A Closer Look at FARMS Review 17/2 (2005)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I think it begins to imply that the FARMS Review is more than what is supposed by several louder members of this message board.

[_Ray A]

In my mind, he and Kevin Barkey are in a mopologetic category all their own.

Chris, I'll be a pedantic ass, but I think that's supposed to be Barney.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The Review does contain some significant contributions from well-known Mormon thinkers and writers, and I really don't think there's anything to the idea that DCP (and his "cabal") sways it to his single-minded aim of making apologetics go in a certain direction. Of course it has an apologetic bias, and a strong one, but this is the nature of all journals/periodicals. In other words, it is unlikely to solicit a contribution from Christopher Hitchens on atheism's positive aspects, nor Ed Decker on how cults control people, nor, I imagine, would they want to contribute. Horses for courses. Like attracts like. When a writer wants to contribute to any journal they first read the objectives and aims of the organisation that hosts the journal, and if they are in agreement they will consider a contribution. I imagine that all of those who contributed to the Review agreed with its aims to some extent, even if not wholly agreeing with its editor's or other contributors' personal views.

[_CaliforniaKid]

In my mind, he and Kevin Barkey are in a mopologetic category all their own.

Chris, I'll be a pedantic ass, but I think that's supposed to be Barney.

lol! Nice catch. I think I had Margaret Barker on the brain.

[_The Nehor]

Well, Scratch I think is more of a TBM with an interest in "perfecting the saints".

Please don't say such things when I'm drinking something. Expelling things from your nose due to laughter is painful.