I realized today that it's been a really, really long time since the Maxwell Institute has dropped out another "steaming pile" for us to peruse. Now, I realize that they have probably been forced to change things drastically after a General Authority put a halt to their attempts to smear John Dehlin. Still, it's been something like 9 months since we last had an issue of the Review, and it really wasn't all that long about (two years or so?) that yet *another* issue had to be put on hold due to "issues with the cover" (whatever that meant). I wonder: are they planning to only publish one per year from here on out--perhaps due to admonitions from the GAs? Regardless, I can't help but think that the Review has been encountering a lot of devastating setbacks.

Does it come out at a certain time each quarter?

One person's devastating setback is another person's mild annoyance.

Is that all you have to say, Scratch? Very unlike you.

It may be a good time to stop and take stock a bit. Since there is an established tradition of thoughtful criticisms of books on the Book of Mormon and other LDS topics of interest, one wonders what purpose these hit pieces on members in good standing really serve except perhaps to embitter the target and give others license to marginalize members who think differently. I can't see the benefit in that.

Perhaps we will see a "kinder, gentler" review that gets back to its founding principles. Everyone would be better off, if such were to happen.

Everyone knows it but just isn't talking about it: The page counts of the Review have been decreasing steadily over the years and the MTBP (mean time between polemics) have been increasing.

This, of course, it not surprising given the death of the limited geography theory.

Do you think polemical reviews stimulate more Liahona-level contributions?

That's a fantastic question, Reverend. The answer is probably "yes". We've had some discussions with J Green and parallel to this FAIR is all pretending they're invested in a scholarly tone, but I really don't think the nitch of apologetics in general is scholarship -- well, there ARE some obvious reasons why. I think the readership of the Review generally speaking, likes seeing the scholars, the intellectual giants of FARMS -- as they so bill themselves -- crush critics, questioning members, and "folk" members, as many apologists hatefully refer to them.

Of course, as the declining page counts and diminishing readership indicates, the market for polemics is contracting. The game is changing.

So your guess would be that this polemical path will only hasten the decline of the Review?

Maybe the FARNERS took seriously the criticism that their peer review was just a sham and have sought to bolster the non-lds scholars who would review and approve the papers sent to them.

Perhaps to date they have found non-lds scholars willing to be peer review panel members.


Thus no FARMS review has made it to the presses- What should FARMS do?

Punt or close down seem to be 2 viable options -Punting says forget non-lds reviewers and call up the usual suspects and get that damn journal to print.

Closing down has no downsides IMHO!

What say thou ye FARMERS?

that's a good question. that's like asking if the church continues supporting the missionary effort if that will hasten its demise given the contracting market.

kind of depends on how you look at it.

What's Scratch's *opinion* (I can do that too) on all this? Apart from the OP?

I agree. Remember how that one wealthy LDS called D. Michael Quinn a "nothing person"? What do you want to bet that he's a Liahona-level contributor?

I think that one of the key historical puzzle piece in all of this--as was suggested to me by Dean Robbers--is SHIELDS. You have to remember that, orignally, SHIELDS was pretty much the only game in town, and this was before the apologists learned to conduct themselves online (so to speak).



Yes... Though it's tough to read the crystal ball at this point, imo. FWIW, I was alerted to a potential "changing of the guard" at the MI in the coming months. Of course, I have no idea if it's true or not. I may post on this later.

Excellent observations by many participating in this thread. My personal theory is the people composing FARMS Review have received extensive heat from leadership. I have a credible source telling me that leaders are not pleased with the direction of FARMS. Do I think they should close up shop? Not necessarily, but I do believe the time is now to begin conducting actual scholarship. What FARMS has put forth, to this point, has been little more than sourced blog posts. Sourced blog posts are not necessarily a bad phenomenon if these sourced blog posts are billed as sourced blog posts and not something much higher such as scholarship.

When I think of FARMS, I am quickly reminded of the esteemed author: Mike Ash and his groundbreaking book Shaking Faith Syndrome. Ash's book is very much like an edition of FARMS Review in that it is regurgitation of ideas thrown at a wall (likely first seen on a forum such as a message board) in hopes these ideas will stick. If these ideas receive acceptance then publication begins. In no way do these ideas pass any sort of traditional peer review.

Here's how I see it: the polemics will attract a small core of real fanatical devotees (some wealthy), who are happy to see liberals and anti's get what is coming to them, but a larger number of people will be turned off by the negativity and contradiction of a Christian organization engaging in character assassination, as in the Laura Compton "review."

These ironically named "Liahona" level donors will form an important source of contributions going forward, but smaller contributions will decline as people follow the advice of apostles to be kind online and represent the Church well as a Christ-centered organization.

Just a thought.

You make an excellent point. For a period of 17 years (1994 -- 2010) the Review was published twice a year; then, in 2011, there was only one volume; so far, through nearly half of 2012, nothing.

Yeah, it really is strange, Rollo. It makes me wonder yet again whether all my old speculations about Brethren "interference" with the process were on the money after all. Plus, as Gadianton pointed out, the page count seems to be diminishing.

I think it has a lot to do with a certain someone running for political office and not wanting to rock the boat, or submarine, (tight, like unto a dish)

Maybe they intend to save the forests and go entirely digital once the current reviews have been correlated and approved.

That may have something to do with it, though I believe that there are other things brewing. Hopefully I'll be able to comment more extensively in the coming days.

I'd like to point out that, every single last time that I have posted about a delay in the publication of the Review, DCP has started a thread on the FAIR/MAD/MDD board in response. Every. Single. Time. Without fail. What, I have to wonder aloud, is causing him to fall totally stone-silent this time around?

C'mon, Dr. Peterson: I know you're reading. I'm sure that there are a lot of people from MDD reading here as well, wondering what's going on. You shouldn't leave them in the dark.