DiscussMormonism.com

The author notes the phrase 'academic charity in research' as it is defined in the book:

Book of Mormon Studies calls for more academic charity in research, defined as the “practice of attributing the most reasonable or most defensible argument to one’s opponent before critiquing it. In the context of faith, it includes the assumption — unless clear evidence indicates otherwise — that scholars are working in good faith for good purposes” (p. 76).

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... -research/

What i thought was particularly telling was that even after that, the reviewer misuses the term by substituting charitable understandings of research for a snide ad hominem about the researchers themselves, in a perfectly FARMSian way. From footnote 22:

Indeed, as one reviewer of this article pointed out, the authors of Book of Mormon Studies seem to portray Interpreter as a historicity journal, which suggests they are largely unfamiliar with its contents. There are many Interpreter papers on the Book of Mormon that do not touch on historicity (for example, see footnotes 9, 17, 27, 28, and 32 in this article). And though I am trying to practice the academic charity they advocate in Book of Mormon Studies, this may also be evidence that they are not as well-versed in the universe of Book of Mormon research as they hold themselves out to be.

[bolding added.]

Midgley must be so proud. The tradition carries on.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:44 pm

I think the copy editor was on vacation this week. A few of the errors I spotted:

“The first reader segment consists of ‘believing latter-day [sic] Saints — especially young ones — who are interested in contributing to Book of Mormon scholarship’” (p. 5).”

“James E. Talmadge [sic]”

“the Mark Hoffman [sic] forgeries”

I’m embarrassed for the proprietor. Interpreter is not a serious journal.

A copy editor? Next you'll be asking them for independent peer review!

I believe that the influence of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies will continue to wane, because it is now locked behind a paywall and is not freely available to the three target audiences described at the beginning of Book of Mormon Studies. This same analysis suggests a bright, impactful future for Interpreter.

That could be the case. Look, how many people outside of the LDS community really want to read scholarship about the Book of Mormon? I think that it is a sad thing that more Americanists do not want to do so, but, with all of the topics out there to study, maybe specific study of the Book of Mormon is not high on their list. On the other hand, LDS people who lack access to a university library--meaning, the privilege to enter, check things out, and access digital holdings via computer (something that is much more restricted these days)--will not want to pay for Book of Mormon scholarship, if JBMS is indeed behind a paywall. Interpreter will be read by more people simply because it *is* free and very accessible to the public.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 25, 2023 8:44 pm

I think the copy editor was on vacation this week. A few of the errors I spotted:

“The first reader segment consists of ‘believing latter-day [sic] Saints — especially young ones — who are interested in contributing to Book of Mormon scholarship’” (p. 5).”

“James E. Talmadge [sic]”

“the Mark Hoffman [sic] forgeries”

A passing note that a book review published today in Interpreter misspells the word foreword.

Schmidt’s thesis that faith is based on reciprocal or relational behavior is very well articulated in an excellent “Forward” [sic] by John Welch as well as in the author’s equally excellent “Introduction” and “Conclusion.”

I believe I received and fully appreciated the author’s main premise quite quickly in just the Forward [sic] and Introduction.

As I opined earlier, the “Forward,” [sic] “Introduction,” and final “Conclusion” chapters tell the tale extremely well and in just 12 pages.

I trust that the journal’s editors will address these errors.

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2023 12:17 am

I trust that the journal’s editors will address these errors.

I also trust the journal's editors will give credit to Tom for proofreading.

Look, DCP can't have it both ways.

If your scholarship is fringe, you can't wield the "scholarship" card against your enemies.

Back on ZLMB, DCP used to dismiss critics all the time by saying he didn't get his scholarship from the Internet, but by reading important scholarly journals that the university pays for access to. In other words: if you're not publishing in mainstream high-dollar journals, then he isn't inclined to hear you out.

huh.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2023 2:23 am

Look, DCP can't have it both ways.

If your scholarship is fringe, you can't wield the "scholarship" card against your enemies.

Back on ZLMB, DCP used to dismiss critics all the time by saying he didn't get his scholarship from the Internet, but by reading important scholarly journals that the university pays for access to. In other words: if you're not publishing in mainstream high-dollar journals, then he isn't inclined to hear you out.

huh.

I remember those days. Them there were my apologetic days. Did I used to crow up the Great Peterson then or what?

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2023 12:27 am

Tom wrote: ↑

Sat May 13, 2023 12:17 am

I trust that the journal’s editors will address these errors.

I also trust the journal's editors will give credit to Tom for proofreading.

The errors have been corrected. I’m glad that someone at Interpreter reads this board.

You are one of their most valued and valuable readers, Tom.

Interpreter Journal wrote:And though I am trying to practice the academic charity they advocate in Book of Mormon Studies, this may also be evidence that they are not as well-versed in the universe of Book of Mormon research as they hold themselves out to be.

Those Book of Mormon Studies scholars do not understand the ways of the Interpreter warriors.