An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Themis]

Well am I or not?

Grant Palmer wasn't there in the 1820s/30s to be an insider to Mormon Origins.

I wasn't there in the 1770s to be an insider to the Revolutionary war.

Yet, Themis believes that we can both claim insider status to these events, right?

Your reading comprehension sucks.

That's the truth. I never said any such thing. In fact Simon is the one arguing it. He is the one who is making the claims insider can only be applied one way, which is incorrect. It's an insiders view, view being defined here as knowledge or opinion about. No one but Simon seems to be confused about it. I am not even aware of how Grants publishers are using insider as. Everyone here is just speculating, but other then Simon and maybe pahoran, no one was interpreting the title as GP living back then.

[_Doctor Scratch]

My father worked for CES for over three decades from seminary teacher, to institute director, to asst. and area directorships. I can categorically state that this did not give him anymore access to historical documents or sources than I myself or any other member, unless an institute library across the hall of his office full of church materials and books counts. He obtained during his career a large library himself but these would be titles such as FARMS publications, Journal of Discourses, etc.. I don't think that is what Mr. Palmer relied on. Any connections that would be utilized if my father wanted to write and publish a historical book relying on historical resources like Palmer's wouldn't have been gained while he worked with CES. He taught at BYU for a time and I would say that would have been his only access to an "insider status" properly defined by Dr. Petersen but even that I don't think reaches any level of "insider" insinuated by Palmer's book. Otherwise, my father's status would be no different than mine or yours as members of the church. He just had the ability to read correlated materials and books as part of his job teaching at a greater pace than members that have non-church jobs.

If my father wrote Palmer's book, and I have my knowledge of a CES man from growing up as child and knowing him, I would certainly feel misled by the exaggerated claim like Palmer's. I think a criticism and proper contextualization of the "insider" insinuations is perfectly proper and appropriate.

my regards, mikwut

Hi, Mikwut.

A couple of thoughts here:

1) Do you not think that your father was an "insider"?

2) Can you cite where Palmer was trying to portray himself in the same sense that Dr. Peterson is describing? What I'm sensing in your (and others') criticism is that Palmer supposedly trying to portray himself as a credentialed professional historian with a long list of publications, and that you find this "deceptive." But is this really true? I'd appreciate it if you'd provide text showing where Palmer claims to be an "insider" in the sense described by Dr. Peterson.

Thanks in advance.

[_mikwut]

Hello Dr. Scratch,

1) Do you not think that your father was an "insider"?

I think he was an "insider" if the context is the church, as in an active believing member. I think he was an "insider" if the context is CES, he worked in that context for many years. If my father wrote a book about being a believing member of the church I would think he would clearly satisfy any connotation of the word "insider". If my father wrote a book about CES and what it is like or related subjects I would think he would clearly satisfy any connotation of the word "insider". If my father wrote a historical work on the origins of Mormonism I do not think his career at CES would qualify him for any but the narrowest and irrelevant connotations of the term, and I would find a reliance on his career with CES to ad bona fides to the historical work as disengenuinous and playing to the Mormon crowd's usually misinformed opinions that CES folks know everything. My father contra Palmer has a master's and a PHd. I still don't think that would qualify him, it isn't in history or Mormon origins.

2) Can you cite where Palmer was trying to portray himself in the same sense that Dr. Peterson is describing? What I'm sensing in your (and others') criticism is that Palmer supposedly trying to portray himself as a credentialed professional historian with a long list of publications, and that you find this "deceptive." But is this really true? I'd appreciate it if you'd provide text showing where Palmer claims to be an "insider" in the sense described by Dr. Peterson.

I'm away from my copy of the book. But I don't think I would be dodging your request to refer you to the title itself. The title and the jacket refer to his career as a CES employee. I don't think that provides any bona fides for historical research and acumen. It is misleading in that way alone. That criticism certainly isn't dispositive of any and all criticism contra and pro regarding the substance of his book. I do think it is appropriate and valid to be brought to the readers attention, the believing Mormon isn't doing anything inappropriate by criticizing that. I also think the critic who denies a basis for the criticism shows a lack of seriousness. The critic should accept that and move on, the case one way or the other is cumulative.

my regards, mikwut

[_Buffalo]

2) Can you cite where Palmer was trying to portray himself in the same sense that Dr. Peterson is describing? What I'm sensing in your (and others') criticism is that Palmer supposedly trying to portray himself as a credentialed professional historian with a long list of publications, and that you find this "deceptive." But is this really true? I'd appreciate it if you'd provide text showing where Palmer claims to be an "insider" in the sense described by Dr. Peterson.

