charity wrote:Are you referring to Grant "I taught seminary and I know everything" Palmer? Or maybe it is Grant "I'll take your money while I write under a pseudonym and try to destroy you" Palmer? Did you learn ethics from him also?
That also was a cheap shot, charity. Ad hominem does not become you.
We are talking about credibliity. BishopRic brought up Palmer's name. I didn't. If he wants to laud his praises, then I am entitled to provide the other side.
I'll bet that if Grant had written a book that praised Joseph and supported the church claims, you would have no problem calling him an "insider." But as soon as he takes a critical stance, gotta slam the credentials. Anybody see a pattern?
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
charity wrote:Are you referring to Grant "I taught seminary and I know everything" Palmer? Or maybe it is Grant "I'll take your money while I write under a pseudonym and try to destroy you" Palmer? Did you learn ethics from him also?
That also was a cheap shot, charity. Ad hominem does not become you.
We are talking about credibliity. BishopRic brought up Palmer's name. I didn't. If he wants to laud his praises, then I am entitled to provide the other side.
I'll bet that if Grant had written a book that praised Joseph and supported the church claims, you would have no problem calling him an "insider." But as soon as he takes a critical stance, gotta slam the credentials. Anybody see a pattern?
Do you think that all the anti-Mormons would have taken Grant Palmer as a wonderfully credible source and immediately changed their anti-Mormon ways? Or would the critics have slammed his credentials? So what does it mean when a person is thought credible by a group only because they express views already believed?
P.S. I don't think teachers can generally claim "insider" status. Me included. What did Palmer have access to that other members of the Church, CES or not, didn't have?
charity wrote: What did Palmer have access to that other members of the Church, CES or not, didn't have?
The vault.
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
charity wrote:You do not understand there are different level so apologetics. The Peterson's, Hamblins, Gees, Bokovoys, Sorensons and Tvedtneses of the world operate on a level far above what the common garden variety apologist does. Their defense of the faith is given credibility by their experience and intellect.
I am not in the upper echelon, but I have college level study in the Book of Mormon and Mormon history, which is more than many, if not most of the critics here have.
Ahem. I have college-level study in the Book of Mormon and Mormon history, as do quite a few of the critics here (I would guess that most of us do). I also have a degree in Latin American history and a graduate degree in literary theory (I know, what do they have to do with Mormonism? LOL), but I doubt very much you would consider me to have much credibility at all as a student or critic of Mormonism. It doesn't matter that I worked for the church producing the publications that proclaim the church's doctrine and spent a year working on a translator's edition of the "triple combination." Nor does it matter that I spent 40 years as an active member of the church, or that I have been actively studying church history and scriptures for more than 20 years. Nope, I'm one of those critics, and you have more experience and credibility than I do for the sole reason that I am a critic, and you are not.
charity wrote: Ahem. I have college-level study in the Book of Mormon and Mormon history, as do quite a few of the critics here (I would guess that most of us do). I also have a degree in Latin American history and a graduate degree in literary theory (I know, what do they have to do with Mormonism? LOL), but I doubt very much you would consider me to have much credibility at all as a student or critic of Mormonism. It doesn't matter that I worked for the church producing the publications that proclaim the church's doctrine and spent a year working on a translator's edition of the "triple combination." Nor does it matter that I spent 40 years as an active member of the church, or that I have been actively studying church history and scriptures for more than 20 years. Nope, I'm one of those critics, and you have more experience and credibility than I do for the sole reason that I am a critic, and you are not.
Is your criticism based on your work on the publications? Then tell us. If your criticism is based on your member study of scriptures and history, then you are proportionally the same as the rest of us who have spent a commensurate amount of time in the same study.
charity wrote:Is your criticism based on your work on the publications? Then tell us. If your criticism is based on your member study of scriptures and history, then you are proportionally the same as the rest of us who have spent a commensurate amount of time in the same study.
It's both. Either way, you suggested that most of the critics here were not even on the same level as you in knowledge and study. That's clearly not the case.
So, you're saying that my expertise in both literary theory and Latin American history and culture have no bearing whatsoever on my credibility as a critic?
charity wrote:Is your criticism based on your work on the publications? Then tell us. If your criticism is based on your member study of scriptures and history, then you are proportionally the same as the rest of us who have spent a commensurate amount of time in the same study.
It's both. Either way, you suggested that most of the critics here were not even on the same level as you in knowledge and study. That's clearly not the case.
So, you're saying that my expertise in both literary theory and Latin American history and culture have no bearing whatsoever on my credibility as a critic?
If you have expertise in literary theory, then if there are criticisms based on literary theory, you have credibility. Latin American history and culture, ditto. But on Joseph Smith and plural marriage? Not a drop based on your degrees.
charity wrote:Then isn't it strange his "insider" view never mentioned anything strange he found in the vault?
Well, there's inside, and then there is really inside.
By the way, have you heard of the new Joseph Smith autobiographical account of his secret polygamous life?
Sisters in Christ: An Insider's View
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Many of Sorenson's most important references - ie, references that supposedly supported his controversial assertions that contradict known mesoamerican history - have been analyzed and shown to be either outright fraudulent or tragically distorted beyond recognition. And yet he's still one of the "credentialed"?????!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!
Please.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.