An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Simon Belmont]

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

It is?

Why have they reviewed so many pro-LDS books (with some not getting good reviews. Wasn't there something Scratch loves to bring up about "Fun for Family Night?")

Signature Books is a partisan press.

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

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

It is?

Yes, obviously!

Why have they reviewed so many pro-LDS books (with some not getting good reviews. Wasn't there something Scratch loves to bring up about "Fun for Family Night?")

My comment was in response to Porter’s question to DCP--“Did you do any critical review of Bushman's RSR?” He seemed to say it as if it were a requirement.

Going after badly-written pro-Mormon works is not evidence that FARMS is not a partisan press. What I would look for is balance in their critique of opposing views. I don’t see that, or at least, very rarely. Besides, I don’t think FARMS tries to appear non-partisan.

Signature Books is a partisan press.

You do know what tu quoque is, right? You say this like it should be something else, or that I should disagree, or it’s something bad to avoid. Unlike FARMS, Signature hasn’t just published revisionist works, but also valuable and important primary sources. The Maxwell Institute has been moving more in this direction, but Signature was there first.

[_Pahoran]

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.

But you would never dream of making an ad hominem argument, would you?

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.

Again, his audience was other LDS members, i.e. people also inside the Church. He was therefore claiming to be an "insider" to something else. Either "Mormon origins" per se or some kind of LDS-historical in-group. The argument that he's a bona fide, honest-to-goodness "insider" because he's a Mormon -- just like the people he expected to buy his book -- is rather desperate.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Themis]

Again, his audience was other LDS members, i.e. people also inside the Church. He was therefore claiming to be an "insider" to something else. Either "Mormon origins" per se or some kind of LDS-historical in-group. The argument that he's a bona fide, honest-to-goodness "insider" because he's a Mormon -- just like the people he expected to buy his book -- is rather desperate.

Regards,
Pahoran

My argument about anyone being a member an insider is correct, but I am not saying that Palmer's book is making that claim. You would have to ask him. My understanding is that he did not come up with the name but went with it. Yes given his knowledge and expereince he can be and is considered an insider that most other members would not fit under. The title of his book is not misleading that he somehow was alive back then. You really do have to be very stupid to come up with this. In the post Simon quotes you do accept insider can be used for a variety of reasons, so there would be no reason to conclude in any way that he is suggesting that he was alive and in Joseph circle as Simon was suggesting. I do think Simon is just making this up for something to argue.

[_jon]

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

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is about the content of the book. Not the authors credentials, nor the title relevance.

[_Pahoran]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is about the content of the book. Not the authors credentials, nor the title relevance.

Okay.

I've read Der Goldne Topf.

Q: What's the connection between Archivarius Lindhorst and Moroni?

A: Why, that they were both salamanders.

Q: How do we know Lindhorst was a salamander?

A: It says so in the book.

Q: How do we know Moroni was a salamander?

A: Martin Harris wrote a letter in which he described him as such.

Q: But that letter is a proven forgery; how can it be relevant?

A: But it wasn't a proven forgery back in the day when the first drafts of Insider's View were being circulated. Those early drafts clearly show that the salamander match-up was the key connection.

Q: So what's left of the argument?

A: Just a few very weak "parallels" that had to be exaggerated almost beyond recognition to gain even the surface appearance of plausibility.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

My argument about anyone being a member an insider is correct, but I am not saying that Palmer's book is making that claim.

Then how was it possibly relevant?

You would have to ask him. My understanding is that he did not come up with the name but went with it. Yes given his knowledge and expereince he can be and is considered an insider that most other members would not fit under.

Not regarding the subject of his book.

The title of his book is not misleading that he somehow was alive back then. You really do have to be very stupid to come up with this.

But you would never dream of making an ad hominem argument, would you?

In the post Simon quotes you do accept insider can be used for a variety of reasons, so there would be no reason to conclude in any way that he is suggesting that he was alive and in Joseph circle as Simon was suggesting. I do think Simon is just making this up for something to argue.