I'm away from my copy of the book. But I don't think I would be dodging your request to refer you to the title itself. The title and the jacket refer to his career as a CES employee. I don't think that provides any bona fides for historical research and acumen. It is misleading in that way alone. That criticism certainly isn't dispositive of any and all criticism contra and pro regarding the substance of his book. I do think it is appropriate and valid to be brought to the readers attention, the believing Mormon isn't doing anything inappropriate by criticizing that. I also think the critic who denies a basis for the criticism shows a lack of seriousness. The critic should accept that and move on, the case one way or the other is cumulative.

my regards, mikwut

In other words, we have to accept your definition of "insider," not necessarily the author's, or our own.

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

Did I miss where the author gave his definition that inoculated him from the minor contextual criticism I made?

mikwut

[_jon]

Again, politely, this thread is meant to be about the books contents. Not the title nor the authors credentials.
Cheers.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hello Dr. Scratch,

1) Do you not think that your father was an "insider"?

I think he was an "insider" if the context is the church, as in an active believing member. I think he was an "insider" if the context is CES, he worked in that context for many years. If my father wrote a book about being a believing member of the church I would think he would clearly satisfy any connotation of the word "insider". If my father wrote a book about CES and what it is like or related subjects I would think he would clearly satisfy any connotation of the word "insider". If my father wrote a historical work on the origins of Mormonism I do not think his career at CES would qualify him for any but the narrowest and irrelevant connotations of the term, and I would find a reliance on his career with CES to ad bona fides to the historical work as disengenuinous and playing to the Mormon crowd's usually misinformed opinions that CES folks know everything. My father contra Palmer has a master's and a PHd. I still don't think that would qualify him, it isn't in history or Mormon origins.

An interesting response, Mikwut. The more I consider your replies and observations on this thread, the more I realize how bizarre your position really is. I mean, think about it. What are you objecting to, exactly? Is it merely the use of the word "insider," (which, as your own post here demonstrates, is applicable to Palmer in a variety of contexts)? As best I can tell, your real objection seems to be connected to your assumption that "the Mormon crowd" are somehow being "duped" into thinking that "CES folks know everything," and that it was therefore wrong of Palmer to lean on his "CES bona fides."

Can you see the basic problem with this? In order to attack Palmer's "insider" status, you're really forced to attack the CES as well, which by extension means that you are attacking the Church itself.

2) Can you cite where Palmer was trying to portray himself in the same sense that Dr. Peterson is describing? What I'm sensing in your (and others') criticism is that Palmer supposedly trying to portray himself as a credentialed professional historian with a long list of publications, and that you find this "deceptive." But is this really true? I'd appreciate it if you'd provide text showing where Palmer claims to be an "insider" in the sense described by Dr. Peterson.

I'm away from my copy of the book. But I don't think I would be dodging your request to refer you to the title itself.

That's pretty obviously a dodge, my friend. Dr. Peterson was insisting that we apply quite a specific definition of "insider" to Palmer. The only basis we have for accepting that is yours' and Dr. Peterson's insistence.

The title and the jacket refer to his career as a CES employee. I don't think that provides any bona fides for historical research and acumen.

Meaning what, exactly? The title says an "Insider's Views." It says nothing about "acumen" or anything else.

It is misleading in that way alone. That criticism certainly isn't dispositive of any and all criticism contra and pro regarding the substance of his book. I do think it is appropriate and valid to be brought to the readers attention, the believing Mormon isn't doing anything inappropriate by criticizing that. I also think the critic who denies a basis for the criticism shows a lack of seriousness.

