An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[Guest]

It's a childess attack, Simon. Simply childess.

And you is acting as a child about a spelling error? :)

At least I don't see you trying to make the same illogical argument Simon is.

Can you name any serious historians of Mormonism who consider him an "insider"? Have any gone on record to say so? (It's possible that somebody has, but I can't think of anyone.)

Who cares. It's irrelevant. Many do consider him an insider so deal with it. :)

[_moksha]

Someone who works at Microsoft may have access to entering #1 Microsoft Way with their employee badge, but they certainly don't have access to the board room or the hidden vaults and catacombs underneath the Microsoft Campus that contain all the smoking emails, as well as Bill Gate's first pair of black plastic glasses and Gee Wiz Basic v1.0.

[_Themis]

I don't know what that means, but I think you might mean "childish."

That would be correct.

Themis, please at least try to see what I am saying here.

I'll ask you again, and I hope you'll answer honestly.

Someone you have never heard of writes a book called "An Insider's View of Human Saturnians."

What does that actually mean, to you?

What is my view on scientology? What is my view on Catholicism? What is my view on the origins of Catholicism? Are you getting it yet? Again I think you are being dishonest here to argue aomething you know was never suggested by Grant title of his book.

Yes, of course they can. If the book was titled simply, "A View of Mormon Origins" I would not have a problem with the title. As it stands, the title is "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

To repeat, I would be fine with the following titles:

• A View of Mormon Origins
• A Former CES Employee's View of Mormon Origins
• A Mormon's View of Mormon Origins
• An Educator's View of Mormon Origins
• Some Dude's View of Mormon Origins

How hard is it for you to understand the use of insider applies to being at a minimum being LDS. You seem ok with A view, but whose view? Grant using that A would be the same as saying Grants view of Mormon origins. Insider is the same thing because he is an insider in certain ways within the LDS community. You may not consider him an insider in this way, but it still is not saying he was a part of Mormon origins. This really is not that hard, but then I think you are not being honest.

He is an insider to many things: CES, his own brain, his family, his community. He is NOT an insider to the origins of Mormonism.

Sure he is, and he never said he was an insider to Mormon origins. by the way you got on me about using "to" does not make sense, but now we have you using it. He never said "to" LOL

[_Daniel Peterson]

And you is acting as a child about a spelling error?

No, I isn't. I is having fun. Doesn't you like fun?

A

Can you name any serious historians of Mormonism who consider him an "insider"? Have any gone on record to say so? (It's possible that somebody has, but I can't think of anyone.

Who cares. It's irrelevant. Many do consider him an insider so deal with it. :)

They care. And others care.

They think it's relevant. So do I. So do others.

They and many others, including me, don't consider him an insider.

So deal with it.

We've already dealt with it.

That's what you've been complaining about.

[_Simon Belmont]

What is my view on scientology? What is my view on Catholicism? What is my view on the origins of Catholicism?

I don't know. That's wholly irrelevant. You probably have a view on all of these things. You do not have an insider's view on any of them.

Are you getting it yet? Again I think you are being dishonest here to argue aomething you know was never suggested by Grant title of his book.

It's a very poorly written and highly misleading title. It is impossible for someone under the age of 200 to have an insider's view of Mormon origins. Now, if the book had been titled "A Mormon's View of Mormon's Origins" that would be fine, since Grand Palmer was, at one time LDS. Likewise, the book could have been titled "An Insider's View of the Church Educational System" to which Palmer actually was/is an insider.

Get it yet?

How hard is it for you to understand the use of insider applies to being at a minimum being LDS.

That's ludicrous. Being, at a minimum, LDS does not make one an insider to the origins of Mormonism. An insider of Mormonism? Maybe. An Insider of the CES? Perhaps. An insider of the origins of Mormonism? Impossible.

You seem ok with A view, but whose view? Grant using that A would be the same as saying Grants view of Mormon origins.

Yup. The Book could have been "Grant's View of Mormon Origins" and that would be an accurate title. The problem comes when he claims to be an insider of Mormon origins.

Insider is the same thing because he is an insider in certain ways within the LDS community.

There is not a member of the LDS community alive today who can honestly profess to be an insider of Mormon origins. They can have views of Mormon origins. They could have studied early church history their entire lives, won awards in church history, and published books on church history; that would not make them an insider to Mormon origins. Neither Richard Bushman nor Michael Quinn nor Daniel Peterson is an insider of Mormon origins. They could be insider's of the study of Mormon origins.

You may not consider him an insider in this way, but it still is not saying he was a part of Mormon origins. This really is not that hard, but then I think you are not being honest.

I am being 100% completely honest. The title is blatantly false. It's misleading. It's impossible. It's wrong.

he never said he was an insider to Mormon origins.

AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF Mormon ORIGINS.

That states, in very plain language, that he is an insider of Mormon origins. If you disagree with that, then you need more help than I am able to provide here.

[_Themis]

[We've already dealt with it.

Apparently not very well.

[_Themis]

Simon It's hard to believe you can be that stupid. Everyone gets it but you. Why is no one else arguing what you argue?

[_Themis]

AN INSIDER'S VIEW OF Mormon ORIGINS.

That states, in very plain language, that he is an insider of Mormon origins. If you disagree with that, then you need more help than I am able to provide here.

Ya, an insider of the LDS church who is writing about his view of Mormon origins. Why is it that everyone else understand what he is trying to say but you? Why do you have such a reading comprehension problem?

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon It's hard to believe you can be that stupid. Everyone gets it but you. Why is no one else arguing what you argue?

They are.

[_Themis]

Simon It's hard to believe you can be that stupid. Everyone gets it but you. Why is no one else arguing what you argue?

They are.

CFR