An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[Guest]

your polemic posse

By which you mean the distinguished professional historians who reviewed Grant Palmer's book? Whom you seek to dismiss with an epithet because you're unable to 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.

Link please on the critical review of RSR?

You do know that members have left the church after reading RSR?

ETA: I found Grant's book BECAUSE of the negative press that you paraded around on the then FAIR boards back in 2004.

I am sure Signature Books and Grant appreciated your work in promoting his book!

[_Themis]

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.

Ya, if they would stick to the real and important issues they would have more credibility. This is not to say that every apologists is doing this crap, but to many are.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Find it yourself, PP. I'm not your research assistant.

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

Nobody affiliated with the Maxwell Institute has so much as mentioned Grant Palmer for years.

Excepting me. And I've only been mentioning him here because Buffalo brought him up on a thread that had nothing to do with Grant Palmer and sought to use him against me and against the Maxwell Institute.

I didn't bring up Grant Palmer's claim to being an "insider." One of your allies did.

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

Huh?

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.

It's easier than engaging in substantive argument, I'm sure.

Ya, if they would stick to the real and important issues they would have more credibility.

We dealt with the important issues. You haven't read the reviews.

This is not to say that every apologists is doing this crap, but to many are.

Especially those you haven't read.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

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.

Ya, if they would stick to the real and important issues they would have more credibility. This is not to say that every apologists is doing this crap, but to many are.

REAL?

Oh as in floating resurrected Christian/Mormon native American Indians who hand 150 lbs block of gold to a young occult treasure seeker?

[_Daniel Peterson]

With PP's arrival, the conversation, poor as it already was, is now irredeemable.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

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

As a matter of fact, yes.

Link please on the critical review of RSR?

Find it yourself, PP. I'm not your research assistant.

OIC.

You quickly coughed up what was it, SIX critical reviews of Grant's book from seven years ago?? But not the ONE review of RSR?? If such a review EVEN exists...

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.

[_Themis]

With PP's arrival, the conversation, poor as it already was, is now irredeemable.

Well is was a very astute observation. We think little of scientology, but somehow beliefs held by our group or a group that is very large somehow is taken more seriously.

[_Dan Vogel]

Porter,

So throw out the entire book for that?

I didn’t say that, did I? I was only talking about the “Golden Pot” chapter.

Did you find other "errors" or inaccuracies?

While praising Palmer’s book for popularizing some important issues dealing with early Mormon history, I expressed some reservations to him in a letter, dated 5 Nov. 1997. Here are some excerpts:

I believe the LDS need exposure to the kinds of issues that your work covers, but I believe it is written in too much of an anti-Mormon tone. In many places it reads a lot like I would expect the Tanners to have written. I prefer a more scholarly approach to the topic than one that seems preoccupied with attacking the “foundation stones” and attempting to prove the church false.

You chapter on the “Golden Pot” is utterly unconvincing and I would expect that FARMS would make easy prey of it. Simply, Joseph Smith told his story beginning in 1823 as his family attests—both Lucy and William—not 1827 as you assert. There would be no purpose for Walters [the magician] to tell Smith the story [of the Golden Pot] since it is only remotely associated with treasure lore. Smith’s story follows more well-known treasure motifs without entering into the contortions that your chapter does. Moreover, there is no evidence that Smith and Walters had contact in 1827. Walters was hired by Alvin Smith and Willard Chase I the early 1820s and soon after fired. …

Your treatment of the witnesses is curious and difficult to follow. You argue both that Smith was also deluded, seeing things in his stone, etc., yet willing to make fake plates. I find that his willingness to make fake plates overrides any theory of self-deception. Your acceptance of the folkloric stories about visits to a cave within Cumorah is uncritical. You accept all accounts as equal and without reservation, then you try to connect them with the story of eight witnesses for which you have no proof. Although there may be some basis to the story that folk-memory has distorted and expanded, the historical setting of the story—of Smith and Cowdery’s returning the plates to the hill-is questionable in light of the translation’s completion in June-July 1829 and Cowdery’s statement that he had not visited the hill until 1830, long after Smith’s need for the plates had elapsed (Messenger and Advocate 2 [October 1835]: 196). …

Your Epilogue reads too much like a Sunday school lesson. Almost like a familiar anti-Mormon/Evangelical pitch. Many Mormons will find this distasteful no doubt. I was shocked by your [favorable] discussion of pre-existence and other Mormon doctrine that came through Joseph Smith’s revelations, the same way he translated the BM.

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?

I think you should have remembered what they did to Quinn before writing this ad hominem.

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

We all know FARMS (Maxwell Institute) is a partisan press, right?

[_jon]

Simon,

Besides it's title, is there anything in the book that you think is factually inaccurate?

*crickets*

[_Simon Belmont]

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=631