I think it's fine to point out that Palmer isn't a professional historian. But that's not really your complaint here, is it? Your complaint is that the title of his book shouldn't contain the word "Insider." Right? At base, your and the other apologists' criticism seems to rest on the "problem" of Palmer calling attention to his role with the CES. It's as if you think it's wrong for him to use his association with the Church's own education system to educate LDS. The bottom line, in any event, is that you can't really attack Palmer's association w/ CES without attacking CES itself.

[_mikwut]

Hi Scratch,

An interesting response, Mikwut. The more I consider your replies and observations on this thread, the more I realize how bizarre your position really is. I mean, think about it. What are you objecting to, exactly?

A misleading term and title found in Mr. Palmer's book.

Is it merely the use of the word "insider," (which, as your own post here demonstrates, is applicable to Palmer in a variety of contexts)?

In the context I stated that I object to yes. It was critics that mounted a charge regarding this issue.

As best I can tell, your real objection seems to be connected to your assumption that "the Mormon crowd" are somehow being "duped" into thinking that "CES folks know everything," and that it was therefore wrong of Palmer to lean on his "CES bona fides."

That is one of my personal objections to it because I am an "insider" in the context of growing up as the son of a CES employee. I know from my experience the lofted expectations of knowledge garden variety members have of CES workers. But, I grant that given the historical emphasis of the book that the implication Dr. Petersen criticizes against is also valid. Palmer does not have historical writing bona fides and utilizing (even if it wasn't his intent) the CES pedigree, in the very least, provides a false impression in that context as well.

Can you see the basic problem with this?

Not at all. In fact it is baffling you can't given how simple and clear it is.

In order to attack Palmer's "insider" status, you're really forced to attack the CES as well, which by extension means that you are attacking the Church itself.

I am not a member of the church anymore, I haven't been for some time now. I find great distaste in criticisms of the church that can easily be refuted because it muddies the waters of the real issues that should be receiving focus and attention from the critic and the apologist. Just as you believe "mopologists" bring people away from the church I am just as convinced critics bring many back and keep many in because of hyper critical nonsense.

That's pretty obviously a dodge, my friend. Dr. Peterson was insisting that we apply quite a specific definition of "insider" to Palmer. The only basis we have for accepting that is yours' and Dr. Peterson's insistence.

I wasn't dodging I was providing the reasons why I won't quote portions from it. Anyone who has read the book would also find the basis your looking for within it, my examples provided satisfy your and other critics concerns and so do Dr. Petersens.

Meaning what, exactly? The title says an "Insider's Views." It says nothing about "acumen" or anything else.

I clearly used the word 'connotation' and even broke it up for you. The contents of the book are of a historical context that would generally rely on the acumen of the historians ability and credibility. But, regardless the ambiguity of the word isn't the believers fault, it is the authors or his publishers. The believer therefore is perfectly correct to defend any possible misappropriated nuance of the term "insider" because the author isn't credentialed or entitled to some of those definitions, contexts and/or meanings.

To me, my criticism is more of - pick your battles man!
my regards, mikwut

[_Yong Xi]

I'm curious as to why Palmer's work within the CES disqualifies him as a Church "insider."

It doesn't.

His lack of publications, credentials, special sources, unique connections, and etc. relevant to the historical study of Mormonism means that he fails to qualify as somebody with "insider" status on Mormon historical issues.

Who then would be considered as insiders? I wonder how many of the FP or Q of 12 would qualify. Sure, they have connections and access, but, with the exception of DHO, have any of them published anything about Mormon history and in particular Mormon origins? I may be wrong, but it doesn't appear many of the apostles would have the credentials needed to qualify as "insiders" relative to writing about Mormon origins.

Is Richard Bushman an insider? Was Fawn Brodie? What about Michael Quinn?

[_Simon Belmont]

Wait a minute, that is not the definition of "insider".

in·sid·er (n-sdr)
n.
1. An accepted member of a group.
2. One who has special knowledge or access to confidential information.

insider [ˌɪnˈsaɪdə]
n
1. a member of a specified group
2. a person with access to exclusive information

To whom are you speaking? If it is me, then you are correct.

But I am also correct that Grant Palmer is in no way an insider of Mormon origins.

He is not an accepted member of Mormon origins.
He has no special knowledge or access to confidential information about Mormon origins.
He is not a member of Mormon origins.
He does not have access to exclusive information about Mormon origins.