FARMS Review and Seriousness

[_Mister Scratch]

The Good Professor is so wound up about all of this that he's whining about it in a totally separate thread:

You might have used the analogy of purporting to describe the FARMS Review while leaving out the thousands of pages of evidence and analysis that it has published and pretending that it trafficks solely in ad hominems and character assassination. Believe it or not, there are people who are so base and/or so astonishingly incompetent, or so ignorant and so in the thrall of hostile caricatures, as -- I'm not making this up -- to do just that.

[_antishock8]

You might have used the analogy of purporting to describe the FARMS Review while leaving out the thousands of pages of evidence and analysis that it has published and pretending that it trafficks solely in ad hominems and character assassination. Believe it or not, there are people who are so base and/or so astonishingly incompetent, or so ignorant and so in the thrall of hostile caricatures, as -- I'm not making this up -- to do just that.

If there were ever a case for projection this would be it. Jesus.

[_Mister Scratch]

Does anyone know when this is supposed to appear online?

[_harmony]

The Good Professor is so wound up about all of this that he's whining about it in a totally separate thread:

You might have used the analogy of purporting to describe the FARMS Review while leaving out the thousands of pages of evidence and analysis that it has published and pretending that it trafficks solely in ad hominems and character assassination. Believe it or not, there are people who are so base and/or so astonishingly incompetent, or so ignorant and so in the thrall of hostile caricatures, as -- I'm not making this up -- to do just that.

IF the review actually stuck with dealing with evidence and analysis, no one would be commenting. But even one example of ad homs and character assassination is one too many, and unfortunately, the ad homs and character assassinations occur too often and too overtly, and over shadow the scholarship.

It's a pity, really.

[_Trevor]

Where's the real, front-to-back, academic journal on things Mormon?

The Journal of Mormon History?

[_Dr. Shades]

The Good Professor is so wound up about all of this that he's whining about it in a totally separate thread: [SNIP!]

How 'bout that. Heaven forbid we fail to appreciate the finer aspects of the Metcalfe is Butthead Digest.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

[_Doctor Steuss]

It used to be Dialogue. Increasingly, I think it's Journal of Mormon History.

I've been finding Element to be pretty groovy. But it's not the type of "front to back" journal that I think CKS is after, but it fills a nice niche, in my opinion.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It used to be Dialogue. Increasingly, I think it's Journal of Mormon History.

I've been finding Element to be pretty groovy.

I was about to say the same.

It has potential, but needs more subscribers. And a new design because it is ugly to the eye. But interesting stuff.

[_cksalmon]

Where's the real, front-to-back, academic journal on things Mormon?

The Journal of Mormon History?

I'm sure it's a great history journal. I've looked through the tables of content from several past issues (mainly from the mid-90's).

I certainly have nothing negative to say about it.

But, I guess I was thinking more specifically of a journal that could just as easily encompass philosophical, speculative, and theological articles as well penned by all and sundry whose submissions happen to be given blind thumbs-up based purely on quality of research and insight by a disparate group of peer reviewers (Mormon and non-).

(Which is not to say that JMH fails to meet those specifications as it focuses more narrowly on its given domain of inquiry.)

Element probably won't cut it for me, either (though I'm definitely interested and am seriously considering subscribing), simply because I have reservations about the breadth of viewpoints allowed. There's the business of "[the] journal takes seriously both the commitments of faith and the standards of scholarship," which is fine, but I don't foresee the journal actively seeking to publish non-LDS articles, especially articles by non-Mormons or ex-Mormons that are inherently critical of Mormonism or some facet thereof. Now, certainly, I wouldn't fault the journal for not doing so, but then my point is that I long to see a journal which not only might begrudgingly allow the occasional article that runs counter to Mormon belief, but rather actively encourages the broadest range of viewpoints possible--from LDS, non-LDS, ex-LDS, etc.

(Maybe I'm misrepresenting or just flatly misstating the editorial intentions for Element; if so, do tell.)

I think that sort of approach would necessarily lead to some sort of (perhaps long-term) collective objectivity--not in terms of individual articles, of course, but in terms of general publication policies and product.

My hypothetical journal would require a blind peer review process, the reviewers drawn from multiple, relevant perspectives and disciplines.

In passing, I would note that I do find it somewhat ironic that DCP has been named president-elect of the society while, if I'm remembering correctly, he has on more than one occasion stated that Mormonism doesn't really do theology.

Additionally, I would note that Element 2:1 does feature an article by (EV) Stephen Davis on the subject of the Trinity. I hope that's both a good-faith effort and a precursor of things to come. But, I hope that non-LDS, non-EV's are allowed to play, too.

Chris