This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mormon Studies Review article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies was copied or moved into Mormon Studies Review on 22:15, 2 April 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
...(the new one, in contrast to the old one) was noted in the Peggy Stack "Split among M. Scholars" piece. In full, its members are listed
here. The Church's reaching out to hire or otherwise involve scholars who had established their expertise at academic posts at non-LDS affil. educational institutions tends to be a cyclical thing, depending on the Brethrens' whim the mood of the times.
For example--and of pertinence to the present case: The Joseph Smith Papers Project is an endeavor that is cosponsored by the LDS Church and some branch of the US gov. (library of congress or something) to go through all of Jos. Smith Jun.'s writings. If one goes to the Wikiarticle on the project and looks at the scholars the Church has assigned the task, all of 'em come from CES (the Church's education system). Except for just about the youngest of the bunch: Matt Grow... who had been a new university prof somewhere in the midwest who had written an award winning biography of Thomas Kane and co-authored an award-winning bio of Parley Pratt (the latter published by Oxford, which does titles in M. Studies, oddly enough). And Grow had been assigned to be the C. Hist. Dept.'s new director of publishing.
So, reading the tea leaves, it seems to be of note that--out of all the few LDS-affiliated folks brought in to be on the NEW M. Studies Review's board--it was (1) the youthful Grow who made the cut as the only non-BYU prof. to do so.
And BYU Engl. prof. Fluhman, the MSR's new ed. in chief's, one book was an examination of anti-Mormonism so his selection might reveal a certain indication that BYU hopes that the new version of the journal will address outside scholarship about Mormonism from a secular perspective while being on the look out for prejudice against LDS, but maybe I'm making more of that than I ought.
By the way the rest of the board's membership are
(2) Barlow, who chairs "Mormon History and Culture" at Ut. State Univ.;
(3) Bushman, retired from Columbia, for a short time was the inaugural chair of M. Studies at Claremont;
(4) non-Mormon Davies is the Prof of Theology and Religion at Durham;
(5) Eliason, an Engl. prof at Brigham Young;
(6) Faulconer, Professor of Religious Understanding and also Professor of Philosophy, Brigham Young;
(7) non-Mormon[oops!] Flake teaches at Vanderbilt;
(8) Givens chairs the English dept. and is the prof. of Literature and Religion at the Univ. of Richmond;
(9) [Added later: non-Mormon] Gordon is the professor of Constitutional Law and professor of History at Penn;
(10) Hardy is the prof. of History and Religious Studies at the Univ. of No. Carolina—Asheville;
(11) Holland teaches at Harvard Divinity School;
(12) Maffly-Kipp chairs the dept. of relig. studies at the Univ. of No. Carolina at Chapel Hill;
(13) Mason is current chair of M. Studies at Claremont Graduate University;
(14) Newell teaches at the Univ. of Wyoming; and
(15) Underwood is Prof. of History at Brigham Young.--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk)
18:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (Reformatted the above.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)it seems certain that the principal factor was a desire to become more purely “academic,” and to reconceive its audience as not merely including professional scholars but as primarily if not exclusively composed of full-time academics and academic libraries.
[... ...]
the renaming of the FARMS Review as the Mormon Studies Review[...]represented [inerjection by Wikipedian Hodgdon: in hindsight, if nothing else] a fundamental change of mission for the journal[...].
--Dan Peterson, in Interpreter ---SOURCE LINK
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Goals: ...first, to track the growth and development of the growing, if still inchoate, academic subfield of Mormon studies, and second, to serve as a bridge between Mormon studies and the wider academy.
Self-description: "About Mormon Studies Review
Since it was re-launched six years ago, Mormon Studies Review has been the premier review journal of a popular, evolving, and interdisciplinary subfield. Published annually, it typically includes roundtables, disciplinary essays, review essays, and a handful of book reviews that in some way cover the Mormon tradition and its wider world. Contributions traverse many different disciplines, topics, centuries, and nations, and touch on issues related to religion, politics, gender, race, and class. The authors have included seasoned leaders in their respective fields as well as junior scholars fresh out of graduate programs. The primary audience for the journal is academics and institutions who, while not specialists in Mormon studies, are interested in its scholarship as it relates to broader academic trends and topics."
