An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Simon Belmont]

CFR

His book is called "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." Mr Palmer was never an insider to anything relating to Mormon origins. He wasn't in any meaningful way an "insider" to anything in his book. The title is therefore misleading advertising.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Apparently not very well.

Quite satisfactorily in my judgment, and in the judgment of many others.

Are all convinced? No. Of course not.

There are still Marxists, and members of the Flat Earth Society, and believers in psychoanalysis, and advocates of veganism.

Humans are an intractable lot.

Incidentally, I think that, at this point, we're simply repeating our positions. There's little use in that, and it's not very interesting.

[_Themis]

CFR

His book is called "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." Mr Palmer was never an insider to anything relating to Mormon origins. He wasn't in any meaningful way an "insider" to anything in his book. The title is therefore misleading advertising.

[/quote]

Although quoting pahoran is not the smartest thing to do, I don't see him arguing what you did that Garant was suggesting he was 200 years old.

[_Themis]

There are still Marxists, and members of the Flat Earth Society, and believers in psychoanalysis, and advocates of veganism.

There are lots of crazy beliefs out there. I should know, I grew up in the LDS church and they have their share.

[_Simon Belmont]

There are lots of crazy beliefs out there. I should know, I grew up in the LDS church and they have their share.

Oh! Pardon me! I did not realize that a CFR had to support your position and not the point I was making.

Guess I'm not an "insider" to the CFR process, huh?

Jeez.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

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.

So throw out the entire book for that?

Did you find other "errors" or inaccuracies?

[_Themis]

Oh! Pardon me! I did not realize that a CFR had to support your position and not the point I was making.

Guess I'm not an "insider" to the CFR process, huh?

Jeez.

No it just has to support what you said, and it is not clear that he is. Pahoran is not exactly known for having logical position. Again the title is An insider, or someone inside the Church, not someone who lived back them . You know that and so I can only conclude you are lying with this argument. I haven't seen any other arguement from you so I guess you have to make one up.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

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.

Just curious Daniel, would you and your polemic posse left Grant alone had he bore his testimony of Joseph the prophet at the end of the book?

Did you do any critical review of Bushman's RSR?

[Guest]

your polemic posse

By which you mean the distinguished professional historians who reviewed Grant Palmer's book? Whom you now seek to dismiss with an epithet because you're either unable or unwilling to deal with them in a substantive way, on the issues?

left Grant alone had he bore his testimony of Joseph the prophet at the end of the book?

No. His book would still have been a mess.

In any event, we review anti-Mormon books, pro-Mormon books, and neutral books.

Did you do any critical review of Bushman's RSR?

As a matter of fact, yes.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Oh! Pardon me! I did not realize that a CFR had to support your position and not the point I was making.

Guess I'm not an "insider" to the CFR process, huh?

Jeez.

No it just has to support what you said, and it is not clear that he is. Pahoran is not exactly known for having logical position. Again the title is An insider, or someone inside the Church, not someone who lived back them . You know that and so I can only conclude you are lying with this argument. I haven't seen any other arguement from you so I guess you have to make one up.

It is hilarious that the polemic posse of the MI is still beating that drum of Grant not being an "Insider".

Like the rank and file membership would take that and toss the book? Seriously.

Its a good thing the bishop did not try that on me when I first brought in my copy of Grant's book or I would have laughed him out of his silly little man office.