Editorial Review at FARMS: New information Comes to Light

[_beastie]

A person whose interpretative framework for the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic doesn't include the Book of Mormon will view it one way. A person whose framework does include the Book of Mormon will see it slightly differently, and will place significance and stress on certain things that the other person won't.

Professor Clark is entirely correct in saying that the current data certainly doesn't entail acceptance of the Book of Mormon. But he's also saying that the data are increasingly consistent with acceptance of the Book of Mormon, but that one won't be inclined to see that without some sort of commitment to the paradigm of the Book of Mormon.

You're just restating the same thing in a slightly different way. IE, "some sort of commitment" means "testimony". In other words, as he stated in his Q/A, one has to have a testimony to be able to see evidence for the Book of Mormon.

It's more than just being "aware" of the theory, which would allow one to pay attention to evidence for that particular theory. This is why he hasn't been able to convince any of his colleagues. He has made them aware of the Book of Mormon, they "read it like an archeology text", and are unconvinced. They remain unconvinced despite having the theory before them, paying attention to that particular theory, because they lack "a commitment" to the paradigm of the Book of Mormon - In other words, a testimony.

You seem to want to imply that the transcript I provided of the Q/A is incorrect, as you suspect they were "notes" written by Brent. You are incorrect on both counts. The transcript of the Q/A period is a real transcript, as in the words were transcribed by someone listening to the audio of the talk. It even notes the time stamp on the audio. It can be found here:

http://www.tungate.com/clark.htm

As far as I know, "mel tungate" is not code for "brent metcalfe".

[_beastie]

Ok, here's a simple equation that can help readers understand why it's necessary to have a testimony before you can recognize evidence for the Book of Mormon:

testimony = beer goggles

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That can't be done on any journal I've ever worked on. I have been an anonymous peer reviewer.

I bet that anonymity rankled the very core of your being. How fiendish of them to foist that upon you.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing, but you beat me to it. However, our dear Bob has shown in the past that he is not always averse to anonymity. Right, Plutarch, Bishop Lee, et al.? ;)

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're just restating the same thing in a slightly different way. IE, "some sort of commitment" means "testimony". In other words, as he stated in his Q/A, one has to have a testimony to be able to see evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Yes. That's correct.

I think we're talking past each other.

But I'm out of time.

It's more than just being "aware" of the theory, which would allow one to pay attention to evidence for that particular theory. This is why he hasn't been able to convince any of his colleagues. He has made them aware of the Book of Mormon, they "read it like an archeology text", and are unconvinced. They remain unconvinced despite having the theory before them, paying attention to that particular theory, because they lack "a commitment" to the paradigm of the Book of Mormon - In other words, a testimony.

Knowing John, and having spoken with him a great deal on this, I doubt that he's ever spent any substantial time at all trying to convince his colleagues, or even talking to them about the Book of Mormon.

You seem to want to imply that the transcript I provided of the Q/A is incorrect, as you suspect they were "notes" written by Brent.

Sigh. No I don't.

"BoMor" is an idiosyncratic abbreviation evidently created by and certainly characteristic of Brent Metcalfe. I simply found its occurence notable.

YYou are incorrect on both counts.

I asserted neither.

The transcript of the Q/A period is a real transcript, as in the words were transcribed by someone listening to the audio of the talk. It even notes the time stamp on the audio. It can be found here:

I was there, and and can promise you that John Clark didn't actually say "BoMor." Somebody supplied that abbreviation. Somebody presumably influenced by Brent Metcalfe. Hence my saying that "these notes came from BrenMetc, or someone heavily influenced by BrenMetc."

As far as I know, "mel tungate" is not code for "brent metcalfe".

Which is entirely consistent, so far as I know, with my statement that "these notes came from BrenMetc, or someone heavily influenced by BrenMetc."

I said nothing whatever about their being "incorrect."

I was simply observing that "these notes came from BrenMetc, or someone heavily influenced by BrenMetc." It wasn't an important point. I place no weight on it. It was simply an observation.

Incidentally, as I recall, Brent Metcalfe was there. Whether Mel Tungate was or wasn't, I have no idea. I don't know what he looks like and I don't know where he lives.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There have been hundreds of articles in the FARMS Review. There have been at least several score peer reviewers. My insatiable and unreasonable Malevolent Stalker is wrong that there's some sort of small stable of them.

He wants a list of their names. He wants all the names of those who participate on Skinny-L. He wants this. He wants that.

Why on earth should I lift a finger to satisfy my Malevolent Stalker's never-ending demands? I can't think of any persuasive reason.

[_beastie]

Knowing John, and having spoken with him a great deal on this, I doubt that he's ever spent any substantial time at all trying to convince his colleagues, or even talking to them about the Book of Mormon.

If he hasn't even barely talked to his colleagues about the Book of Mormon, it would be very odd for him to say:

And, no, I can't convince any of my archeology colleagues that the evidence proves the BoMor is true. They have read it, but they just read it like they're reading an archeology book, and that's not going to go anywhere.

Obviously Dr. Clark had introduced them to the Book of Mormon, and spoke to them enough about it to convince them to actually read it. (not a small task) I'm sure they did so out of respect for Dr. Clark in general. But they read it without the beer goggles/testimony in place first.... and that's not going to go anywhere.

We are saying pretty much the same thing. The difference it that the fact that one has to have a testimony (ie, "commitment to Book of Mormon paradigm") in order to even recognize supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon is a red flag for me, and is not for you.