"Members of current editorial board include:
Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, Senior Lecturer in Asian Studies, University of Auckland
Seth Perry, Assistant Professor of Religion, Princeton University
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 23:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the Mormon Studies Review be considered the same publication as the FARMS Review? As I understand it here are the reasons:
What do you think? I'm leaning toward them being different journals, and we should probably consult the various statements that were made publicly in 2011/2012 and when the Review started up again. —— Rich jj ( talk) 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to show that the new MSR is a different animal, but still descends from its predecessor, the FARMS review. Someday we might want to create a separate article for the FARMS review (and move that section on notable apologia). Interestingly, when Spencer Fluhman wrote the editor's introduction to the rebooted Review, he didn't mention Peterson and only referred to FARMS in a footnote. It seems as if the new Review is a separate publication, but is also continuing from the original FARMS publication. The line seems hazy. —— Rich jj ( talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The FARMS Review and the Mormon Studies Review are separate periodicals, per writings in a journal article from Brant Gardner. Gardner was familiar with the FARMS institution and its periodical and wrote the following in a 2021 article for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: The journal first appeared as the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon in 1989. In 1996, it became the FARMS Review of Books and then, in 2003, simply the FARMS Review. For one final issue before the journal ceased publication, it became the Mormon Studies Review in 2011 (not to be confused with the still-current Mormon Studies Review, which published its first issue in 2014).
See Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 30 (2021): 156–157.
The way Gardner describes it, although the FARMS Review was renamed the Mormon Studies Review in 2011, it and the 2014-launched Mormon Studies Review are separate publications, despite the name they shared.
The best course of action seems to me to be to create separate pages for the FARMS Review and the Mormon Studies Review and to identify them as different periodicals. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mormon Studies Review article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies was copied or moved into Mormon Studies Review on 22:15, 2 April 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
...(the new one, in contrast to the old one) was noted in the Peggy Stack "Split among M. Scholars" piece. In full, its members are listed
here. The Church's reaching out to hire or otherwise involve scholars who had established their expertise at academic posts at non-LDS affil. educational institutions tends to be a cyclical thing, depending on the Brethrens' whim the mood of the times.
For example--and of pertinence to the present case: The Joseph Smith Papers Project is an endeavor that is cosponsored by the LDS Church and some branch of the US gov. (library of congress or something) to go through all of Jos. Smith Jun.'s writings. If one goes to the Wikiarticle on the project and looks at the scholars the Church has assigned the task, all of 'em come from CES (the Church's education system). Except for just about the youngest of the bunch: Matt Grow... who had been a new university prof somewhere in the midwest who had written an award winning biography of Thomas Kane and co-authored an award-winning bio of Parley Pratt (the latter published by Oxford, which does titles in M. Studies, oddly enough). And Grow had been assigned to be the C. Hist. Dept.'s new director of publishing.
So, reading the tea leaves, it seems to be of note that--out of all the few LDS-affiliated folks brought in to be on the NEW M. Studies Review's board--it was (1) the youthful Grow who made the cut as the only non-BYU prof. to do so.
And BYU Engl. prof. Fluhman, the MSR's new ed. in chief's, one book was an examination of anti-Mormonism so his selection might reveal a certain indication that BYU hopes that the new version of the journal will address outside scholarship about Mormonism from a secular perspective while being on the look out for prejudice against LDS, but maybe I'm making more of that than I ought.
