Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_antishock8]

...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.

Let me review Mormon Apologetics:

Mormon Apologist: BS BS BS BS.

Critic: That's BS.

Mormon Apologist: Ad Hominem.

In this case it's:

Mr. Peterson: FR uses a peer review process.

Critic: It's not normative.

Mr. Peterson: Are YOU an academic? Do YOU have Book of Mormon academic credentials? How would YOU know how WE conduct peer reviews?

Voila. Mormons' Rev. Wright just sidestepped the issue without bothering to set the record straigt, ie, tell the truth/be honest/not obfuscate/not deceive.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

I have read the entire book; yes.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

One problem, in my opinion, is finding someone other than an LDS conversant enough in the Book of Mormon itself to give a strong analysis of an article dealing with the Book of Mormon.

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.

Why? Bushman doesn't even believe in "objectivity." How, then, would patterning their writings after Bushman help them achieve objectivity?

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

Give him something written to work with that isn;t a cobbled together internet post and see what happens.

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.

Why not? Bokovoy and Michael S. Heiser had a great exchange in the last issue. We'll never know until Beastie tries. But is she up for it?

[_Bond...James Bond]

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.

I made his quote box too!

Good thing he isn't reading CARM. He'd probably have something better from me about him.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

One problem, in my opinion, is finding someone other than an LDS conversant enough in the Book of Mormon itself to give a strong analysis of an article dealing with the Book of Mormon.

Which aspect of the Book of Mormon? Historicity? Language? Metalurgy? Geography? DNA? It would be very easy for FARMS editors to contact non-LDS scholars in any of the fields for peer review.

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.

Why? Bushman doesn't even believe in "objectivity." How, then, would patterning their writings after Bushman help them achieve objectivity?

Whoever said anything about "objectivity"? Bushman himself has condemned FARMS authors for their hyper-aggression and reliance on ad hominem attack.

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

Give him something written to work with that isn;t a cobbled together internet post and see what happens.

What makes you think I haven't?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Which aspect of the Book of Mormon? Historicity? Language? Metalurgy? Geography? DNA? It would be very easy for FARMS editors to contact non-LDS scholars in any of the fields for peer review.

Take some of the outspoken folk, for example, like Coe. Coe shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic Book of Mormon geography based on actual Book of Mormon text. What can he add? Not much. Perhaps there are ways of improving the process. As for me, I read the articles and try to be my own best peer reviewer. I believe you likely do the same. (If you read the stuff.)

Whoever said anything about "objectivity"? Bushman himself has condemned FARMS authors for their hyper-aggression and reliance on ad hominem attack.

You said the FARMS folk need to write more objectively, and that they ought to look to the example of Bushman. See your previous post. Additionally, Bushman has praise for FARMS in addition to criticism. Why overlook his praise?

What makes you think I haven't?

Well, the best way to clear that up would be to tell me whether you have or not. Perhaps you could even provide me with what you submitted. That would be pretty easy. But not as fun, of course. I'm well aware that some folk around here feel good when they hold stuff over people's heads.

[_Trevor]

I kind of thought the issue regarding Peterson's publications was whether he published anything in his own field. Indeed, he has. You may think they are crap, but the fact stands that he has published in his academic field.

[_antishock8]

I kind of thought the issue regarding Peterson's publications was whether he published anything in his own field. Indeed, he has. You may think they are crap, but the fact stands that he has published in his academic field.

Trevor,

Mr. Peterson is the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University. The thrust of his material really ought to be in that field. He isn't the professor of Mormon Apologetic Studies in the Department of Middle Eastern and Mesoamerican Book of Mormon History. Considering the listed material he has produced for and on behalf BYU, one would think the latter title more appropriate since that's clearly his field of "expertise".

Sincerely,

Professor of Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America

[_Trevor]

Trevor,

Mr. Peterson is the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University. The thrust of his material really ought to be in that field. He isn't the professor of Mormon Apologetic Studies in the Department of Middle Eastern and Mesoamerican Book of Mormon History. Considering the listed material he has produced for and on behalf BYU, one would think the latter title more appropriate since that's clearly his field of "expertise".

Sincerely,

Professor of Contrarian Mormonology Rationalizations with an Emphasis on Early 21st Century Internet Communications, America

I was simply correcting what I thought to be an overstatement of the case. What Peterson "ought to be" academically is really for him and his employers to decide. My guess is that they are quite happy with him. I find it more than a little odd that you want to castigate him for using his PhD in a manner you deem inappropriate. Why do you care?

[_Mister Scratch]

Which aspect of the Book of Mormon? Historicity? Language? Metalurgy? Geography? DNA? It would be very easy for FARMS editors to contact non-LDS scholars in any of the fields for peer review.

Take some of the outspoken folk, for example, like Coe. Coe shows an impressive lack of understanding of basic Book of Mormon geography based on actual Book of Mormon text.

Oh, he does? How so? Is this because he lacks understanding of Meso-American geography? Or because the Book of Mormon does not match up with known Meso-American geography?

Whoever said anything about "objectivity"? Bushman himself has condemned FARMS authors for their hyper-aggression and reliance on ad hominem attack.

You said the FARMS folk need to write more objectively, and that they ought to look to the example of Bushman. See your previous post. Additionally, Bushman has praise for FARMS in addition to criticism. Why overlook his praise?

"Objective" in the normative, academic, peer-reviewed sense, of course.

What makes you think I haven't?

Well, the best way to clear that up would be to tell me whether you have or not. Perhaps you could even provide me with what you submitted. That would be pretty easy. But not as fun, of course. I'm well aware that some folk around here feel good when they hold stuff over people's heads.

Lol. C'mon, LoaP. All along you've been pretending like you actually know something about the submission process at FARMS. You *did* know that this is one of the major deviations in FARMS Review from typical academic journals, right? Or, maybe not, hence your completely meaningless/useless Gardner/Beastie example.

Tell me: How is it that articles find their way into FARMS Review, LoaP?