The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) was an informal collaboration of academics devoted to Latter-day Saint historical scholarship.

While allowing some degree of academic freedom to its scholars, FARMS was committed to the conclusion that LDS scriptures are authentic, historical texts written by prophets of God.

In late 2010, Daniel C. Peterson, editor of the FARMS Review for over twenty years, announced the journal would be renamed Mormon Studies Review to reflect "readjustments over the past several years in what is now known as the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; the old title, FARMS, no longer reflects the way we're organized.

Peterson retained his title of editor-in-chief of the Institute's Middle Eastern Texts Initiative until resigning from that post in September 2013.

[8] Work produced under FARMS's auspices has been critiqued by Mormons, ex-Mormons, secular scholars, and evangelical Christians.

[9] FARMS has stated that the work it supported "conforms to established canons of scholarship, is peer reviewed, and reflects solely the views of individual authors and editors.

"[9] Two evangelical Christian scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, examined the scholarship produced by FARMS.

Their subsequent report at the April 25, 1997, Far West Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, praised the high quality of FARMS' scholarship, concluding that their fellow evangelicals had lost the apologetic battle against the Mormons largely due to excellent research and publication by FARMS.

Sorenson writes that supporters of the limited geography idea, including some high-ranking church leaders, believe this model is consistent with anthropological, archaeological and genetic findings about indigenous peoples in the Americas, as well as with the text of the Book of Mormon.

For instance, after his work was reviewed in a FARMS publication, molecular biologist Simon Southerton, a former member of the LDS Church and author of Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church,[12] claimed the organization existed merely to "prop up faith in the Book of Mormon" and that its work "stretched the bounds of credibility to breaking point on almost every critical issue.

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.