Doctor Scratch wrote: That's not how it seems. Perhaps this is only my impression, but it seems like any time the topic of Grant Palmer comes up, your posting goes into over-drive, and it's often quite mean-spirited. There must be five or six threads going on right now that deal with Palmer, and you're a heavy participant in every single one of them. An overarching theme in your commentary is your attempts to discredit him, and to paint him as an amateur and as someone who is in some way deceptive. I'm kind of surprised that you haven't resurrected your gossipy story about how Louis Midgley's "sources" are certain that Palmer "lied" to his employer.
But, hey---maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you tell us what was good and valuable in Palmer's book? Which parts of it would you recommend to believing LDS who are unfamiliar with problematic issues in LDS history and doctrine?
Great point Scratch. Then again I would bet good money that Bushman is not a literal believer. I would bet even money that many of our very own board apologists are not literal believers. Dr. Peterson is the only one that I cannot get a handle on. Right now I would bet he is a literal believer.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
You know, I've been meaning to congratulate you on your recent graduation. Way to go, man.
Huh?
I've been meaning to congratulate you on the recent addition to your family! I heard that you acquired a stray cat, and named her fluffy. Is she cute?
Now that the meaningless derails are out of the way, do you see a bit of yourself in Dr. Peterson from time to time? I mean, you believe he gets emotional about Palmer, but you get emotional about Dr. Quinn. Perhaps you two are more similar than either of you want to believe.
Daniel Peterson wrote:I was looking for a reviewer, but having a difficult time finding one. Everybody It was difficult to find reviewers for Richard Bushman's book, too, for the same JSP-related reason but also and primarily because so many of us know him. For example, I'm speaking for him in his summer graduate student seminar at BYU later this week, and I've spoken for him before, at least twice, down in Claremont. (It was quite a different matter, incidentally, with regard to Grant Palmer, the self-proclaimed historical "insider," whom nobody knew, though one historian could remember having had him in a class many years back.)
This makes perfect sense. How could one do a typical FARMS review on someone they know and care for or else has a much higher standing in the academic community than themselves? Perhaps a notation should have been attached to let them know this was to be a friendly review or else sought a reviewer out from the Utah State or University of Utah LDS Institutes.
I'd like to add that while I obviously disagree with DCP about almost everything, I don't dislike him and I think he's a decent person. I think that's important to say occasionally.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.