FARMS H-bombs the Three Nephites

[_LifeOnaPlate]

So, Scratch, your belief is that the reason this reviewer is so hard on the book is because the author is outside of the FARMS "inner circle"?

Yes, pretty much. Do I believe that this happens 100% of the time? No. Do I believe that members of the "inner circle" are totally immune from this treatment? No. Part of the "inner circle" involves allegiance to ideology, and so if someone steps out of line, then they, too, can be "nuked."

Do any reviews in the FARMS Review ever contradict each other?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, pretty much. Do I believe that this happens 100% of the time? No. Do I believe that members of the "inner circle" are totally immune from this treatment? No. Part of the "inner circle" involves allegiance to ideology, and so if someone steps out of line, then they, too, can be "nuked."

Do any reviews in the FARMS Review ever contradict each other?

Did I say that adherence to both the "inner circle" and the "ideology" had to happen 100% of the time?

I tend not to deal in absolutes, LoaP. That is a TBM thing. (And a Sith thing, incidentally.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Did I say that adherence to both the "inner circle" and the "ideology" had to happen 100% of the time?

I tend not to deal in absolutes, LoaP. That is a TBM thing. (And a Sith thing, incidentally.)

I'm far from a general absolutist.

It would seem that the FARMS monolith concept you wish to portray has some merit. For example, it has a strong bias toward presenting the Book of Mormon as an actual ancient record. There is no attempt to hide this fact, in fact, it is trumpeted. Still, there are rather significant disagreements over what the particular evidence means, as shown by various reviews which do not agree on significant points like method of translation, the plausibility of certain old and new world influences on the Book of Mormon, etc.

[_Yoda]

So, Scratch, your belief is that the reason this reviewer is so hard on the book is because the author is outside of the FARMS "inner circle"?

Yes, pretty much. Do I believe that this happens 100% of the time? No. Do I believe that members of the "inner circle" are totally immune from this treatment? No. Part of the "inner circle" involves allegiance to ideology, and so if someone steps out of line, then they, too, can be "nuked."

Do you feel that Daniel played a part in orchestrating this particular review? And, if you feel that is the case, what do you think his motivation might have been?

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, pretty much. Do I believe that this happens 100% of the time? No. Do I believe that members of the "inner circle" are totally immune from this treatment? No. Part of the "inner circle" involves allegiance to ideology, and so if someone steps out of line, then they, too, can be "nuked."

Do you feel that Daniel played a part in orchestrating this particular review?

"Orchestrating"? Well, that's an interesting way of putting it. We know that the vast bulk of reviews are "commissioned," that is, they are ordered up by the FARMS editorial staff. We also know that essentially 100% of the material that winds up in the finished journals has been given the stamp of approval from DCP. We also know, thanks to Gad's inquiry about the upcoming FARMS "treatment" of Meldrum, that articles typically go through a very, very thorough vetting process. So, did DCP personally "orchestrate" the review?

I guess my answer would have to be, "Sort of."

And, if you feel that is the case, what do you think his motivation might have been?

You would have to ask him. He has said elsewhere that his ambition was for the Review to cover every single book published on the Book of Mormon.

Or, are you actually asking what his motivation may have been in allowing a review this harsh and negative to make it into the journal?

[_Ray A]

To a point I have to agree there's some real overkill in this review. Hill writes:

The Beardalls apparently plan a second volume. In the introduction, they request their readers to submit additional accounts of Three Nephite visitations. I hope that in their next attempt the Beardalls will begin to employ professional and ethical research, attribution, and editing methods.

Would he have wanted Joseph Smith to do the same with his Moroni visitation account?

I think I understand Hill's context, but he also writes:

This raises a serious question for Latter-day Saints: should these sacred experiences be repeated and published? President George Albert Smith, in response to a question from folklorist Hector Lee regarding collecting and publishing Three Nephite stories, stated:

Furthermore, so far as records of manifestations are concerned, the doctrine of the Church is that these are given for the up-building of the individuals to whom they come and that they are not for public display or public recording. They are regarded as sacred by those who have them, and while they may on occasion repeat them, generally speaking, I repeat, they are for the individual who receives them.18

I think Hill is more concerned about "folklore" becoming rife, than "personal sacred experiences" being protected. But to these people, these experiences were obviously real.

[_Mister Scratch]

To a point I have to agree there's some real overkill in this review. Hill writes:

The Beardalls apparently plan a second volume. In the introduction, they request their readers to submit additional accounts of Three Nephite visitations. I hope that in their next attempt the Beardalls will begin to employ professional and ethical research, attribution, and editing methods.

Would he have wanted Joseph Smith to do the same with his Moroni visitation?

Or would he demand that Bill Hamblin produce a photocopy of the 2nd Watson Letter? Or that DCP properly cite his verbatim quotes lifted off this board?

[_Ray A]

Or would he demand that Bill Hamblin produce a photocopy of the 2nd Watson Letter?

I've suggested to Dan before that perhaps he should try to obtain a copy from the Secretary to the First Presidency. I think that would solve all the endless debates about this. If it exists, it must be on file.

[_Danna]

To a point I have to agree there's some real overkill in this review. Hill writes:

"The Beardalls apparently plan a second volume. In the introduction, they request their readers to submit additional accounts of Three Nephite visitations. I hope that in their next attempt the Beardalls will begin to employ professional and ethical research, attribution, and editing methods."

Would he have wanted Joseph Smith to do the same with his Moroni visitation?

Or would he demand that Bill Hamblin produce a photocopy of the 2nd Watson Letter? Or that DCP properly cite his verbatim quotes lifted off this board?

Having just read the review, I think that Hill shows quite clearly that the book deserved a good nuking, regardless of subject matter, for outright plagiarism. The claim that the book is popular makes it quite important to highlight what is essentially fraud. The examples provided show that this is not a case of shonky citations, but deliberate misrepresentation of the work of others.

Just my $0.02.

[_Ray A]

Having just read the review, I think that Hill shows quite clearly that the book deserved a good nuking...

You'd first have to agree to lift the ban on US nuclear warships entering New Zealand.