Simon Belmont wrote: I am being honest. The book is called: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.
Palmer is suggesting that he is the insider. In order to be an "Insider" of "Mormon Origins" you'd have to be alive in the 1820s-1830s. What is the books publication date? 2002? So, let's say that Grant Palmer was -- and I'm being very liberal here -- born in 1830. In 2002 he'd have been 172 years old. Wouldn't that be some kind of record for human life?
You are being dishonest. You know full well that it does not mean that. Not a surprise coming from you. Why don't you try an be honest and write what Palmer actually says which is an insider's View of Mormon Origins. Stop lying. You know perfectly well that insider in this instance means as a member of the church.
I think Simon is quietly trying to lead the thread away from the content of the book 'an insiders view of Mormon origins' and is using the argument about what 'insider' means to do so.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote: I think Simon is quietly trying to lead the thread away from the content of the book 'an insiders view of Mormon origins' and is using the argument about what 'insider' means to do so.
SB is usually avoiding substance and redefining words and terms to attack others. I generally ignore most of what he says. Out of the handful of so called defenders of LDS claims, only stem at the moment even trys to mount a rational defense. That has never been SB purpose here. Oh well, they only hurt the church and themselves with such pathetic drivel, and the best part is that they will almost certainly never realize this. :)
Last edited by Guest on Mon May 09, 2011 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Themis wrote:You are being dishonest. You know full well that it does not mean that. Not a surprise coming from you. Why don't you try an be honest and write what Palmer actually says which is an insider's View of Mormon Origins. Stop lying. You know perfectly well that insider in this instance means as a member of the church.
I think it is you who is not being truthful. To be able to view Mormon origins, as an insider, you'd have to be there to see it. Was Palmer there? No, unless he is 172 years old.
Even if I were to grant what you're saying, and I most assuredly do not, I am more of an "insider" than Palmer is, because I am still a member.
Themis wrote:You are being dishonest. You know full well that it does not mean that. Not a surprise coming from you. Why don't you try an be honest and write what Palmer actually says which is an insider's View of Mormon Origins. Stop lying. You know perfectly well that insider in this instance means as a member of the church.
I think it is you who is not being truthful. To be able to view Mormon origins, as an insider, you'd have to be there to see it. Was Palmer there? No, unless he is 172 years old.
Even if I were to grant what you're saying, and I most assuredly do not, I am more of an "insider" than Palmer is, because I am still a member.
Simon, the title could have as easily been read as "A member's view of the origin of Mormonism." To try to say that it meant what it clearly did not is absurd.
No intelligent reader is going to think that the author is claiming to be 200 years old and was an "insider" during the creation of Mormonism.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden ~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
Simon Belmont wrote:I think it is you who is not being truthful. To be able to view Mormon origins, as an insider, you'd have to be there to see it. Was Palmer there? No, unless he is 172 years old.
Even if I were to grant what you're saying, and I most assuredly do not, I am more of an "insider" than Palmer is, because I am still a member.
You really think anyone here doesn't know you are lying? :)
To be an insider one only needs to be a member of the church, and in Palmer's case he is also a historian, so yes, insider apply's to him. You are lying only so you can try to dismiss what he says and attack him instead. Are you so stupid to think anyone including believers are buying what you are saying. LOL
just me wrote:Simon, the title could have as easily been read as "A member's view of the origin of Mormonism." To try to say that it meant what it clearly did not is absurd.
Simon Belmont wrote: Even if I were to grant what you're saying, and I most assuredly do not, I am more of an "insider" than Palmer is, because I am still a member.
Are you suggesting that Grant Palmer is no longer a member of the Mormon Church?
And what are your views on the content of his anti Mormon book, assuming you have read it?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote:Are you suggesting that Grant Palmer is no longer a member of the Mormon Church?
And what are your views on the content of his anti Mormon book, assuming you have read it?
No one is a member of "the Mormon Church" because there is no church called "the Mormon Church."
Is Palmer still a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I think he is on paper, but he rejects its truth claims, so he is no more a member than the pope.
Simon Belmont wrote: No one is a member of "the Mormon Church" because there is no church called "the Mormon Church."
Really? So all the times I've heard people refer to the Mormon church, they were talking about something that didn't exist?
I think we need to get on the horn and let everyone know!
Simon Belmont wrote: Is Palmer still a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I think he is on paper, but he rejects its truth claims, so he is no more a member than the pope.
Wait a second.... how did you know he was talking about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" if you don't know what "the Mormon church" is?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
jon wrote:Are you suggesting that Grant Palmer is no longer a member of the Mormon Church?
And what are your views on the content of his anti Mormon book, assuming you have read it?
No one is a member of "the Mormon Church" because there is no church called "the Mormon Church."
Is Palmer still a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I think he is on paper, but he rejects its truth claims, so he is no more a member than the pope.
Are you going to answer the question about the books contents?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.