I think you are missing the point. (See my post in the other thread.) He's an "insider" to something, but it's up to him (or his supporters) to show he is an "insider" to anything relevant to the subject of his book.

That has not been done.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Guest]

I don’t think FARMS tries to appear non-partisan.

We don't. We lay our cards on the table.

Signature should do so, as well -- although, by this point, there's little ambiguity remaining.

Unlike FARMS, Signature hasn’t just published revisionist works, but also valuable and important primary sources. The Maxwell Institute has been moving more in this direction, but Signature was there first.

Robert F. Smith's FARMS-sponsored work toward a critical text of the Book of Mormon began in 1979, essentially simultaneously with the establishment of FARMS as a California non-profit research institution. The first volume of the project was published in 1984, and the third appeared in 1987. Already, though, a second edition was in the works.

In 1988, Royal Skousen took over as editor and head of the FARMS Critical Text of the Book of Mormon Project, which has published a number of large volumes already, as well as a Yale University Press edition of the Book of Mormon, and continues to produce new material.

We've also been deeply involved in work on the text of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the textual history of the Book of Abraham, and a database of early publications related to the Book of Mormon.

And, of course, the Maxwell Institute or FARMS has been massively involved in the electronic publication of primary source documents from Petra, Qumran, Herculaneum, Bonampak, and the Vatican Apostolic Library, and in the publication of printed dual-language volumes of primary source materials from the world of classical Islam.

[_Themis]

Then how was it possibly relevant?

Relevant to insider being used in a variety of ways even you accepted in a previous post.

Not regarding the subject of his book.

I'm sure you don't think so, but I disagree.

But you would never dream of making an ad hominem argument, would you?

I have made that mistake before, but not as much as you have. I saw at least two lately against Grant Palmer. This comment is not an ad hominem becuase t deal with an argument I think one would have to be a stupid to make.

I think you are missing the point. (See my post in the other thread.) He's an "insider" to something, but it's up to him (or his supporters) to show he is an "insider" to anything relevant to the subject of his book.

Not really. You can consider him an insider or not. It's up to you, and I don't think he is worrying about it. I just think he can justifiably be an insider in more then one way.

That has not been done.

? Not sure what you mean.

[_Dan Vogel]

Daniel P.,

Robert F. Smith's FARMS-sponsored work toward a critical text of the Book of Mormon began in 1979, essentially simultaneously with the establishment of FARMS as a California non-profit research institution. The first volume of the project was published in 1984, and the third appeared in 1987. Already, though, a second edition was in the works.

In 1988, Royal Skousen took over as editor and head of the FARMS Critical Text of the Book of Mormon Project, which has published a number of large volumes already, as well as a Yale University Press edition of the Book of Mormon, and continues to produce new material.

We've also been deeply involved in work on the text of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, the textual history of the Book of Abraham, and a database of early publications related to the Book of Mormon.

And, of course, the Maxwell Institute or FARMS has been massively involved in the electronic publication of primary source documents from Petra, Qumran, Herculaneum, Bonampak, and the Vatican Apostolic Library, and in the publication of printed dual-language volumes of primary source materials from the world of classical Islam.

I had forgotten about R. F. Smith’s preliminary efforts toward a critical text of a text that had already been published. Of course, I’m familiar with Skousen’s very important work published beginning in 2001, and more recent efforts dealing with “real” ancient writings—which is basically as I had described it. Signature was barely born in 1983 when it began providing researches with the multi-volume journals of Wilford Woodruff, probably the most important journal source outside Joseph Smith’s. Since then, there has been a steady flow of journals and source materials, including my own five-volume set of Early Mormon Documents. Until recent years, the critical Book of Mormon project was an exception to the apologetic mission of FARMS. A decision was made to change the name and diversify its mission—which in itself was an apologetic move.