Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You also seem to be overlooking the other projects with with FARMS is associated.

Red Herring.

Evidence that directly counters your claim is a red herring? Hilarious. This is astounding. And your friends on the board allow you to make an ass of yourself without so much as a whisper. Your fly is down, no one will tell you but me, and you won't look down!

Since you like these little imaginary dialogs I think I'll give it a try:

You: 1+1=4
Me: No, it equals 2. Here is the mathematical evidence.
You: Red herring!

Straw Man.

I'm not sure you know what a straw man is. Honestly I am starting to think you are just joking around to see my reaction. I mean that honestly.

Apologist: You're not an academic, Ms. Scratch.

She's not, though. And if she is, she's an embarrassment to academia.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

There's that "most" thing again.

[_Mister Scratch]

Which documentary? The Mormons?

Have there been any other recent documentaries which involve Coe and Mormonism?

??? How do Coe's remarks on The Mormons demonstrate that he's unfamiliar with Book of Mormon geography, LoaP?

This hardly constitutes "many praises" for FARMS Review, LoaP. In fact, his remarks about apologists seem lukewarm at best. Go ahead and keep trying, my friend. (Plus, I would imagine that many Mopologists would feel rather embarrassed about Bushman's revelation that "a fair amount of money" goes into these efforts.)

Big shocker, there. Provide sources and watch them be rejected. It's pretty clear here that Bushman (who has published with FARMS) actually does believe they can and have produced quality work.

Yes, but he also says that he's got problems with them. You said that Bushman had "many praises." It seems that this is a rather dubious claim.

And parenthetically, research can cost money. This is one reason people subscribe to and donate money to the organization. This is no surprise to anyone but you apparently.

Gee... You seem to be getting upset!

Yes; typically, the editor would receive the manuscript. The submission process at FARMS Review is (apparently) set up in such a way that 100% of the materials contained therein are commissioned.

As to the second portion of your remark--I'm personally not aware of *any* other journal that operates this way, though certainly it's possible that one exists.

I'm not convinced in the least that you are aware how any scholarly journal operates.

Can you provide an example of a journal whose submission process is identical to FARMS Review's? I'd be interested to see it.

Do they submit them blind, in the manner typical of academic journals? Or do potential FARMS Review authors have to first receive a "go ahead" from DCP? Furthermore, what is your evidence for *any* of your claims, Loap?

You are utterly hilarious, Ms. Scratch. Could it be possible that I am aware of people who have submitted articles to the FR? Could it be? I suppose I will need to provide actual photographic documentation and social security numbers of each of those with which I am familiar in order to satisfy you. And upon doing that I will get to see you say "doesn't count!"

No need to get bent out of shape, LoaP. Just supply the evidence. It's as simple as that.

1) You do not know whether or not I have submitted anything, and I'm not going to tell you.

The fact is you've submitted nothing. You've attempted to submit nothing. If you think this "I know something you don't know" power trip is accomplishing anything other than making you look the fool, you are sadly mistaken.

Sorry, LoaP, but you just don't know that. You cannot. I'm not sure why this seems to bother you so much, but it is true.

by the way: I notice that you deleted the second of my two points. I wonder why that is? Embarrassed about your behavior, perhaps? Hmmm.....

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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

The fact that there have been articles in the FR that do not "adhere rigidly to LDS Orthodoxy" refutes this claim.

No, not really. Furthermore, I never stated that this form of rejection was applied uniformly. Rather, I simply added this to rcrocket's list. In any case, it seems rather obvious that these "contra" articles are included as a form of tokenism---I.e., they are there for the sole reason that apologists can say, "See! We sometimes publish opposing viewpoints!" The truth, though, is that these contrary articles are usually given the straw man treatment. They would never be published if they posed a serious threat to LDS orthodoxy.

Talk about semantic safety nets! "The Farms Review never publishes contra orthodoxy." (Note from the start there is a problem. The Review exists to Review things both for and against "orthodoxy.) When it is shown the Review does publish such articles they are waved off as "token." Hilarious.

Not for me. I took Moroni's challenge and received confirmation of this through the Holy Ghost.

Nope. Still needs demonstrating. You obviously didn't study it out.

[_Mister Scratch]

You also seem to be overlooking the other projects with with FARMS is associated.

Red Herring.

Evidence that directly counters your claim is a red herring? Hilarious. This is astounding. And your friends on the board allow you to make an ass of yourself without so much as a whisper. Your fly is down, no one will tell you but me, and you won't look down!

Wow! What a foul, disgusting little gutter-mouth you have, LoaP. It really is most unbecoming. A good Latter-day Saint such as yourself shouldn't stoop to such name-calling and juvenile insults.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

The fact that there have been articles in the FR that do not "adhere rigidly to LDS Orthodoxy" refutes this claim.

No, not really. Furthermore, I never stated that this form of rejection was applied uniformly. Rather, I simply added this to rcrocket's list. In any case, it seems rather obvious that these "contra" articles are included as a form of tokenism---I.e., they are there for the sole reason that apologists can say, "See! We sometimes publish opposing viewpoints!" The truth, though, is that these contrary articles are usually given the straw man treatment. They would never be published if they posed a serious threat to LDS orthodoxy.

Talk about semantic safety nets! "The Farms Review never publishes contra orthodoxy." (Note from the start there is a problem. The Review exists to Review things both for and against "orthodoxy.) When it is shown the Review does publish such articles they are waved off as "token." Hilarious.

Oh? Well then, which of the articles, in your view, poses a significant challenge to Mopologetics, or to Church orthodoxy? Feel free to be specific.

Not for me. I took Moroni's challenge and received confirmation of this through the Holy Ghost.

