Did FARMS/MI ever give a critical review of Bushman's RSR?

[_Runtu]

Not true. Several of the Maxwell Institute reviews scarcely mentioned that chapter, if they mentioned it at all.

Incidentally, by "apologists," in this case, I take it that you mean "well-respected professional historians of Mormonism who, by and large, are not active in apologetics and have never been considered apologists, but who must be denigrated because they weren't impressed with Grant Palmer's book."

Good grief, Dan. I'm speaking of people I've encountered in discussions of Palmer's book. I have not "denigrated" anyone, let alone well-respected professional historians of Mormonism." My experience has been that, in every conversation I've had with an apologist about Palmer's book, the Golden Pot is the focus.

And I suppose it depends on what you mean by "impressed" by Palmer's book. I didn't read it for a long time because my exmo former mission companion said it wasn't worth reading. Why? Because he covered things that I already knew about, and his Golden Pot section was silly. When I read it, I agreed with my ex-companion's assessment. But then I realized that his purpose was to give a brief overview of recent scholarship and discussion about problems with early Mormon truth-claims. I think the book works quite well for that limited purpose, with obvious exceptions.

That you misrepresent what these well-respected professional historians of Mormonism (who, by and large, are not active in apologetics and have never been considered apologists, but who evidently must be denigrated because they weren't impressed with Grant Palmer's book) actually wrote seems quite telling to me.

Where are you getting this? I haven't talked about people who "are not active in apologetics," nor have I denigrated anyone. I was simply speaking from my conversations with people I consider apologists. Why you think I'm attacking every scholar who ever expressed a negative opinion about Palmer's book is a complete mystery to me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr. Peterson can I give you some free, albeit unsolicited, advice?

Sure.

I believe that most of you that contribute to apologetics are too far removed from any crisis of faith (if you ever experienced one) to understand what we are looking for from the church as we work our way through our journey.

You're quite far from the truth in my case.

Palmer's book was the first I read during my crisis.

I'm sorry to hear it.

I desperately wanted answers for his arguments from the church. Instead when I searched for responses from the church regarding his points all I find is squabbling about what is an "insider" and other nonsense.

That may be all that you found -- several here claim to have found only that, as well -- but that's demonstrably not all that was there.

Do you think those of us falling down the rabbit hole really care if Palmer is actually an insider? We don't.

You don't speak for everyone.

A number of people asked about the matter. We answered.

But we dealt with plenty of other things, too. For some reason, some of you seem to find our responses on those matters effectively invisible, which, I admit, I find extraordinary.

Especially after listening to Palmer on a few different podcasts, you squabbling just comes off as petty and un Christ like.

I have been completely civil. You seem, simply, to object to my contradicting the claims you and other critics have made here.

You folks keep raising the issue, and then, when I respond, you pronounce me obsessive and unchristian.

Pretty disingenuous of you.

My advice would be to talk to those just starting in their crisis of faith and see if what I am saying rings true. My guess is that none will care about the personal accolades of the author, they just want answers. None of them will care if Palmer is truly and insider or if Quinn is gay, they simply want to know if what they are saying is true.

It is dishonest or delusional, frankly, to insinuate that we focused to any really substantial degree on the peripheral matter of whether or not Palmer is an "insider" and/or that we focused at all on Quinn's homosexuality. We didn't. And to insinuate, further, that we never addressed their substantive claims is simply false.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Good grief, Dan. I'm speaking of people I've encountered in discussions of Palmer's book.

You certainly didn't say that. And the context here is a discussion of published reviews of Grant Palmer by Mark Ashurst-McGee, James Allen, Davis Bitton, Louis Midgley, and Steven Harper, as well as of a statement published by the historians of the Smith Institute.

My experience has been that, in every conversation I've had with an apologist about Palmer's book, the Golden Pot is the focus.

Well, it was pretty spectacularly wrong-headed. So much so, in my opinion, that it alone should set off alarm bells about Grant Palmer's scholarly judgment and acumen.

his purpose was to give a brief overview of recent scholarship and discussion about problems with early Mormon truth-claims. I think the book works quite well for that limited purpose, with obvious exceptions.

He's scarcely expressing the scholarly consensus, if that's what you want to say.

[_Runtu]

You certainly didn't say that. And the context here is a discussion of published reviews of Grant Palmer by Mark Ashurst-McGee, James Allen, Davis Bitton, Louis Midgley, and Steven Harper, as well as of a statement published by the historians of the Smith Institute.

I've been out of town, and I readily admit I didn't read the thread, so if you thought my post was a blanket condemnation of the authors you list, I am sorry for miscommunicating.

Well, it was pretty spectacularly wrong-headed. So much so, in my opinion, that it alone should set off alarm bells about Grant Palmer's scholarly judgment and acumen.

That seems reasonable to me. The rest of the book, in my view, was just a recitation of stuff that had been written elsewhere, and was far stronger than the Golden Pot chapter. I think he really shot himself in the foot.

He's scarcely expressing the scholarly consensus, if that's what you want to say.

I did not say that. He provided a survey of the critical literature for a lay audience, and did so fairly well, in my view. I'm not sure there is a scholarly consensus. Non-LDS scholars are unlikely to view the Book of Mormon as anything other than a nineteenth-century creation, and LDS scholars will likely disagree.

[_Buffalo]

Willy, you have to understand that the purpose of Mormon apologetics isn't really to answer tough questions for people who are genuinely having a crisis of faith. The purpose is to simply put something out there - anything - so that those who members aren't examining Mormon problems very closely can scan these works in a very superficial way and say to themselves that the issue has been "dealt with." All is well in Zion, and Zion prospereth.

There's really nothing they can do for people having a genuine crisis of faith. There are no faith promoting answers for people who aren't satisfied by superficial responses anymore.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Willy, you have to understand that the purpose of Mormon apologetics isn't really to answer tough questions for people who are genuinely having a crisis of faith. The purpose is to simply put something out there - anything - so that those who members aren't examining Mormon problems very closely can scan these works in a very superficial way and say to themselves that the issue has been "dealt with." All is well in Zion, and Zion prospereth.

There's really nothing they can do for people having a genuine crisis of faith. There are no faith promoting answers for people who aren't satisfied by superficial responses anymore.

This is precisely the kind of emission one expects from a buffalo.

[_Buffalo]

Not exactly an effective reply.

If you can show that Grant Palmer had some genuine sort of unusual "insider" status with regard to issues concerning the origins of Mormonism -- say, special access to historical documents denied to others, or some kind of exceptional pipeline to specialists on the subject, or a uniquely impressive record of relevant scholarship or publication, or whatever -- you have always been and continue to be entirely free to do so.

As a CES instructor, he's more of an insider than a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic.

[_Buffalo]

Willy, you have to understand that the purpose of Mormon apologetics isn't really to answer tough questions for people who are genuinely having a crisis of faith. The purpose is to simply put something out there - anything - so that those who members aren't examining Mormon problems very closely can scan these works in a very superficial way and say to themselves that the issue has been "dealt with." All is well in Zion, and Zion prospereth.

There's really nothing they can do for people having a genuine crisis of faith. There are no faith promoting answers for people who aren't satisfied by superficial responses anymore.

This is precisely the kind of emission one expects from a buffalo.

We both know it's true, Dan.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We both know it's true, Dan.

We both know it's false.

[_harmony]

I believe that most of you that contribute to apologetics are too far removed from any crisis of faith (if you ever experienced one) to understand what we are looking for from the church as we work our way through our journey.

You're quite far from the truth in my case.

Whoa. I'm utterly speechless.