Did DCP Just Do What I Think He Did?

[Guest]

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.

The fact that a submission process even exists and that unsolicited articles have been published therein refutes this claim. I'm sorry, but you are being outright ridiculous here.

[_antishock8]

So, LoaP, I'm not sure what evidence you have that articles are "submitted," since, based on these "Submission Guidelines," such things never happen---at least not in the normative sense.

They absolutely do. People actually do submit articles. You have apparently submitted none, though you keep tip-toeing around the issue. You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take, Ms. Scratch.

Apologist: Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls***

"Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor."

He's not saying "people" don't submit articles, he's criticizing the submission by invitation. In other words, how likely do you think a serious scholarly paper showing no correlation between Book of Mormon events and real, historical events would be published by F.A.R.M.S.? Unlikely since their aim isn't to promote science, but rather sustain faith. Request to publish article: DENIED.

[_Trevor]

Ggggaaagghh. Please stop projecting.

And how exactly do you imagine that?

[_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.

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 guess this would need to be demonstrated.

[_Mister Scratch]

And where is your evidence that Coe does not know Book of Mormon geography? Sorry, LoaP, but I'm going to have to issue a CFR for this one.

Check out Coe's comments in the PBS documentary, for starters. Compare them to Sorenson's compilation of actual Book of Mormon geographic references.

Which documentary? The Mormons?

What "many praises"? Let's see your evidence, LoaP.

At a recent talk Bushman gave at Weber State Bushman noted he liked much of what has been produced regarding Mormon history and apologetics. He said:

"We have devoted so much of our intellectual recourses to two activities: history and apologetics. We have a Mormon History Association, we have FARMS and FAIR. And we do a pretty good job, actually, at doing Mormon history. I’m quite proud of what Mormon scholars as a group have produced. The Journal of Mormon History is a very respectable journal and we have won the respect of historians around the country for what we do; and we always will have historians. And our apologists are not bad. Not everyone accepts the way they make their arguments but they do have arguments and they bring evidence. They are able to take virtually any criticism of any aspect of Mormonism and prepare a defense. Huge energy goes into this, a fair amount of money, and all that stuff is available on these websites. So we’ve done a pretty good job there."

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.)

Oh? And which articles were "submitted and reviewed"? According to the main FARMS website (and in direct contrast to typical academic journals), *all* articles have to first go through DCP, or whoever the Ed. in Chief is. This is the full extent of the "Publication Guidelines" for FARMS Review:

The principal purpose of the FARMS Review is to help serious readers make informed choices and judgments about books published, primarily on the Book of Mormon. The evaluations are intended to encourage reliable scholarship on the Book of Mormon and the other ancient scriptures.

Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor. Style guidelines will be sent to the reviewers.

This is highly unusual for an "academic" journal, since most serious academic journals have an open submission policy and don't require scholars to first "contact the editor."

Wouldn't the editor be contacted at some point for all journals? And you also say "most serious academic journals." This would indicate that not all do.

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.

So, LoaP, I'm not sure what evidence you have that articles are "submitted," since, based on these "Submission Guidelines," such things never happen---at least not in the normative sense.

They absolutely do. People actually do submit articles.

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 have apparently submitted none, though you keep tip-toeing around the issue. You'll always miss 100% of the shots you don't take, Ms. Scratch.

Two points:

1) You do not know whether or not I have submitted anything, and I'm not going to tell you.
2) Is there some reason why you use the "Ms. Scratch" thing? Not that I mind or anything, I just find it...interesting.

[Guest]

Apologist: Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls***

"Reviews are written by invitation. Any person interested in writing a review should first contact the editor."

He's not saying "people" don't submit articles, he's criticizing the submission by invitation. In other words, how likely do you think a serious scholarly paper showing no correlation between Book of Mormon events and real, historical events would be published by F.A.R.M.S.?

You also seem to be overlooking the other projects with with FARMS is associated. You also seem to be under the impression that because the bulk of material produced by FARMS is related to Mormonism is a flaw. But the organization exists for Mormon studies.

Unlikely since their aim isn't to promote science, but rather sustain faith. Request to publish article: DENIED.

Again, you spout falsehood. I have cited a specific example of an "unorthodox" article in FR which definitely does not only "sustain faith." It was written by a non-Mormon by the name of Heiser. But this is beside the point; you keep skirting the actual issue, as does Ms. Scratch. Have you made any efforts to submit any review to FARMS, yes or no?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

The fact that a submission process even exists and that unsolicited articles have been published therein refutes this claim. I'm sorry, but you are being outright ridiculous here.

Come now, LoaP, you are playing semantic games. Which articles published in FARMS Review were "unsolicited"? Please be specific. (Oh, and by the way: by "unsolicited," I mean that the full MSS were submitted blind to the Ed. in Chief, just like what happens at typical academic journals.)

[_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.

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 guess this would need to be demonstrated.

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

[_antishock8]

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

Red Herring.

You also seem to be under the impression that because the bulk of material produced by FARMS is related to Mormonism is a flaw. But the organization exists for Mormon studies.

Straw Man.

You are so full of s***. This is how Mormons roll. Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls***.

Let's review:

Critic: All articles published at FARMS have to be by invite and approved by the Ed. in Chief. FARMS doesn't follow a normative submission process. Therefore the articles are normally un-academic in nature.

Apologist: Bulls*** Bulls*** Bulls***.

Critic: That's Bulls***.

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

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Which documentary? The Mormons?

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

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. 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.

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.

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!"

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.