WHY I NO LONGER TRUST FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS
JOHN HATCH
http://www.signaturebooks.com/sigstories.htm#FarmsJohn Hatch is a member of the Mormon church, who was first introduced to ‘FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS’ while on his mission. After his mission, he purchased all of the back issues of this publication, as he became entirely interested in Mormon history. After much studying and pondering, he came to several conclusions regarding their reviews that he presents in his article. John does make some very good points in his article that should be addressed. Although, I have also found a few points in his article that I felt wasn’t entirely fair to FARMS:
“After reading the reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism's past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church's past. As one who hopes to some day contribute to the body of the New Mormon History, I am deeply troubled by what I see as continued efforts to attack honest scholarly work…”
After reading the latter article that I reviewed above by Daniel C. Peterson Editor to ‘FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS’, it became obvious that Mr. Peterson justifies their position of “attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church's past” by asking the questions back, “So is there any place for invective in civilized public life? Is there any place for sharp language in the intellectual life of the Latter-day Saints? What should be its limits? What is "name-calling"?"” (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Editor's Introduction: Questions to Legal Answers, Daniel C. Peterson)
“First, the mission statements of FARMS. In the most recent issue of FARMS Review of Books, directly following the title page there is a page with the heading "To Our Readers." This page is an explanation of the purpose of FARMS and the purpose of Review of Books. One paragraph reads, "The principal purpose of FARMS Review of Books 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." This, as far as I can tell, is the officially stated purpose of FARMS Review of Books. As a reader of FARMS, I assumed this last statement meant helping readers make informed choices of what books to read, or what books to buy, or both…”
The point is somewhat of a true statement, yet the fact that FARMS does make some good points in their ‘REVIEW OF BOOKS’ at times, cannot be completely overlooked. We are not being fair to FARMS if we dismiss this point.
“Perhaps I could understand the attention given to some books reviewed by FARMS if it had been authored by a prominent General Authority or if there was a chance FARMS readers had actually heard of it. Yet FARMS continually reviews books that their readers wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. It's my observation (again as simply one who reads books and reads the reviews) that FARMS is not really interested in keeping their readers informed. It's my opinion that FARMS is merely interested in polemics. Most scholarly journals have a submission process. And most publish this submission process somewhere in the journal. FARMS explicitly states in their publication that reviews are written by invitation only. This refusal to accept submissions, coupled with reviews that have nothing to do with their mission statement, leads me to believe that FARMS is truly only interested in attacking and tearing down. They come across as having no interest in building up; they have no interest in being a scholarly journal with open dialogue...“
Mr. Hatch made somewhat of a good point here: “It's my opinion that FARMS is merely interested in polemics.” Since Mr. Peterson has made this quite apparent in his ‘REVIEW OF BOOKS Volume 6 Number 2', Editor's Introduction: Of Polemics, however, to be fair though, FARMS does more then their ‘REVIEW OF BOOKS', and I don't know of any other works that FARMS brings forth that is polemical in nature. However, the statement that “FARMS continually reviews books that their readers wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole”, is simply an observation that may be subjective, or biased, as there are articles in these volumes at times of LDS apologists disagreeing with one another. Like for example the scathing review of Brenton G. Yorgason's, 'Little Known Evidences of the Book of Mormon', found in Volume 2 'FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS’ written in 1990, by John Tvedtnes.
“Second, one of the most troubling aspects of FARMS Review of Books is their attempts to criticize history books… For some prominent FARMS reviewers, such as John Gee, I could not find a single entry that indicated a contribution to the field of Mormon history. Others had some articles, but most of their articles either have nothing to do with Mormon history or stray far from their expertise. For example, Louis Midgley, a popular FARMS apologist and reviewer, was a professor of political science at BYU, hardly a qualification for critiquing history books. Furthermore, the vast majority of Midgley's entries in the bibliography are from FARMS publications. Many FARMS reviewers have published numerous books and articles on ancient scripture studies, yet none of these reviewers appears qualified to be reviewing history books. One reviewer who actually is a history professor, William Hamblin, had only two entries in the Studies bibliography. One was a review that appeared in FARMS Review of Books, the other was an article published in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (the other FARMS publication) and had nothing to do with Mormon history."
