Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_moksha]

But, as guy sajer will probably point out, none of them are in peer-reviewed journals (that we know of).

Dr. Peterson has ascended to a higher level of existence where that is unnecessary. He publishes now for the prestige and defense of the Church.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

But, as guy sajer will probably point out, none of them are in peer-reviewed journals (that we know of).

Dr. Peterson has ascended to a higher level of existence where that is unnecessary. He publishes now for the prestige and defense of the Church.

The FARMS Review is a peer-reviewed journal.

[_Mister Scratch]

But, as guy sajer will probably point out, none of them are in peer-reviewed journals (that we know of).

Dr. Peterson has ascended to a higher level of existence where that is unnecessary. He publishes now for the prestige and defense of the Church.

The FARMS Review is a peer-reviewed journal.

This just isn't correct, at least not from any normative, main-stream, academic perspective I'm aware of. Virtually all of the "peers" doing the reviewing at FARMS Review are lock-step TBMs, so one may as well say that DCP is publishing "for the prestige and defense of the Church." Or perhaps you can supply some contrary evidence as to what the process is, and/or who the reviewers are? DCP rather unwittingly let the cat out of the bag in his silly "Witchcraft Paradigm" article. The truth is that peer review at FARMS is completely rigged, biased, and unreliable.

by the way, LoaP: are you ever, ever going to supply one---just one!---example of a peer-reviewed, frankly and openly LDS article on Book of Mormon history which was published in a mainstream academic journal?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

by the way, LoaP: are you ever, ever going to supply one---just one!---example of a peer-reviewed, frankly and openly LDS article on Book of Mormon history which was published in a mainstream academic journal?

Haven't found one, Scratch. I have seen LDS history articles in general in "mainstream academic journals" (people like Arrington, Flake, Bushman, Givens, (his book on the Book of Mormon was published by Oxford) Bokovoy, Paulson, etc.) but I haven't seen one on Book of Mormon history in particular. Granted I didn't spend much time looking. Ill see what I can find. Do you have any journals in mind that might be interested in such an article?

(ps- perhaps you can explain how the peer review process which FR goes through is not good enough for you.)

[_Mister Scratch]

by the way, LoaP: are you ever, ever going to supply one---just one!---example of a peer-reviewed, frankly and openly LDS article on Book of Mormon history which was published in a mainstream academic journal?

Haven't found one, Scratch. I have seen LDS history articles in general in "mainstream academic journals" (people like Arrington, Flake, Bushman, Givens, (his book on the Book of Mormon was published by Oxford) Bokovoy, Paulson, etc.) but I haven't seen one on Book of Mormon history in particular.

Gee... Neither have I! Perhaps its time you and The Good Professor issue an apology to Yme?

Granted I didn't spend much time looking. Ill see what I can find. Do you have any journals in mind that might be interested in such an article?

Oh, I'm sure any historical journal dealing with North America would do.

(ps- perhaps you can explain how the peer review process which FR goes through is not good enough for you.)

Sure. Check out the following:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 51&start=0

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... witchcraft

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It seems your main beef is that FR seems ideologically driven. In other words, their position that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is taints their work. I'll have to read through your post in depth more later on. 15 minutes to quitting time.

By the way, have you submitted any articles to the FR? or to DCP?

Has Beastie? Brant Gardner seems to have some respect for her. Maybe they could do a dialog of sorts and get it in there. That would be interesting to read.

[_moksha]

(ps- perhaps you can explain how the peer review process which FR goes through is not good enough for you.)

Fasting and praying about the articles is as valid of method as such peer review needs.

[_antishock8]

This is your review of Muhammad? Good grief.

What? I'm not awed by Mr. Peterson and his lack of narrative, perspective, accuracy, and/or credibility reference Islam, its history, and its relevancy to today's world? I'm not? Scandalous. His apologetic stance toward Aisha's husband and the religous-political world's nightmare known as Islam can clearly be linked to his own Mormon apologia. He would make a wonderful Dhimmi.

Let's hear the honest-to-whatever-you-believe-in-truth. Have you actually read the whole book? A few chapters? One chapter?

I read the entire shitbag of a book. Have you? Honestly?? Pfft. Shill.

[_Mister Scratch]

It seems your main beef is that FR seems ideologically driven.

No, that's not quite it. As rcrocket will be happy to tell you, many journals adhere to an ideology of one kind or another. My beef is with the peer review process, and with the concurrent claim by DCP and others that FARMS Review is peer reviewed in a normative fashion, and his claim that it is "academic" or "scholarly" in any kind of usual way.

In other words, their position that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is taints their work.

Sadly, I do think that is the case. It's unfortunate the FARMS authors seem unable or unwilling to step back and write more objectively, and with less malice. I believe many of them would do well to look to Richard Bushman as a positive role model.

I'll have to read through your post in depth more later on. 15 minutes to quitting time.

Okey doke.

By the way, have you submitted any articles to the FR? or to DCP?

You'd better ask him. Certainly, he had no problem citing me---without proper attribution, I might add---in "The Witchcraft Paradigm."

Has Beastie? Brant Gardner seems to have some respect for her. Maybe they could do a dialog of sorts and get it in there. That would be interesting to read.

I agree that it would be interesting to read. I also think that it stands absolutely zero chance of making it through the "peer review" process.

[_antishock8]

by the way, have I made Mr. Peterson's sig line again? I'm sure he's perusing this forum daily, along with others. What a rube.