Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[...]and he still gets upset when reminded that a woman actually had the balls to call him, the Great One, to repentence (actually, I told him he didn't live his religion, which he didn't and still doesn't).

Wow. Didn't and doesn't live his religion. The stones are a-flying.


[ps- it's spelled "repentance."]

[_harmony]

[...]and he still gets upset when reminded that a woman actually had the balls to call him, the Great One, to repentence (actually, I told him he didn't live his religion, which he didn't and still doesn't).

Wow. Didn't and doesn't live his religion. The stones are a-flying.

Yeah, it pissed him off too. But his own words condemned him, and continue to condemn him. Not my problem.

[ps- it's spelled "repentance."]

Good grief, like I care? I'm not the spelling nazi around here. My observation is if you get hung on grammer, you've already conceded the point.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[...]and he still gets upset when reminded that a woman actually had the balls to call him, the Great One, to repentence (actually, I told him he didn't live his religion, which he didn't and still doesn't).

Wow. Didn't and doesn't live his religion. The stones are a-flying.

Yeah, it pissed him off too. But his own words condemned him, and continue to condemn him. Not my problem.

[ps- it's spelled "repentance."]

Good grief, like I care? I'm not the spelling nazi around here. My observation is if you get hung on grammer, you've already conceded the point.

Pardon me for trying to improve your spelling. (PS- if you use Firefox it has a handy feature that underlines misspelled words.)

[_antishock8]

... tirade You are angry...

Ggggaaagghh. Please stop projecting.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

One would have to know the Book of Mormon geography based on the text in order to know if it matches Mesoamerican geography. Herein is Coe's main flaw.

And where is your evidence that Coe does not know Book of Mormon geography? Sorry, LoaP, but I'm going to have to issue a CFR for this one.

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

This doesn't answer my question. It seems as though you are painting Bushman as some sort of FARMS critic. While he has some criticisms he also has many praises.

What "many praises"? Let's see your evidence, LoaP.

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?

I'm not "pretending" to know anything here. You can "lol" all you want. Some reviews of books are requested by the review. Other articles are submitted and reviewed, some being rejected, others being accepted. Again, I site Bokovoy/Heiser from the recent Review as an example of a great exchange.

Oh? And which articles were "submitted and reviewed"? According to the main FARMS website (and in direct contrast to typical academic journals), *all* articles have to first go through DCP, or whoever the Ed. in Chief is. This is the full extent of the "Publication Guidelines" for FARMS Review:

The principal purpose of the FARMS Review is to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books published, primarily on the Book of Mormon. The evaluations are intended to encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon and the other ancient scriptures.

Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.

This is highly unusual for an "academic" journal, since most serious academic journals have an open submission policy and don't require scholars to first "contact the editor."

So, LoaP, I'm not sure what evidence you have that articles are "submitted," since, based on these "Submission Guidelines," such things never happen---at least not in the normative sense.

[_rcrocket]

Scratch, you are so naïve about academia. You are embarrassing yourself.

There are several academics who post on this board. They are shockingly silent about your claims.

Fundamentally, your beef is with the faith basis of FARMS, that it subscribes to angels and miracles, and not truly with the procedure of FARMS Review.

All academic journals require "contact with the editor."

Many academic journals publish "by invitation" and if one wants to get an invitation to discuss a paper with the editor.

Many journals have "one" editor who screens most or all incoming papers.

Your posts are hilarious and would convince only an idiot.

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't speak for FARMS Review but I have been through its editorial process, as well as the editorial process for other journals.

Articles arriving at FARMS Review are solicited and unsolicited.

Oh, they are? Because according to the "Submission Guidelines" (such as they are), there really isn't such a thing as an "unsolicited" FARMS Review publication.

Articles in both the solicited and unsolicited category may be rejected if they are inadequate, can't be fixed, or do not survive peer review.

Or, if they don't adhere rigidly to Church orthodoxy.

FARMS Review articles undergo peer review, although the eclectic nature of the articles call for differing rigor. For instance, my two articles were historical pieces and they were reviewed by history professors as well as undergoing approximately 12 months of cite-checking for both articles combined.

Now, this is odd. How would you know that "history professors" reviewed your articles, Bob, if the journal uses normative peer review? Or are you just assuming? Further, if they put in "12 months of cite-checking," then they apparently did a shoddy job, since they overlooked that embarrassing elipsis in your MMM article.

I suspect that the articles that don't produce much original material, or are mere didactic essays undergo little review. Just a suspicion.

Yes, I suspect this as well. I suspect that those authors who are chummy with the Editor in Chief are basically given carte blanche to pop off essentially at will.

Peer reviewers are selected just like any other ideological journal.

This just doesn't seem to be the case, Bob. Peer reviewers at typical academic journals are selected on the basis of expertise, rather than loyalty to Church orthodoxy, or, perhaps more accurately, loyalty to LDS apologetics.

