FARMS Review and Seriousness

[_Jersey Girl]

How often is the Farms Review published?

Is it available on line or only in hard copy?

[_CaliforniaKid]

To be frank, FARMS review is a bit saddening to me.

I'd actually love for it to be a robust, healthy academic journal.

There's some of that in Dialogue (repeat, probably lifelong, subscriber), but, honestly, I just couldn't care less about reading the second half of each edition: Mormon fiction and poetry (no offense to its constituency).

Sunstone's a bit too lightweight, generally speaking, for my taste.

Where's the real, front-to-back, academic journal on things Mormon?

It's certainly not FARMS.

Is it out there somewhere?

Does someone need to create it?

CKS

It used to be Dialogue. Increasingly, I think it's Journal of Mormon History.

[_cksalmon]

To be frank, FARMS review is a bit saddening to me.

I'd actually love for it to be a robust, healthy academic journal.

There's some of that in Dialogue (repeat, probably lifelong, subscriber), but, honestly, I just couldn't care less about reading the second half of each edition: Mormon fiction and poetry (no offense to its constituency).

Sunstone's a bit too lightweight, generally speaking, for my taste.

Where's the real, front-to-back, academic journal on things Mormon?

It's certainly not FARMS.

Is it out there somewhere?

Does someone need to create it?

CKS

It used to be Dialogue. Increasingly, I think it's Journal of Mormon History.

Yeah, I generally agree. The Dialogue DVD (archiving all the past Dialogue issues), available on its website, is instructive. It's a wealth of information.

I'm still a believer in Dialogue, for the record. But, I'd love to see a journal focused on Mormonism with no poetry, no fiction, lots of critical articles, penned by LDS, non-LDS, and ex-LDS.

With LDS and non-LDS and ex-LDS peer reviewers.

Maybe our journal might just get off the ground!

-The original Chris

[_Mister Scratch]

How often is the Farms Review published?

Is it available on line or only in hard copy?

It's published biannually. According to our dear friend Daniel C. Peterson, the latest issue will be available online very soon. I'm really looking forward to this, since John Gee has apparently written some very exciting new spin piece on the Book of Abraham.

[_cksalmon]

How often is the Farms Review published?

Is it available on line or only in hard copy?

It's published biannually. According to our dear friend Daniel C. Peterson, the latest issue will be available online very soon. I'm really looking forward to this, since John Gee has apparently written some very exciting new spin piece on the Book of Abraham.

I look forward to reading it.

I just don't think there can be anything new under the sun with regard to Book of Abraham. Looking forward to Jersey Girl's newest installment.

But, really, haven't we already seen all this?

Is Jersey Girl's newest article meant for general, scholarly consumption? Or, is it meant for LDS?

That's the question.

I doubt that Jersey Girl is writing here for non LDS.

Prove me wrong, please.

Chris

[_Trevor]

Wow, he actually said that? Perhaps it's time to update *my* sig line!

To my memory yes, and I have a great deal of respect for this friend of his who reported this to me. Mind you, this quote comes through his friend, who did not comment or elaborate on the statement. I was quite stunned by the comment, but I sometimes am kind of naïve when it comes to my views. To me it was relatively self evident that the Church had something to lose in having its defenders take such a tone in reviews of books that were nothing like Walter Martin or the Tanners, but instead sincere attempts at serious scholarship (flawed though they may be). Receiving the response that I did was something of a turning point for me. I realized that on some fundamental level I did not agree with what was happening over at FARMS.

I still don't. My views about this were solidified when I read Jan Shipps's review of the same book. The difference was one of night from day. As I have said before, Jan disagreed with Brooke, but she did so with erudition and grace combined. By the time I was done reading the review I saw why Brooke was flawed, and I learned something new about Mormon history too. To my recollection rarely have I ever had this kind of experience with a FARMS review of a book. My experience is obviously not definitive, but I feel like a pretty decent judge of the academic merits of what I read. On the whole I have seen in the FARMS reviews a lot of missed opportunities for good work that were sacrificed on the altar scoring points on the perceived opposition.

Having said that, I know that the person in question is brilliant and can do good work. I am simply not of a similar mind with him on things Mormon, which is probably a good thing for him given his convictions and employment.

My personal opinion is that you should not use this as a signature line. It is, after all, not a direct quote.

[_Trevor]

Here's FARMS:

"Analysis of the third Equus Molar from the 1997 Jones Dig"

We are pleased to report on some important recent academic discussions in archeology and their implications for studies of the Book of Mormon. Dr. Johnson, an evangelical detractor of Mormonism, ironically considering his charge of lack of professionalism amongst Mormon scholars, earned his degree from an unaccredited college and can't be trusted. A recent paper by a secular anti-Mormon proposes that the Book of Mormon is of 19th century origins. We've identified 342 logical fallacies in his recent three page paper and will explore those in detail over the next 134 pages. We also have some humorous observations about his skills as a thinker and would like to report on some classroom experiments that we did which demonstrate the average BYU freshman is far more capable to do work in the field this "scholar" professes to specialize in. We would also like to assure our audience that all of us involved in this project are working Phds in important fields and we can be trusted by the Saints. As the Prophet Joseph Smith once said, "The work will Go Forth!"

This is a joke, right?

[_Gadianton]

lol. yours was better.

[_Mister Scratch]

My personal opinion is that you should not use this as a signature line. It is, after all, not a direct quote.

Sorry, Trevor---please know that I still love you---but I learn from the best. After lengthy and studious attention paid to the work of DCP, Hamblin, Tvedtness, and others, I have learned that it is generally best to rely on shaky evidence, rumor, and innuendo. Therefore, I will be including this in my sig line. Sure, I know--I've got a lot of work ahead of me. Based on what we've seen, our dear Prof. P. has got well over a decade of smear material in his "RfM Archive" (it actually contains stuff from all sorts of sources, but, nevermind).

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm really looking forward to this, since John Gee has apparently written some very exciting new spin piece on the Book of Abraham.

Oh geez. Again? I thought he learned his lesson--or at least got it out of his system--with that regrettable book of his.