An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Doctor Scratch]

I hope you have a good week Scratch, take care.

regards, mikwut

Same to you, Mikwut. I also hope you come around to the realization that this apologetic assault on the word "Insider" is really just a rhetorical tactic that's meant to smear Palmer, and to make him look deceptive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So why blast Grant for the title used by the publisher when they picked a good title that would help the book's success? That's their job. People read far more into the title than what it really means.

Which is, of course, why the title was judged to be more effective. But it was misleading.

I am continually amazed at the FARMS/Fair crowd. They don't really want to discuss the issues and the evidence

The articles in the FARMS Review discussed both issues and evidence.

First, Grant was not an insider because he did not consult FARMS for his research and because he was not a GA.

Did anybody make such an argument in the FARMS Review?

FThen they argued that he was not an insider because he was not privy to seeing Joseph Smith translate the plates and witness things first hand.

Did anybody make such an argument in the FARMS Review?

Now they are saying that he is not an insider because he is not a well known historian.

Did anybody make such an argument in the FARMS Review?

I certainly haven't made it here. I couldn't possibly care less whether he's a well-known historian or not. That is irrelevant to anything I've written.

I think FARMS (as well as some people on this board) would have been better served if they would have merely said in their reviews that the term "Insider" in this case simply means someone in the church that knows a lot about LDS history, things that the average member does not know.

But that's a definition of expert, not of insider.

Anyway, FARMS wrote no reviews. You talk about FARMS as if it were some sort of hive-mind.

Four professional historians of Mormonism -- two of them rather junior, two of them quite distinguished senior scholars -- wrote reviews. They did not, so far as I know, consult with one another in writing them. They were not coached by the editor (yours truly) in what to write. What they wrote was not modified by the editor (yours truly) in any significant way. Their reviews were accompanied by a fifth response, written by a scholar of the history of theology, and by a statement from the scholars affiliated with BYU's Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History. The authors of these two items did not, so far as I know, consult with one another or with any of the four previously-mentioned historians in writing them. They were not coached by the editor (yours truly) in what to write. What they wrote was not modified by the editor (yours truly) in any significant way.

And then move on with the review.

It is profoundly disingenuous, and not at all consistent with the seeking of truth, to pretend that the five FARMS reviews and the Smith Institute statement concentrated at great length on this matter in lieu of dealing with the substance of Grant Palmer's book.

[_Dan Vogel]

Jon,

Again, politely, this thread is meant to be about the books contents. Not the title nor the authors credentials. Cheers.

I’m amazed that after I quoted my 1997 letter to Palmer, which included some criticism, I didn’t get any response—not even by you!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I found it quite interesting. Thanks for posting it.

But I didn't comment, let alone endorse it or approve it -- partly because I knew that I would inevitably be accused of seeking to "pile on" Grant Palmer, which is, actually, of no interest to me and no part of my intention.

[_LDS truthseeker]

I am continually amazed at the FARMS/Fair crowd. They don't really want to discuss the issues and the evidence

The articles in the FARMS Review discussed both issues and evidence.

First, Grant was not an insider because he did not consult FARMS for his research and because he was not a GA.

Did anybody make such an argument in the FARMS Review?

FThen they argued that he was not an insider because he was not privy to seeing Joseph Smith translate the plates and witness things first hand.

Did anybody make such an argument in the FARMS Review?

Now they are saying that he is not an insider because he is not a well known historian.

Did anybody make such an argument in the FARMS Review?

I certainly haven't made it here. I couldn't possibly care less whether he's a well-known historian or not. That is irrelevant to anything I've written.

I think FARMS (as well as some people on this board) would have been better served if they would have merely said in their reviews that the term "Insider" in this case simply means someone in the church that knows a lot about LDS history, things that the average member does not know.

But that's a definition of expert, not of insider.

Anyway, FARMS wrote no reviews. You talk about FARMS as if it were some sort of hive-mind.

Four professional historians of Mormonism -- two of them rather junior, two of them quite distinguished senior scholars -- wrote reviews. They did not, so far as I know, consult with one another in writing them. They were not coached by the editor (yours truly) in what to write. What they wrote was not modified by the editor (yours truly) in any significant way. Their reviews were accompanied by a fifth response, written by a scholar of the history of theology, and by a statement from the scholars affiliated with BYU's Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History. The authors of these two items did not, so far as I know, consult with one another or with any of the four previously-mentioned historians in writing them. They were not coached by the editor (yours truly) in what to write. What they wrote was not modified by the editor (yours truly) in any significant way.

And then move on with the review.

It is profoundly disingenuous, and not at all consistent with the seeking of truth, to pretend that the five FARMS reviews and the Smith Institute statement concentrated at great length on this matter in lieu of dealing with the substance of Grant Palmer's book.

The arguments above are ones that I have seen many times by people affiliated with FARMS and FAIR and by apologists in general. Note in my comment I did not single out just the FARMS reviews. The reviews were found by searching the FARMS website, if they were not official FARMS reviewers, then so be it. I have seen supporters of FAIR on various boards make these claims. I have even had people write me and tell me these things. One was so insistant that Palmer should not receive his pension, we had much dialogue on that one, irrelevant issue alone.

