent "research"? (Rather than, say, polemics?) 3) Is "timely" the same thing as "cutting edge"? 4) Finally: are these really the things that commentators view as being "cutting edge research"? 5) Do the people signing up for the "I Stand With Dan" Facebook page think that DCP was responsible for this "cutting edge research," and if so, 6) which of his editorials would they cite?

Just curious....

I believe the answers are 1) no, 2) a little bit, 3) they are related, but large areas of non-overlap, 4) probably, 5) yes, and 6) I have no idea.

Just to reiterate, I'm not defending FARMS here. I mainly feel sorry for rank and file Mormons who dearly want something other than warmed over fideism, who dearly want something profound and deep to believe in. They've never had that, and FARMS was their only real hope for this.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Interesting replies, lostindc and AS--certainly I don't disagree. A couple of thoughts, though: does the resignation of DCP really mean that Margaret Barker no longer has a venue to publish her stuff? Does the response to Grant Palmer really represent "research"? (Rather than, say, polemics?) Is "timely" the same thing as "cutting edge"? Finally: are these really the things that commentators view as being "cutting edge research"? Do the people signing up for the "I Stand With Dan" Facebook page think that DCP was responsible for this "cutting edge research," and if so, which of his editorials would they cite?

Just curious....

Unfortunately for the MI, Barker already published her research and MI received a watered-down-Mormon-friendly version.

Sadly, the response to Grant Palmer does not qualify as "cutting edge" research. Although, the response does fit the template of a timely and well thought out message board post.

In answer to the last question, with great sadness, I do believe the OMID followers believe DCP et al. were responsible for "cutting edge" research. From this camp, some may say that the infamous Nibley masterpiece: No Ma'am, That's Not History is rather "cutting edge." Likewise, the splendid masterpiece Emma Smith's Hymnbook can no longer be ignored.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=21&num=1&id=635

"Cutting edge research" = crazy theories that nobody has thought of before.

Oh, yes, it is definitely "cutting edge."

Doctor Scratch wrote:Which articles in this (as described by its editor) "review journal," represent "cutting edge research"? Is it the material from Gee on the Book of Abraham?

What are the cutting edge apologetic offerings for Facsimile No. 3? It seems the latest proposal is that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about and perhaps the Facismile No. 3 needs to be removed from canon.

What has John Gee have to say about Egyptologist Joe Smith's Explanations? Someone please tell me, Goddmamnit! How about John Gee? That little bastard hasn't said jack-shit.

Paul O

Using the larger academic sense of the word, I think "cutting edge research" is incorrect. But with the caveats Aristotle implied, I guess that is what it means.

I suspect that translated it really means "quick retorts to 'criticism' with enough compound/complex sentences and name-dropping to appear learned and thus flatter/satisfy an unscholarly audience."

Good scholarly research is good scholarly research and is useful to both secular and believing audiences. I have every hope that what is now emerging as Mormon Studies will be just that.

Because of the poor state of American education, though, many people are not equipped with a basic historical understanding, nor a very strong set of reading skills, nor much education in conceptual thought (philosophy, critical theory, etc). I can understand why some may fear that the best of Mormon Studies may be inaccessible to the average member. But instead of pandering to that problem, a scholarly Mormon publication could do the church a real service by taking on the very serious task of education, indeed fulfilling the educational mandate that has been present throughout all of Mormon history. It would be a very different kind of publication than what currently exists and a challenging project to bring off. But it would be a very valuable one.