An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_jon]

I see on another thread that Mr Palmers credentials are being battered, which may or may not be justified.

However, in terms of the content of the book, what did he say that was factually incorrect?

[_Buffalo]

I see on another thread that Mr Palmers credentials are being battered, which may or may not be justified.

However, in terms of the content of the book, what did he say that was factually incorrect?

*crickets*

[_Daniel Peterson]

My apologies. They haven't installed the alarm bell and the fireman's pole in my house yet, so I'm still sometimes a bit slow to respond to demands for my participation here while I'm sleeping or otherwise engaged.

Here are the reviews that we published of Grant Palmer's book:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=513

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=512

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=533

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=510

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=511

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=514

Now. This is as far as I'll go toward producing a Cliff's Notes version for those here who will demand it: I think that the most spectacularly weak portion of Grant Palmer's book was also the one portion of it where he could claim some originality. That was his attempt to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf. I can't think of any serious scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon, nor even any serious critic, who has found it even remotely convincing. And for good reason.

[_Buffalo]

My apologies. They haven't installed the alarm bell and the fireman's pole in my house yet, so I'm still sometimes a bit slow to respond to demands for my participation here while I'm sleeping or otherwise engaged.

Here are the reviews that we published of Grant Palmer's book:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=513

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=512

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=533

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=510

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=511

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=514

Now. This is as far as I'll go toward producing a Cliff's Notes version for those here who will demand it: I think that the most spectacularly weak portion of Grant Palmer's book was also the one portion of it where he could claim some originality. That was his attempt to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf. I can't think of any serious scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon, nor even any serious critic, who has found it even remotely convincing. And for good reason.

Could you provide something from a serious, scholarly, credible source?

[_stemelbow]

Could you provide something from a serious, scholarly, credible source?

Its the arguments and ideas that matter not the source, Buffalo. Let's not be so silly to complain that MI commits too many ad homs then go around and disregard them because you don't like them or consider them credible as a whole. The arguments are presented. Respond if you like, or leave them be.

[_Buffalo]

Could you provide something from a serious, scholarly, credible source?

Its the arguments and ideas that matter not the source, Buffalo. Let's not be so silly to complain that MI commits too many ad homs then go around and disregard them because you don't like them or consider them credible as a whole. The arguments are presented. Respond if you like, or leave them be.

If you're going to rebut something professional like Insider's View, I think using credible, scholarly sources is important.

For example, if you claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, and then backed up that claim with something from Newsmax, how much credibility would you expect based on using that source?

Remember, stem, an ad hom is an attack against "the man."

[_stemelbow]

If you're going to rebut something professional like Insider's View, I think using credible, scholarly sources is important.

For example, if you claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, and then backed up that claim with something from Newsmax, how much credibility would you expect based on using that source?

Remember, stem, an ad hom is an attack against "the man."

Nice try, Buffalo.

Of course if an LDS related scholarly, a term some might find used quite loosely here, work is to be reviewed, what other source is to be expected than the Maxwell Institute? I mean, just because you don't take the MI seriously, doesn't mean the arguments and ideas presented through the MI are to be disregarded.

[_Buffalo]

If you're going to rebut something professional like Insider's View, I think using credible, scholarly sources is important.

For example, if you claimed that Obama was born in Kenya, and then backed up that claim with something from Newsmax, how much credibility would you expect based on using that source?

Remember, stem, an ad hom is an attack against "the man."

Nice try, Buffalo.

Of course if an LDS related scholarly, a term some might find used quite loosely here, work is to be reviewed, what other source is to be expected than the Maxwell Institute? I mean, just because you don't take the MI seriously, doesn't mean the arguments and ideas presented through the MI are to be disregarded.

The MI is definitely not a scholarly source - apologetics are anathema to scholarly inquiry.

I'm not sure there is one right now, to be honest. Mormon studies is such a niche area of history. But it wouldn't be the MI. But I'd consider a scholarly view one made by an independent scholar without an axe to grind regarding defending or attacking Mormonism, who is capable of writing in a scholarly, professional voice.

As it stands, MI has no more credibility than any amateur blog you might come across. Not professional, not scholarly, not credible. Certainly very partisan.

[_Dan Vogel]

My apologies. They haven't installed the alarm bell and the fireman's pole in my house yet, so I'm still sometimes a bit slow to respond to demands for my participation here while I'm sleeping or otherwise engaged.

Here are the reviews that we published of Grant Palmer's book:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=513

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=512

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=533

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=510

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=511

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=514

Now. This is as far as I'll go toward producing a Cliff's Notes version for those here who will demand it: I think that the most spectacularly weak portion of Grant Palmer's book was also the one portion of it where he could claim some originality. That was his attempt to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf. I can't think of any serious scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon, nor even any serious critic, who has found it even remotely convincing. And for good reason.

When I was reviewing Palmer’s book and preparing the index for it, I tried to persuade Grant not to make too much of the parallels between the Moroni story and the Golden Pot. I even sent him a long critique of his parallels, but to no avail.

[Guest]

Buffalo,

The MI is definitely not a scholarly source - apologetics are anathema to scholarly inquiry.

I think you are too narrow with your idea of "scholarly". I think a good analogy might be in philosophy. For the first half of the 20th century philosophy was thoroughly dominated by naturalists. A Resurgence of theistic philosophy occurred late in the century, usually dated by the publication of Alvin Plantinga's God and Other Minds. Theistic philosophy's resurgence was evidenced by professional organizations devoted to the philosophy of religion like the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society, they both have scholarly journals (Faith and Philosophy and Philosophia Christi). Humanists produce a counterpart to the theistic philosophy Paul Kurtz's Society of Humanist Philosophers publish Philo as representative of their naturalistic position. Both of these positions carry with them religious commitments or ehtical moral commitments and vigorously defend those committments, they engage in what you could describe as apologetics, but I think only very narrow minded individuals would label them "not scholarly". I think you would find similar style, argument and references made in these scholarly publications to FARMS. The main point is they take God and religion with great seriousness. Likewise FARMS takes Mormonism with great seriousness. I think seriousness over the subject is more important than how "scholarly" is subjectively defined.

I'm not sure there is one right now, to be honest. Mormon studies is such a niche area of history. But it wouldn't be the MI. But I'd consider a scholarly view one made by an independent scholar without an axe to grind regarding defending or attacking Mormonism, who is capable of writing in a scholarly, professional voice.

This would mean Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Paul Kurtz, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and many many others couldn't be considered "scholarly" because they aren't "independent" to the scholarly work or have an axe to grind. The important issue is seriousness, if one is serious about Mormonism, true or false, they should take the MI serious.

As it stands, MI has no more credibility than any amateur blog you might come across. Not professional, not scholarly, not credible. Certainly very partisan.

A non-professional, non-scholarly, non-credible, axe grinding opinion from Buffalo.

my regards, mikwut