By the way, I like how FARMS first review (or at least the first one that popped up when I search his book on Maxwell's website) buries the fact that Palmer did not submit the title "Insider" when he gave his book to the publisher in a footnote that few probably read. Why did they not be open and say it wasn't his title?

[Guest]

The arguments above are ones that I have seen many times by people affiliated with FARMS and FAIR and by apologists in general.

I've never seen them.

And I wonder what you mean by "affiliated with FARMS." FARMS, or, more properly, the Maxwell Institute, is a pretty small operation. Has Jerry Bradford been making such arguments? Paul Hoskisson? Matt Roper? You've already acknowledged that the FARMS Review authors didn't. Kristian Heal, perhaps? Alison Coutts?

One was so insistant that Palmer should not receive his pension, we had much dialogue on that one, irrelevant issue alone.

I have no control over, and no responsibility for, what some unknown person has sent to you in an e-mail. The strengths or weaknesses of that person's notes to you have nothing whatever to do with whether the published FARMS Review responses dealt with evidence and arguments in Grant Palmer's book.

By the way, I like how FARMS first review (or at least the first one that popped up when I search his book on Maxwell's website) buries the fact that Palmer did not submit the title "Insider" when he gave his book to the publisher in a footnote that few probably read. Why did they not be open and say it wasn't his title?

I have no idea. You'll have to take that up with Dr. Allen, Dr. Midgley, Dr. Ashurst-McGee, Dr. Harper, or the late Dr. Bitton -- whichever one of them was responsible for the horror.

But, I must say, after the moral posturing and huffing and puffing on this thread, it's rather a let-down to discover that one of the most abominable offenses of the five historians is that one of them put something into a footnote that you believe ought to have been in the main text. "Not with a bang," as T. S. Eliot put it, "but a whimper."

Anyhow, I don't think it matters very much, in the end, whether the claim to "insider" status originated with Grant Palmer or was merely approved by Grant Palmer. It was a peripheral issue in the first place, and now you're on the periphery of the periphery.

[_why me]

OK, let me clear up a few things:

Signature Books chose the title of Grant Palmer's book. The title when Grant turned in the manuscript was "Towards Understanding Mormon Origins." I believe George Smith suggested the books title because it had more appeal. I think he is right. Studies have shown that people pick up books that have an exciting title and cover.

So why blast Grant for the title used by the publisher when they picked a good title that would help the book's success? That's their job. People read far more into the title than what it really means.

.

The author has say in what title his or her book should have. True, the publisher can make suggestions but the books title is up to the author. By going along with the title, Palmer showed himself to be not honest with who he really was in order to mislead and sell more books. And that is the problem with the title. Of course, people will read more into the title. They will read the title as it was meant to be: to read someone's interpretation and opinion who was an insider to the way things are done and decided. Of course the title is false but how many people would be able to judge that fact? Not many. Thus, the title of the book is a lie designed to sell more books and it was also designed to make critics very happy by claiming for years after publication that Palmer was an insider and thus in the know.

[_Hades]

The author has say in what title his or her book should have. True, the publisher can make suggestions but the books title is up to the author. By going along with the title, Palmer showed himself to be not honest with who he really was in order to mislead and sell more books. And that is the problem with the title. Of course, people will read more into the title. They will read the title as it was meant to be: to read someone's interpretation and opinion who was an insider to the way things are done and decided. Of course the title is false but how many people would be able to judge that fact? Not many. Thus, the title of the book is a lie designed to sell more books and it was also designed to make critics very happy by claiming for years after publication that Palmer was an insider and thus in the know.

Published some books have you, why me?

[_Hades]

After 7 pages of thread, the only problems with the book are, golden pot, and the word "insider". Defenders keep promising that there are more substantial problems with the book, but I don't see any of them here.

We all know what the problem is. The problem is, Palmer gave out information to the laypeople that the laypeople aren't supposed to know. That traitor Palmer, is taking away the magic. You've got to keep the magic for the common believer. Without magic they might find fun things to do on Sunday. They just might quit sending in those tithing checks. We can't have that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

After 7 pages of thread, the only problems with the book are, golden pot, and the word "insider". Defenders keep promising that there are more substantial problems with the book, but I don't see any of them here.

They are discussed in the FARMS reviews, to which links have been posted here.

I don't see any need to rehash what's already readily accessible at the click of a mouse. As I've pointed out before, I don't do Cliff's Notes for lazy people.

Anyway, your summary isn't true. Dan Vogel has mentioned other problems on this very thread -- and then lamented that his note appears to be pretty much invisible. Your response lends credence to his lament.

We all know what the problem is. The problem is, Palmer gave out information to the laypeople that the laypeople aren't supposed to know. That traitor Palmer, is taking away the magic. You've got to keep the magic for the common believer. Without magic they might find fun things to do on Sunday. They just might quit sending in those tithing checks. We can't have that.

It's amusing that, while you apparently can't see things that really are there, you can clearly see things that aren't.