DiscussMormonism.com

An extremely interesting tidbit emerged in the "Comments" section of the TIME Magazine photo essay that Runtu linked to in a separate thread:

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/12/05/hap ... ringing/#1

Down in the "Comments" section, Mike "Tuffy" Parker, of SHIELDS infamy, made a startling admission:

Mike Parker wrote:Yep, I wrote one article independently ten years ago that a FARMS editor—on his own initiative—picked up, expanded, and then asked my permission to publish in the Insights newsletter.

What exactly does this prove?

Whoa! "Expanded"? What does Parker mean by this, exactly? We know already that something similar happened to LifeOnaPlate's FARMS essay. LoaP indicated that he was forced to accept unwanted editorial changes to his work. Did something similar happen with Parker's "Insights" piece?

This raises a whole panoply of issues: the key FARMS Mopologists have often tried to play up the "diversity" of their contributors, and yet here, Parker seems to be implying that a certain amount of "other" writers' work is actually just editorial meddling from the FARMS staff. If true, this would mean that the FARMS Review is even more of a "Good Ol' Boys" club than we originally thought. One can only wonder: How many of the articles were actually written by Louis "Woody" Midgley, Dan Peterson, or one of the other top-tier Mopologists? To what extent does the editorial staff "reshape" others' work in order to suit the publications agenda?

This is quite a remarkable revelation. Many thanks to "Tuffy" Parker for this lovely, early Christmas gift.

I'm half tempted to write apologetic articles under a penname and submit them to MI just to see whether they would get the expansion treatment.

Kishkumen wrote:I'm half tempted to write apologetic articles under a penname and submit them to MI just to see whether they would get the expansion treatment.

It would be like the Sokal affair all over again.

MrStakhanovite wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:I'm half tempted to write apologetic articles under a penname and submit them to MI just to see whether they would get the expansion treatment.

It would be like the Sokal affair all over again.

Indeed!

Kishkumen wrote:I'm half tempted to write apologetic articles under a penname and submit them to MI just to see whether they would get the expansion treatment.

That's a brilliant idea. The trouble is that they commission almost 100% of their articles. It's not as if they're out there fishing for great material; they're controlling everything like vise-sphinctered dictators. It really is a "Good Ol' Boys" club.

Doctor Scratch wrote:

Kishkumen wrote:I'm half tempted to write apologetic articles under a penname and submit them to MI just to see whether they would get the expansion treatment.

That's a brilliant idea. The trouble is that they commission almost 100% of their articles. It's not as if they're out there fishing for great material; they're controlling everything like vise-sphinctered dictators. It really is a "Good Ol' Boys" club.

Isn't editing, expanding, reinterpretation, selective omission etc the very essence of Mopologetics? It is this essence, as applied by the Mopologists, that is causing so much alleged chagrin for a certain follicly challenged Church senior authority...