Nope. Still needs demonstrating. You obviously didn't study it out.

Sorry, LoaP, but this is a matter of faith, and as such it is sacred to me. I don't cast my pearls before swine. If the historicity of the Book of Mormon does not need "demonstrating," then neither does my "sneaking suspicion."

[_LifeOnaPlate]

??? How do Coe's remarks on The Mormons demonstrate that he's unfamiliar with Book of Mormon geography, LoaP?

Go read them and compare them to Sorenson's geography. It's pretty simple. I'm not going to do all your legwork.

Yes, but he also says that he's got problems with them. You said that Bushman had "many praises." It seems that this is a rather dubious claim.

Hell, I have problems with them. It would be troublesome if I didn't. My or Bushman's disagreeing with some of what FARMS publishes is hardly a fatal blow to the organization composed of many different autonomous writers.

Gee... You seem to be getting upset!

I assure you I am not upset. I am actually very amused. And a little surprised.

Can you provide an example of a journal whose submission process is identical to FARMS Review's? I'd be interested to see it.

Can you provide an example of any journal's submission process?

No need to get bent out of shape, LoaP. Just supply the evidence. It's as simple as that.

Many of Kevin Christiansen's articles.

Sorry, LoaP, but you just don't know that. You cannot. I'm not sure why this seems to bother you so much, but it is true.

Bothers me so much? I don't believe pointing out your disingenuosity indicates my being bothered. It indicates my pointing out your disingenuosity.

by the way: I notice that you deleted the second of my two points. I wonder why that is? Embarrassed about your behavior, perhaps? Hmmm.....

Aw, nuts. I thought I could slip that one past you. I failed to realize that leaving the number 1) on a numbered list would indicate there is a number 2.

Ms. Scratch indicates my suspicion that you are a woman. Is that a bad thing scratch? To be considered a woman? It certainly isn't to me.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You also seem to be overlooking the other projects with with FARMS is associated.

Red Herring.

Evidence that directly counters your claim is a red herring? Hilarious. This is astounding. And your friends on the board allow you to make an ass of yourself without so much as a whisper. Your fly is down, no one will tell you but me, and you won't look down!

Wow! What a foul, disgusting little gutter-mouth you have, LoaP. It really is most unbecoming. A good Latter-day Saint such as yourself shouldn't stoop to such name-calling and juvenile insults.

"ass" and "fly being down" = foul and disgusting gutter mouth. I'll try to clean that up for you, Ms. Scratch. I think the statement I used is still quite apt, however.

"A foul, disgusting little gutter mouth."

[_Mister Scratch]

??? How do Coe's remarks on The Mormons demonstrate that he's unfamiliar with Book of Mormon geography, LoaP?

Go read them and compare them to Sorenson's geography. It's pretty simple. I'm not going to do all your legwork.

Again, how does this demonstrate Coe's unfamiliarity?

Yes, but he also says that he's got problems with them. You said that Bushman had "many praises." It seems that this is a rather dubious claim.

Hell, I have problems with them. It would be troublesome if I didn't. My or Bushman's disagreeing with some of what FARMS publishes is hardly a fatal blow to the organization composed of many different autonomous writers.

Whoever said it was a "fatal blow"? I'm kind of left wondering just what it was you spent all this time trying to defend.

Gee... You seem to be getting upset!

I assure you I am not upset. I am actually very amused. And a little surprised.

Oh, okay. Terrific.

Can you provide an example of a journal whose submission process is identical to FARMS Review's? I'd be interested to see it.

Can you provide an example of any journal's submission process?

No need, since antishock8 was kind enough to post a link to the JAMA guidelines. They are, as you'll see, a good deal more detailed than the ones at FARMS Review. I really have to wonder why FARMS is so cagey about their process. It's almost as if they have something to hide....

No need to get bent out of shape, LoaP. Just supply the evidence. It's as simple as that.

Many of Kevin Christiansen's articles.

Kevin Christiansen submitted his articles blind? I.e., the full MSS, without have first contacted DCP or any other editor?

Sorry, LoaP, but you just don't know that. You cannot. I'm not sure why this seems to bother you so much, but it is true.

Bothers me so much? I don't believe pointing out your disingenuosity indicates my being bothered. It indicates my pointing out your disingenuosity.

Okey doke. But I'm still not going to tell you whether I've submitted anything or not.

by the way: I notice that you deleted the second of my two points. I wonder why that is? Embarrassed about your behavior, perhaps? Hmmm.....

Aw, nuts. I thought I could slip that one past you. I failed to realize that leaving the number 1) on a numbered list would indicate there is a number 2.

Ms. Scratch indicates my suspicion that you are a woman. Is that a bad thing scratch? To be considered a woman? It certainly isn't to me.

Why do you suspect I am a woman, particularly given my avatar and screen name?

[Guest]

Oh? Well then, which of the articles, in your view, poses a significant challenge to Mopologetics, or to Church orthodoxy? Feel free to be specific.

"You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82," by Michael S. Heiser, Volume 19 Issue 1.

Of course, FARMS allowed Bokovoy to respond in the same issue, how cheap is that?

This is a great exchange. Again, I encourage Beastie to bring her best and present it perhaps in tandem with Brant Gardner. I think that would be a very good read.

Sorry, LoaP, but this is a matter of faith, and as such it is sacred to me. I don't cast my pearls before swine. If the historicity of the Book of Mormon does not need "demonstrating," then neither does my "sneaking suspicion."

As you well know, matters of faith according to LDS include reason and revelation, study and prayer. As you believe not in revelation or prayer I think your mockery is slightly humorous, but without much substance.