If a 50-page article comes in reviewing a work on the LDS view of the Constitution, I imagine that the editors would call their buddies who have some expertise in constitutional law and such. If the Review is like other journals I've worked on there is no "stable" of "go-to" peer reviewers.

Sure. And in the case of FARMS Review, this "stable" is a "cabal" of Church "yes-men." Really, it seems transparently obvious that the reviewers are selected primarily for their sympathy to apologetics, rather than their expertise.

I am interested in your comment that Bushman has condemned FARMS Review for its style. I too have criticized FARMS Review for the same thing on occasion, but I would be interested in your cite to Bushman.

This isn't the one I'm thinking of (perhaps someone else can find it; I recall seeing it on an old ZLMB post), but this shows Bushman's concern with FARMS's "one-sidedness":

The work of the great apologetic organizations, FARMS and FAIR, is less effective because they only give one side of the picture. Looking through their eyes, you don’t see the debates as a fair-minded outsider would coming to the subject.

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/ ... n-part-ii/

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch, you are so naïve about academia. You are embarrassing yourself.

There are several academics who post on this board. They are shockingly silent about your claims.

The last time we dealt with this subject, the poster called Chap, who is an academic, affirmed everything I'm saying.

Fundamentally, your beef is with the faith basis of FARMS, that it subscribes to angels and miracles, and not truly with the procedure of FARMS Review.

No. My beef is with the procedure, among other things.

All academic journals require "contact with the editor."

Yes, that's true. Most journal editors don't function in this hardcore "keeper of the gate" way, though.

Many academic journals publish "by invitation" and if one wants to get an invitation to discuss a paper with the editor.

Sure, many journals *do* publish "by invitation." I think you'd be hard pressed to find any serious academic journals, however, that publish by invitation only.

Many journals have "one" editor who screens most or all incoming papers.

Except this doesn't happen at FARMS Review since there is no such thing as "incoming papers." FARMS Review, according to the website, consists 100% of commissioned work, which, as I've said, is highly unusual, and raises a number of questions about the honesty and seriousness of the scholarship.

[Guest]

And where is your evidence that Coe does not know Book of Mormon geography? Sorry, LoaP, but I'm going to have to issue a CFR for this one.

Check out Coe's comments in the PBS documentary, for starters. Compare them to Sorenson's compilation of actual Book of Mormon geographic references.

What "many praises"? Let's see your evidence, LoaP.

At a recent talk Bushman gave at Weber State Bushman noted he liked much of what has been produced regarding Mormon history and apologetics. He said:

"We have devoted so much of our intellectual recourses to two activities: history and apologetics. We have a Mormon History Association, we have FARMS and FAIR. And we do a pretty good job, actually, at doing Mormon history. I’m quite proud of what Mormon scholars as a group have produced. The Journal of Mormon History is a very respectable journal and we have won the respect of historians around the country for what we do; and we always will have historians. And our apologists are not bad. Not everyone accepts the way they make their arguments but they do have arguments and they bring evidence. They are able to take virtually any criticism of any aspect of Mormonism and prepare a defense. Huge energy goes into this, a fair amount of money, and all that stuff is available on these websites. So we’ve done a pretty good job there."

See “Rough Stone Rolling and the Intellectual Prospects for Mormonism,” transcription here: http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/20 ... ctual.html

Likewise, in his article "The Social Dimensions of Rationality" he had similar praise for their work. (Found in Bushman, Believing History). He's also published with FARMS, himself.

Oh? And which articles were "submitted and reviewed"? According to the main FARMS website (and in direct contrast to typical academic journals), *all* articles have to first go through DCP, or whoever the Ed. in Chief is. This is the full extent of the "Publication Guidelines" for FARMS Review:

The principal purpose of the FARMS Review is to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books published, primarily on the Book of Mormon. The evaluations are intended to encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon and the other ancient scriptures.

Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.

This is highly unusual for an "academic" journal, since most serious academic journals have an open submission policy and don't require scholars to first "contact the editor."

Wouldn't the editor be contacted at some point for all journals? And you also say "most serious academic journals." This would indicate that not all do.

So, LoaP, I'm not sure what evidence you have that articles are "submitted," since, based on these "Submission Guidelines," such things never happen---at least not in the normative sense.

They absolutely do. People actually do submit articles. You have apparently submitted none, though you keep tip-toeing around the issue. You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take, Ms. Scratch.

[_antishock8]

Scratch, you are so naïve about academia. You are embarrassing yourself.

There are several academics who post on this board. They are shockingly silent about your claims.

Fundamentally, your beef is with the faith basis of FARMS, that it subscribes to angels and miracles, and not truly with the procedure of FARMS Review.

All academic journals require "contact with the editor."

Many academic journals publish "by invitation" and if one wants to get an invitation to discuss a paper with the editor.

Many journals have "one" editor who screens most or all incoming papers.

Your posts are hilarious and would convince only an idiot.

Apologist: Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls***

Here's the link to JAMA's submission process:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc/ifora.dtl

Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the submissions process for F.A.R.M.S.?