Did FARMS/MI ever give a critical review of Bushman's RSR?

[_Buffalo]

that does seem to cast doubt upon that person's claim to be on the "inside" among historians of Mormonism.

http://www.chacocanyon.com/images/thumb ... lposts.gif

[_Daniel Peterson]

Not exactly an effective reply.

If you can show that Grant Palmer had some genuine sort of unusual "insider" status with regard to issues concerning the origins of Mormonism -- say, special access to historical documents denied to others, or some kind of exceptional pipeline to specialists on the subject, or a uniquely impressive record of relevant scholarship or publication, or whatever -- you have always been and continue to be entirely free to do so.

[_jon]

Not exactly an effective reply.

If you can show that Grant Palmer had some genuine sort of unusual "insider" status with regard to issues concerning the origins of Mormonism -- say, special access to historical documents denied to others, or some kind of exceptional pipeline to specialists on the subject, or a uniquely impressive record of relevant scholarship or publication, or whatever -- you have always been and continue to be entirely free to do so.

You seem obsessed with and stressed about Palmer - what's the real problem?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You seem obsessed with and stressed about Palmer

Not even slightly.

I'm responding to posts about him.

Including yours.

It seems that you would prefer a monologue, allowing you to declare your position without dissent or challenge.

[_jon]

You seem obsessed with and stressed about Palmer

Not even slightly.

I'm responding to posts about him.

Including yours.

It seems that you would prefer a monologue, allowing you to declare your position without dissent or challenge.

Not at all, I like a good two sided discussion/debate. It's just...well...you seem particularly engaged in Palmer.
Not so much the book, but the man who wrote it.

Do you know him personally?

[_Daniel Peterson]

you seem particularly engaged in Palmer.

I'm not.

I hadn't thought about him for a very long time until he was brought up here, by Buffalo, as a weapon with which to seek to discredit the Maxwell Institute.

Not so much the book, but the man who wrote it.

I couldn't care less about Grant Palmer.

Do you know him personally?

I've never met him nor ever spoken with him nor corresponded with him.

[_Buffalo]

[

I hadn't thought about him for a very long time until he was brought up here, by Buffalo, as a weapon with which to seek to discredit the Maxwell Institute.

Seems like a lot of pointless effort - like trying paint the sky blue.

[_Runtu]

A couple of observations:

1. I notice that every discussion of Grant Palmer's book by apologists focuses on its weakest point: the Golden Pot parallels. For example, for a while, it seemed as if every time Palmer's name came up, Bill Hamblin sneered, "Golden Pot, indeed!" I read Palmer's book, and there wasn't really anything groundbreaking in it, but then I don't think that was his purpose. He methodically and pretty thoroughly laid out many of the problems with early Mormon truth-claims. Most of those had been discussed elsewhere, but Palmer's purpose, as the book's description says, is to provide "a brief survey" of recent literature regarding Mormon origins. I think he succeeded quite well, the Golden Pot notwithstanding. That apologists focus on the Golden Pot seems telling to me.

2. Aside from Bushman's rather dry writing style, I had two major issues with RSR: First, he tended to blunt the sharper problems (for example, Joseph's promise of exaltation for HC Kimball's family in exchange for Helen is presented as an old-fashioned asking of a father for a daughter's hand). But the more unpardonable sin, in my view, is that Bushman's book leaves us with very little insight into who Joseph Smith was. I felt like I didn't know Joseph any better after reading the book than I did before I picked it up.

[_Willy Law]

Not exactly an effective reply.

If you can show that Grant Palmer had some genuine sort of unusual "insider" status with regard to issues concerning the origins of Mormonism -- say, special access to historical documents denied to others, or some kind of exceptional pipeline to specialists on the subject, or a uniquely impressive record of relevant scholarship or publication, or whatever -- you have always been and continue to be entirely free to do so.

Dr. Peterson can I give you some free, albeit unsolicited, advice?

I believe that most of you that contribute to apologetics are too far removed from any crisis of faith (if you ever experienced one) to understand what we are looking for from the church as we work our way through our journey. Palmer's book was the first I read during my crisis. I desperately wanted answers for his arguments from the church. Instead when I searched for responses from the church regarding his points all I find is squabbling about what is an "insider" and other nonsense.
Do you think those of us falling down the rabbit hole really care if Palmer is actually an insider? We don't.
Especially after listening to Palmer on a few different podcasts, you squabbling just comes off as petty and un Christ like.

My advice would be to talk to those just starting in their crisis of faith and see if what I am saying rings true. My guess is that none will care about the personal accolades of the author, they just want answers. None of them will care if Palmer is truly and insider or if Quinn is gay, they simply want to know if what they are saying is true. To me what they are saying is true, but then again I am a degenerate apostate.

[_Daniel Peterson]

A couple of observations:

1. I notice that every discussion of Grant Palmer's book by apologists focuses on its weakest point: the Golden Pot parallels.

Not true. Several of the Maxwell Institute reviews scarcely mentioned that chapter, if they mentioned it at all.

Incidentally, by "apologists," in this case, I take it that you mean "well-respected professional historians of Mormonism who, by and large, are not active in apologetics and have never been considered apologists, but who must be denigrated because they weren't impressed with Grant Palmer's book."

That apologists focus on the Golden Pot seems telling to me.

That you misrepresent what these well-respected professional historians of Mormonism (who, by and large, are not active in apologetics and have never been considered apologists, but who evidently must be denigrated because they weren't impressed with Grant Palmer's book) actually wrote seems quite telling to me.