[_EAllusion]

It is not uncommon to know who has reviewed for a given journal. What is generally kept secret is who reviewed particular submissions. The authors of the submissions are also kept secret. (Not that people can't infer who the secret person in question is.) It's a doubleblind system that is the standard for academic journals. This is as it should be.

FARMS review is appears to be generally incestuous in the same way the young earth creationist journal "Answers Research Journal" is. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

That limits its value as a refereed publication.

[_Mister Scratch]

You might begin to "satisfy" me by:
---Naming the peer reviewers

I could prove that we follow standard peer review practice by violating a common practice of standard peer review?

C'mon, Prof. P. You know that's not what I'm asking. You confessed in "The Witchcraft Paradigm" that you seldom ever use non-LDS peer reviewers. This has led myself and others to suspect that you guys are employing a "rigged" or "stacked deck" process that really doesn't look at the essays in a fair and rigorous way. So, I'm not asking you to tell authors who is reviewing what or vice versa (which *would* violate that "common practice"), rather I am asking you to tell us, in a general sense, who the reviewers typically are.

Of course, you won't do this, because I am right. The reviewers probably consist of "skinny-l" members and Mopologists you are friendly with.

---Publishing pieces critical of Mopologetic orthodoxy

We've published articles critical of Mormonism, of course, and have published even more articles critical of various apologetic arguments. Jack Welch, Hugh Nibley, yours truly -- all have been criticized in the pages of the FARMS Review.

Yes, but these critical essays are merely acts of tokenism. They are obviously thrown in there precisely so that you can later say, "See! We include critical essays! We're not an attack journal! We really are scholarly!"

But, as I explain in my essay, the FARMS Review was established principally to provide a venue for Mormon thinkers to publish certain kinds of writing on Mormon topics. We raised the money for it, we expended the effort to do it, we spend the time to edit and publish it. Non-Mormons have plenty of venues to publish anything they want, and are entirely free to do so and to establish any new venues that suit their whims. So are anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons.

This was, is, and always shall be a stupid point. Mormon authors are free to send their publications *anywhere.* But, as the now-infamous MAD poster called "Yme" demonstrated to you, many Mopologetic arguments are so ridiculous that they would not withstand typical peer review. Thus, you guys needs a "stacked deck" journal in which you can offer safe haven for the likes of John Gee, Tvedtness, and Midgley.

And, as I point out in my essay, there are many quite legitimate academic journals that exist to serve as voices for the Benedictine community, Austrian-school economists, Freudians, existentialists, practitioners of annales historiography, Thomists, evangelical theologians, Cistercians, neo-Darwinians, monetarists, Christian philosophers, Marxists, and etc. and etc.

You're imposing a standard for legitimacy that you've simply made up out of thin air, arbitrarily, and that doesn't reflect the real world of scholarship. And it's worth every penny you paid for it.

"Fairness" and "relative impartiality" and "expertise rather than allegiance to orthodoxy" are scarcely "arbitrary." We expect and rely upon peer review to give us work that is balanced and well-done. Not to provide a rubber stamp of Mopologetic orthodoxy, or to ensure that "dangerous" arguments get weeded out. (But, then again, given that almost 100% of articles are commissioned, one starts to wonder what purpose---beyond window dressing, of course---that peer review at FARMS Review serves at all.)

[_beastie]

I agree that FARM is likely an incestuous community who, due to the fact that they all share the same goal of defending the faith, are unlikely to rigorously analyze contributions to the point where a non-apologetic community would do so, but I have to object to one thing, scratch:

Yes, but these critical essays are merely acts of tokenism. They are obviously thrown in there precisely so that you can later say, "See! We include critical essays! We're not an attack journal! We really are scholarly!"

Come on, now. He demonstrated that they DO publish articles critical of one another at least occasionally. It seems to me that you ought to simply concede this point. Your response creates a no-win situation for DCP - kind of like when he asked me if I thought ANY believers on these boards were honest, sane, and intelligent people, and when I demonstrated that I certainly do, he changed the goalposts by claiming these people weren't prominent enough to count. You can't change the goalpost, or find a reason to discard evidence once it's been provided. You have plenty of other points on which to continue, in fairness, you ought to concede this point to DCP.

[_Mister Scratch]

I agree that FARM is likely an incestuous community who, due to the fact that they all share the same goal of defending the faith, are unlikely to rigorously analyze contributions to the point where a non-apologetic community would do so, but I have to object to one thing, scratch:

Yes, but these critical essays are merely acts of tokenism. They are obviously thrown in there precisely so that you can later say, "See! We include critical essays! We're not an attack journal! We really are scholarly!"

Come on, now. He demonstrated that they DO publish articles critical of one another at least occasionally. It seems to me that you ought to simply concede this point. Your response creates a no-win situation for DCP - kind of like when he asked me if I thought ANY believers on these boards were honest, sane, and intelligent people, and when I demonstrated that I certainly do, he changed the goalposts by claiming these people weren't prominent enough to count. You can't change the goalpost, or find a reason to discard evidence once it's been provided. You have plenty of other points on which to continue, in fairness, you ought to concede this point to DCP.

I see what you are saying, Beastie, and certainly I do applaud them for publishing stuff at least resembling real criticism. But are these *significant* criticisms? Are these essays which challenge anything key or fundamental within either the Church, or, more importantly, apologetics? Or are they "straw men" essays? I don't know. It is a side point, anyways. My main contention has to do with the peer review process, and whether it is, to borrow your term, "incestuous."