Aristotle Smith wrote:Target #2 seems to be the fact that Palmer was on the payroll of CES while not believing in the truth claims of the LDS church (i.e., he is a hypocrite).
Does Jim Allen discuss this in his review? He may, but I don't recall it. Does Mark Ashurst-McGee mention it? Possibly, but I don't think so. Does Steven Harper bring it up? My memory may be foggy, but I don't remember him doing that. Does the Smith Institute statement raise the issue? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. Heck, I don't even recall that Davis Bitton's review broaches the subject.
That leaves Lou Midgley's, which does indeed bring it up, but also discusses, among other things, the purported parallels between the Moroni story and Hoffmann's
Der goldne Topf.
Aristotle Smith wrote:Palmer has rebutted this time and time again. Amazingly enough he was up front with his questions about the truth claims
And you have his word for this.
Aristotle Smith wrote:Target #3 is usually that Palmer is not an insider. This is a baseless claim since there is no clear definition of "insider," it's a loose term relatively defined. Was Palmer an insider? According to apologists, definitely not.
Not in any sense relevant to his book.
But the title of his book describes him as an "insider."
Hence, the question is directly relevant to the book.
Aristotle Smith wrote:I think to most non-LDS, a prime target audience for Palmer's book I might add, the term would not be controversial.
Palmer seemed to think that the prime target audience for his book was members of the Church.
Aristotle Smith wrote:However, my observation is that critics of the book rarely try and go after the other chapters,
So what were those reviews by Dr. Allen and Dr. Harper and Dr. Ashurst-McGee
about, then? What was that brief statement from the Smith Institute responding to?
Aristotle Smith wrote:at least not with the same gusto as they go after the above three points.
Well, the Moroni/Hoffmann nonsense was a pretty rich target.
But, again, what were those reviews by Dr. Allen and Dr. Harper and Dr. Ashurst-McGee
about?
Aristotle Smith wrote:The other chapters are mainly a fast paced summary of the New Mormon History, trimmed of academese,
Nonsense. Along with Leonard Arrington, Professors
Allen and
Bitton were among the principal architects of "the New Mormon History." They're scarcely peripheral figures. They certainly don't buy Palmer's supposed "summary," and, I'm confident -- I knew him -- neither would Arrington have bought it.
Nor (he's a very good friend) does Thomas Alexander, another very prominent Mormon historian (and another past president of the Mormon History Association) accept Palmer's purported "summary."
Nor, obviously, do
Steven Harper and Mark Ashurst-McGee (two of the most promising younger figures in "the New Mormon History").
Nor, plainly, do those "New Mormon Historians" who were associated with the Smith Institute, since, in their statement, they explicitly contradict Palmer's claims.