An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Dan Vogel]

That’s the literal interpretation of the title? Since that doesn’t work, perhaps there are other less literal interpretations which, as it turns out, a lot of non-apologetic people seem to understand anyway.

The problem is non thinking people might, at first glance, believe that the title is accurate.

It's not.

So you are concerned that some “non thinking” people might think that Palmer is immortal like John the Revelator?

[_Simon Belmont]

I am concned, Dan, that non thinking people might not think about what the title really means -- what Palmer is really saying with it.

[_Themis]

That's just the point, Themis. No one alive today can rightly have an insider's view of Mormon origins.

They can have A Former CES Employee's View of Mormon Origins
They can have Grand Palmer's View of Mormon Origins
They can have A Homeless Man's View of Mormon Origins

Actually they can, but you know that as well as I do. You continue to play dumb here.

[_Themis]

That’s the literal interpretation of the title? Since that doesn’t work, perhaps there are other less literal interpretations which, as it turns out, a lot of non-apologetic people seem to understand anyway.

As do all of the apologetic community. Simon just wants to be stupid. I suspect as someone else has already mentioned he probably has not read the book so has nothing else to add.

[_Simon Belmont]

Actually they can, but you know that as well as I do. You continue to play dumb here.

How can you have an insider's view of Mormon Origins?

Look at the sentence, and look at it closely. I've explained to you time and again that it is impossible to have an insider's view to something of which you are not an insider. Grant Palmer is not an insider of Mormon Origins. Grant Palmer can have a view of Mormon origins, but not an insider's view. Grant Palmer can have an insider's view of Mormonism, but not Mormon origins.

Get it?

[_Themis]

How can you have an insider's view of Mormon Origins?

Look at the sentence, and look at it closely. I've explained to you time and again that it is impossible to have an insider's view to something of which you are not an insider. Grant Palmer is not an insider of Mormon Origins. Grant Palmer can have a view of Mormon origins, but not an insider's view. Grant Palmer can have an insider's view of Mormonism, but not Mormon origins.

Get it?

Everyone gets it but you. If I say I have an insiders view of Hindu origins, it means I am an insider to the Hindu religion in some way. It really is not hard to understand how this sentence works in more then one way, but you are stuck on only one way in which no one else gets confused about. I think most here understand why. :)

[_Dan Vogel]

I am concned, Dan, that non thinking people might not think about what the title really means -- what Palmer is really saying with it.

Please tell me--what is Palmer "really" saying?

[_Dan Vogel]

Actually they can, but you know that as well as I do. You continue to play dumb here.

How can you have an insider's view of Mormon Origins?

Look at the sentence, and look at it closely. I've explained to you time and again that it is impossible to have an insider's view to something of which you are not an insider. Grant Palmer is not an insider of Mormon Origins. Grant Palmer can have a view of Mormon origins, but not an insider's view. Grant Palmer can have an insider's view of Mormonism, but not Mormon origins.

Get it?

If one can have an insider’s view of Mormonism, one can certainly have an insider’s view of Mormon origins, which is a subset of Mormonism. You think there is only one Mormon origins—the one that happened more than 100 years ago, which no one has access to anyway. The only “Mormon origins” that exists is the one we create now, which everyone has access to. This “Mormon origins” has insiders.

Get it?

[_Fifth Columnist]

The problem is non thinking people might, at first glance, believe that the title is accurate.

It's not.

So you are concerned that some “non thinking” people might think that Palmer is immortal like John the Revelator?

LOL!

Hahahahaha!

Man, I can't stop laughing at this.

Simon pwned!

[_Simon Belmont]

Everyone gets it but you. If I say I have an insiders view of Hindu origins, it means I am an insider to the Hindu religion in some way.

No it doesn't. It means you have an insider's view of Hindu origins, not Hinduism in your lifetime, or now. Being Hindu does not grant you insider access to the faith's origins.

If one can have an insider’s view of Mormonism, one can certainly have an insider’s view of Mormon origins, which is a subset of Mormonism.

Not true. Mormonism originated in the 1820s. To have an insider's view of Mormon Origins means you have special, insider knowledge or access to that time period. Does Grant Palmer have a 1985 DeLorean, or is he over 200 years old? I don't think so.

You think there is only one Mormon origins—the one that happened more than 100 years ago, which no one has access to anyway.

That is the only Mormon origins.

The only “Mormon origins” that exists is the one we create now, which everyone has access to. This “Mormon origins” has insiders.

Are you claiming that Mormonism originated now? That it did not originate with Joseph Smith in the early 1800s?

I reject your claim, if so.