By the way the rest of the board's membership are
(2) Barlow, who chairs "Mormon History and Culture" at Ut. State Univ.;
(3) Bushman, retired from Columbia, for a short time was the inaugural chair of M. Studies at Claremont;
(4) non-Mormon Davies is the Prof of Theology and Religion at Durham;
(5) Eliason, an Engl. prof at Brigham Young;
(6) Faulconer, Professor of Religious Understanding and also Professor of Philosophy, Brigham Young;
(7) non-Mormon[oops!] Flake teaches at Vanderbilt;
(8) Givens chairs the English dept. and is the prof. of Literature and Religion at the Univ. of Richmond;
(9) [Added later: non-Mormon] Gordon is the professor of Constitutional Law and professor of History at Penn;
(10) Hardy is the prof. of History and Religious Studies at the Univ. of No. Carolina—Asheville;
(11) Holland teaches at Harvard Divinity School;
(12) Maffly-Kipp chairs the dept. of relig. studies at the Univ. of No. Carolina at Chapel Hill;
(13) Mason is current chair of M. Studies at Claremont Graduate University;
(14) Newell teaches at the Univ. of Wyoming; and
(15) Underwood is Prof. of History at Brigham Young.--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)--
Hodgdon's secret garden (
talk)
18:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (Reformatted the above.)-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)it seems certain that the principal factor was a desire to become more purely “academic,” and to reconceive its audience as not merely including professional scholars but as primarily if not exclusively composed of full-time academics and academic libraries.
[... ...]
the renaming of the FARMS Review as the Mormon Studies Review[...]represented [inerjection by Wikipedian Hodgdon: in hindsight, if nothing else] a fundamental change of mission for the journal[...].
--Dan Peterson, in Interpreter ---SOURCE LINK
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Goals: ...first, to track the growth and development of the growing, if still inchoate, academic subfield of Mormon studies, and second, to serve as a bridge between Mormon studies and the wider academy.
Self-description: "About Mormon Studies Review
Since it was re-launched six years ago, Mormon Studies Review has been the premier review journal of a popular, evolving, and interdisciplinary subfield. Published annually, it typically includes roundtables, disciplinary essays, review essays, and a handful of book reviews that in some way cover the Mormon tradition and its wider world. Contributions traverse many different disciplines, topics, centuries, and nations, and touch on issues related to religion, politics, gender, race, and class. The authors have included seasoned leaders in their respective fields as well as junior scholars fresh out of graduate programs. The primary audience for the journal is academics and institutions who, while not specialists in Mormon studies, are interested in its scholarship as it relates to broader academic trends and topics."
"Members of current editorial board include:
Melissa Wei-Tsing Inouye, Senior Lecturer in Asian Studies, University of Auckland
Seth Perry, Assistant Professor of Religion, Princeton University
-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 23:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the Mormon Studies Review be considered the same publication as the FARMS Review? As I understand it here are the reasons:
What do you think? I'm leaning toward them being different journals, and we should probably consult the various statements that were made publicly in 2011/2012 and when the Review started up again. —— Rich jj ( talk) 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to show that the new MSR is a different animal, but still descends from its predecessor, the FARMS review. Someday we might want to create a separate article for the FARMS review (and move that section on notable apologia). Interestingly, when Spencer Fluhman wrote the editor's introduction to the rebooted Review, he didn't mention Peterson and only referred to FARMS in a footnote. It seems as if the new Review is a separate publication, but is also continuing from the original FARMS publication. The line seems hazy. —— Rich jj ( talk) 23:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The FARMS Review and the Mormon Studies Review are separate periodicals, per writings in a journal article from Brant Gardner. Gardner was familiar with the FARMS institution and its periodical and wrote the following in a 2021 article for the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: The journal first appeared as the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon in 1989. In 1996, it became the FARMS Review of Books and then, in 2003, simply the FARMS Review. For one final issue before the journal ceased publication, it became the Mormon Studies Review in 2011 (not to be confused with the still-current Mormon Studies Review, which published its first issue in 2014).
See Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 30 (2021): 156–157.
The way Gardner describes it, although the FARMS Review was renamed the Mormon Studies Review in 2011, it and the 2014-launched Mormon Studies Review are separate publications, despite the name they shared.
The best course of action seems to me to be to create separate pages for the FARMS Review and the Mormon Studies Review and to identify them as different periodicals. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 10:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)