Is FARMS Simply Self-Referential? That is, do they just quote themselves and pate themselves on the back and ignore scholarly works?

Is FARMS Simply Self-Referential Implying they are Useless?

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

(Note: This is approximately two years old, so that the non-Mormon sources have risen dramatically with the ever fresh publishing of more research from FARMS.)

This is the accusation, that FARMS simply refers to their own scholars most of the time so as to be circular in using evidence, and hence not a good source of information. They also use things out of context to bolster their claims.

Well, lets see just who FARMS is quoting. It is needless to utilize each and every single article and book they have printed, but I believe that we can establish a pattern of usage by doing what most critics refuse to do. Look at the evidence itself. critics seems to find it oh so much easier to just quote the anti-Mormon James White as if that suffices as evidence. So lets once again teach critics how to research and come to conclusions based on evidence available to us, namely FARMS research which critics claims he has looked into.

Brian Stubbs "Elements of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan: A Summary of the Data", uses 31 non-Mormon scholars in his study, as opposed to 0 FARMS scholars. Not a very good start for critics as far as evidence goes to supporting their claim.

John Welch/David J. Whittaker, "Mormonism's Open Canon" uses 64 LDS sources and 25 non-LDS sources. The issue and context with this is of course, the MORMON scriptures, so of course they will utilize the Mormons more themselves, but at least this helps Keryx's claims to be sure. Of course with this type of subject nothing else can be expected.

John Sorenson "A Reconsideration of Early Metal in Mesoamerica" uses 34 non-Mormon sources, and 1 Mormon source.

John Sorenson "Wheeled Figurines in the Ancient World" uses 67 non-Mormon sources and just 3 Mormon sources

Hugh Nibley "Plato's Athens" uses approximately 20 Greek sources, and a smattering (perhaps 4) non-Mormon sources, and 0 Mormon sources

John Sawyer's "What was a Mosiah?" is reprinted by FARMS from "Vetus Testamentum", and of course uses no Mormon sources, but it is used by FARMS in correlation with Mosiah in the BofM. The FARMS study on this uses this 1 non-Mormon source and 0 Mormon sources.

W.D. Davies article "Reflections on the Mormon Canon" reprinted with excited permission from Harvard Divinity School. So FARMS is even reprinting many non-Mormon sources as such! So much for self referential workings going on!

Read H. Putnam "Were the Golden Plates Made of Tumbaga?" uses 4 Mormon sources, and 4 non-Mormon sources.

"The Problem of Beards in the BofM" (I think that's the title, I am missing the Front page), by (?) uses literally dozens upon dozens of Mesoamerican archaeologists, no Mormon scholars.

William Eggington "Our Weakness in Writing: Oral and Literate Culture in the Book of Mormon", uses 3 of his own research papers, 1 other LDS source, and 5 non-Mormon scholars.

Stephen E. Robinson "Early Christianity and 1 Nephi 13-14"uses 3 Mormon sources (2 of them Joseph Smith - hardly a FARMS scholar), and 4 non-Mormon sources

John Welch "Preliminary Comments on the Sources behind the Book of Ether", uses 12 non-Mormon and 13 Mormon scholars.

Warren P. and Michaela J. Aston "The Place Which was Called Nahom" uses dozens and dozens of non-Mormon as well as Mormon scholars. Way too many to take the time and count.

John Sorenson "Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography" uses HUNDREDS of non-Mormon scholars.

John Sorenson/Martin Raish "Annotated Bibliography of Transoceanic crossings" uses over 5,000 Non-Mormon scholars, archaeologists, linguists, etc.

John Sorenson "Digging Into the Book of Mormon" uses hundreds of non-Mormon scholars

John Sorenson "An Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institute "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon" uses 24 non-Mormons and 1 Mormon

John Sorenson "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Codex" uses at least 30 non-Mormons and 10 Mormons

John Sorenson "The Significance of an Apparent Relationship Between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica" uses dozens of non-Mormons

FARMS Update (May 1994) Sorenson's article "Evidence of Tents in the Book of Mormon" uses 6 non-Mormons, 2 Mormons

FARMS Update (July 1994) William J. Hamblin's article "Metal Plates and the Book of Mormon" uses 5 non-Mormons and 4 Mormons

John Sorenson article "Was There Leprosy Among the Nephites?" (FARMS Update Sept. 1994), uses 4 non-Mormons, 1 Mormon

John Welch's article "Unintentional Sin in Benjamin's Discourse" (FARMS Update April 1996), uses 3 non-Mormons, 0 Mormons

Now this is not saying that FARMS does not refer to their own scholars. Of course they do! It just happens to be the plain fact that Mormon scholars are the experts in Mormonism, so of course they are referred to, and often. We believe in using the best available researcher in whatever field we are studying. But to say that FARMS just uses circular scholarship with the obvious implication that they are useless, is laughably absurd, and the evidence does not point this out. I have left out the major books by FARMS which lists thousands of non-Mormon scholars as well. critics are simply asserting that which they cannot demonstrate. I know, I have the evidence. A rough tally gives us:

Non-Mormons used - 5,530

Mormons used - 150 (and I am being extra kind here!)

Can critics quit being so lazy and name calling and bother to get to the issues that FARMS discusses, or will they continue unrepentant showing us what kind of fob jobs they are capable of? We prefer solid research, instead of name calling.