Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[_Bond...James Bond]

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

My guess is because your "fem" side is soooo accessable, just right there under the surface. ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Yes, right. This sure does represent a significant challenge to Mopologetics and Church orthodoxy! Wow! Way to go, LoaP!

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.

Well, they should be advised that they will first need to get permission from DCP/the Editor(s). Otherwise, they won't even know what the style guidelines are.

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.

You know nothing of what I believe, LoaP, though your presumptuousness is duly noted.

[_antishock8]

Anyway, back to the point since we've been chasing little red fishies all over this thread (that's for LoaP since he doesn't know what a Red Herring is).

The Bible says:

Thou shall not bear false witness.

The Mormon church says:

We believe in being honest, true...

Mr. Peterson says:

It's ok to lie because sometimes a Nazi will kill a Jew if we don't lie, so we just have to determine what is and what isn't an acceptable lie. That's why I lie for the Mormon church because I've determined that lying for the Lord is a greater good than telling the truth about the Mormon church.

-----------------------------

Speaking of liars...

LoaP is clearly using the feminine as a perjorative. Mormon patriarchy rears its ugly head again. By these fruits ye shall know them:

Liars
Misogynists
Obfuscators (ref the submission process to FARMS and a myriad of other Mormon-related topics)

What a shame...

[_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.

Again, how does this demonstrate Coe's unfamiliarity?

Coe's expectations on Book of Mormon geography do not match the actual text. For more, see Coe's interview (posted online), Sorenson's findings (likewise), and the actual Book of Mormon text (all three be).

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.

You implied that FARMS was not living up to the example of Bushman, no?

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....

I suspect part of it involves the fact that they are busy people who don't do FARMS full time. I also suspect those who complain loudest regarding the process have never actually made an effort to apply themselves to the process.

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

Haven't we already agreed that all academic journals do not take blind submissions? Some do, not all. I actually am not sure if a blind manuscript has been submitted and published without there ever being a conversation beforehand. I suspect there almost always is such a conversation before a manuscript shows up. Either way, it is completely irrelevant as to whether the FR can measure up to other academic journals.

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

It has become more than obvious to anyone following this thread that you have not. That's satisfactory.

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

Those two things are only two of the reasons.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, right. This sure does represent a significant challenge to Mopologetics and Church orthodoxy! Wow! Way to go, LoaP!

Actually it is quite a formidable article. I suspect you haven't read it.

Well, they should be advised that they will first need to get permission from DCP/the Editor(s). Otherwise, they won't even know what the style guidelines are.

I'm almost positive he would welcome such an exchange. Shall they give it a go?

You know nothing of what I believe, LoaP, though your presumptuousness is duly noted.

Here you make a good point, and I do apologize. I can only surmise your beliefs from your posts here (the ones I read, anyway,) and from that I have surmised you are something of an atheist or agnostic. Far be it from me to judge your view of God without really knowing where you stand. I say this without sarcasm. Apologies for that.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Anyway, back to the point since we've been chasing little red fishies all over this thread (that's for LoaP since he doesn't know what a Red Herring is).

False.

It's ok to lie because sometimes a Nazi will kill a Jew if we don't lie, so we just have to determine what is and what isn't an acceptable lie.

Just curious: do you disagree with that one example? If you were harboring a Jew way back when would you lie to save said Jew or not?

LoaP is clearly using the feminine as a perjorative.

Disagree.

[_rcrocket]

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.

Yes they are offered unsolicited. All the time. But, typically, the prospective author contacts the editor before much work is done to obtain an "invitation." But, in one of my two papers, I just delivered the paper; they liked it; they published it.

[

quote] 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.

Maybe, but the article I cite from 19/1 is critical of Church theology.

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.

No such event occurred with my paper in the least. You're just making this up. I know "history professors" scoured my article because some of them were identified to me as the process went on. One, as I recall, was not with BYU.

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.

I think that is true, but that is also true of many, many ideological journals.

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.

That may be true for fluff articles where little expertise is needed, but not true for others where expertise is needed. I can observe that first hand.

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.

Untrue for articles requiring technical expertise. Perhaps true for articles which really don't require much peer-reviewing at all.

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.

You've overstated Bushman's views in your prior post. As I suspected.

[_rcrocket]

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!"

I guess FARMS Review is damned either way, isn't it. Damn those guys, publishing alternative points of view!

The reality is that in the case of 19/1, I thought the article was very effective to establish EV thinking on a subject very important to LDS exegetes but for which EVs have done very little thinking.

[_harmony]

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.

I think that is true, but that is also true of many, many ideological journals.

Are you saying the Farms Review is not a scholarly journal, but is rather an ideological journal?

edited to correct formatting

[_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?

Coe's expectations on Book of Mormon geography do not match the actual text. For more, see Coe's interview (posted online), Sorenson's findings (likewise), and the actual Book of Mormon text (all three be).

Would you care to be more specific, LoaP? And by the way: we've kind of gotten away from the original point, which was your suggestion that Coe would be inappropriate as a peer reviewer for an article on Book of Mormon archaeology / anthropology. You say that he is "unfamiliar" with Book of Mormon geography, as per Sorenson, but how does this affect his expertise in archaeology and anthropology?

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.

You implied that FARMS was not living up to the example of Bushman, no?

I said that FARMS has weathered criticism from Bushman, and that Bushman is an example of a less biased and less bellicose LDS scholar as compared with, say, Bill Hamblin.

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....

I suspect part of it involves the fact that they are busy people who don't do FARMS full time.

What? They are concealing their guidelines because they are busy? Even if that were the case, it does not change the fact that the process essentially involves "commissioning" every single article.

I also suspect those who complain loudest regarding the process have never actually made an effort to apply themselves to the process.

Well, feel free to have faith in your suspicions, LoaP. It doesn't change the fact that you don't know one way or the other. Sorry that this galls you, my friend.

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

Haven't we already agreed that all academic journals do not take blind submissions?

Hmm. I asked a very simple question, but for whatever reason, you didn't answer it. And no---I don't know that I ever agreed that "all" academic journals "do not take blind submissions." I've merely maintained that not taking them is very, very unusual, and that I am not aware of a single journal (aside from FARMS Review) that operates this way.

Some do, not all.

Oh? Then perhaps you can provide an example of a journal (other than FARMS Review) which does not accept straight-up MS submissions? I'll be patiently waiting for you to enlighten me.

I actually am not sure if a blind manuscript has been submitted and published without there ever being a conversation beforehand. I suspect there almost always is such a conversation before a manuscript shows up.

Yes, that would seem to be the case, given FARMS's "submission guidelines."

Either way, it is completely irrelevant as to whether the FR can measure up to other academic journals.

No, it's not irrelevant, since it demonstrates that there is not an "open call" for scholars to submit their very best work on this subject. Further, since the "submission guidelines" are so atypical, there is good reason to think that other facets of FARMS Review are "atypical" as well.

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

It has become more than obvious to anyone following this thread that you have not. That's satisfactory.

Sorry, LoaP. I may have; I may have not. I'm not going to tell you.

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

Those two things are only two of the reasons.

And what are the others?