cksalmon wrote:Element probably won't cut it for me, either (though I'm definitely interested and am seriously considering subscribing), simply because I have reservations about the breadth of viewpoints allowed. There's the business of "[the] journal takes seriously both the commitments of faith and the standards of scholarship," which is fine, but I don't foresee the journal actively seeking to publish non-LDS articles, especially articles by non-Mormons or ex-Mormons that are inherently critical of Mormonism or some facet thereof. Now, certainly, I wouldn't fault the journal for not doing so, but then my point is that I long to see a journal which not only might begrudgingly allow the occasional article that runs counter to Mormon belief, but rather actively encourages the broadest range of viewpoints possible--from LDS, non-LDS, ex-LDS, etc.
Yeah, I hear ya. I have little interest in a journal that places belief-oriented constraints on its contents. The journal you describe would be neat, but I don't see that coming along in the near future. Perhaps as Mormon Studies finds its way into more academic religion departments in universities around the country support will grow for this kind of thing. It will only truly work if it allows all kinds of perspectives. Problem is that many believers will not tolerate that range of viewpoints. The Book of Mormon Roundtable was hobbled by a few strident voices among the believers. Bushman was actually quite supportive of an open forum, but you had a few wing-nuts who couldn't handle it and ruined things for others.