As far as I know, John Gee's only real historical contribution is this book, 'A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri' (which was a great book for the background information of the Papyri}. He has written other essays and such that has been placed in other journals, yet, I don't believe that he has made any real historical contributions to 'FARMS Review of Books'. However, John has contributed responses to critical reviews of LDS history, yet he seems to stay within the topic of the Book of Abraham, and Reformed Egyptian. It is my opinion that it hardly matters if someone has “qualification for critiquing history books” Do the Tanners? Does Michael Marquardt? Does everyone of the critics, who have written historical books and essays have “qualification for critiquing history books”? See this argument can be turned around. To be fair we must not make an issue out of something that we don't care to be turned back around.
“Daniel C. Peterson, the editor of Review of Books, although having some entries, none were history publications that had appeared outside of FARMS's own journals. John Tvendtes did not have a single entry, nor did Duane Boyce. Danel Bachman, one of only two reviewers with more than one article not published by FARMS, has a total of seven entries. Compare this to another historian who immediately follows, Milton Backman. Dr. Backman has 46 entries including numerous books, pamphlets, and articles… I think it should come as no surprise that I am concerned that professional historians should be doing the writing and the reviewing. Those who are not professional historians have no business writing such scathing, in-depth reviews of history books…”
First off, John Hatch, spelled a name wrong in the above. John Tvedtnes. Minor detail, but wanted to make the clarification. Secondly, I agree that more “professional historians should be doing the writing and the reviewing.”, however, I believe that anyone that comprehends the subject matter at hand, can be involved in apologetic writing just as much as a qualified professional historian has his place. However, if more professional historians were to step forth on the Mormon front, things might become a little more interesting. Although, I personally don’t believe that anyone has any “business writing such scathing… reviews of history books…” especially when such name calling and character attacks are employed.
“One very important question that I would pose to FARMS's reviewers is why can't they, instead of attacking the work (and occasionally the faithfulness) of others, write their own books that enumerate what they believe and feel and have them stand on their own merits? I believe that true scholars produce their own books and articles that are strong enough to stand on their own without tearing down the work of others. Sometimes it appears that FARMS feels that if they tear down everyone else, they will be the only ones left standing. I strongly believe that no true scholar would ever build a reputation based on attacking the hard work of others.”
Unfortunately, I believe that Mr. Peterson has already answered the questions, as we have seen in the last review. However, I agree with everything stated in the above, and would like to see FARMS re-evaluate their positions. Rather then building their “reputation based on attacking the hard work of others.”
“Third, I am concerned about what FARMS doesn't review. This may seem odd, but let me explain. This is difficult because I don't feel I can use specific examples. Every person interested in history knows there are usually a lot more poor and inaccurate history books produced than the award-winning great ones. That's just as true in Mormon history as it is in any other history. Some of these inferior books are written by prominent authors and are widely distributed. Some, in my opinion, are even church sanctioned. But none of these inferior, inaccurate history books have ever been reviewed by FARMS. I find this very interesting. FARMS will review books by anti-Mormons that no one has ever read, yet they won't review mediocre history books that have gone through numerous printings and have been read by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of church members. Again, for me this shows where their true motivation lies. A true, scholarly journal would point out errors and criticisms to any work that has them. They would not just focus on those works that offend them or harm their agenda. As I have stated before, I, of course, do not know what their motivation is, but this is how it comes across.”
This is a good point. There are some books that it appears FARM's has distanced themselves from. However, I think that it would be fair to flip the coin and ask the question back, why has many of FARMS books been left unanswered? Like, for example, the notorious Hugh Nibley, and his many scholarly contributions to LDS research. Some of his works continue to go unexamined by the Evangelical community. Leaving some of the thought-provoking research of Hugh Nibley left unanswered. In the same light, it may appear to FARMS and their readers that this same agenda might be a part of the Evangelical community.
Conclusions:
“Last of my general concerns about FARMS is one simple question. However, this question, in my view, is easily the most important. Yet it is also the one I have had the most difficult time getting an answer to. That question is simply, why? Why does FARMS Review of Books feel it is necessary to attack in so brutal a manner books with which they disagree? Why does FARMS feel it is still Christian-like to belittle the works and faithfulness of others?”
“Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages. However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym. In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, "Metcalfe is Butthead" was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.”
“It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of "why" springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary? Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out "Metcalfe is Butthead" rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review. Why? That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?”
Once again, we come back to this same question, which may be an annoying repitition to FARMS, yet it is the most valid and crucial question to this whole article written by John Hatch. It also brings us back to the problem at hand. I pose this question back to FARMS and all of the apologetic community, “Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?”