An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Doctor Scratch]

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!

Hi there, Dan. If it helps, I found the letter interesting, especially insofar as it seems to underscore Hades's basic point, which is that the apologists mainly disliked Palmer's book because it seemed to be telling LDS about things that apologists don't think the rank-and-file should know. Or, to be more precise, it discussed those "things" in ways that haven't been given the Seal of Approval from the Maxwell Institute or the Brethren. Plus, it was published by Signature and the FARMS/the MI had already declared war on Signature. It's deeply ironic that the FARMS Review or any of its authors would accuse Palmer of being "misleading." In DCP's own "Questions to Legal Answers," he references some mysterious "memo" that supposedly clarified some matter about BYU allegedly putting a ban on any Signature books being sold at the bookstore, though he didn't bother to post any verbatim text, or anything remotely like that. Plus, the MI boys are the same guys that brought us the so-called "2nd Watson Letter."

[_ludwigm]

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...

Agree.

I am an outsider. - praise be to God. If he/she/it exists.

[_jon]

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!

Sorry Dan, I'm in and out and haven't read it.
I will go back and read it properly, thanks for challenging me.

Cheers

[_jon]

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!

Dan,
Okay, read it now.
It seems your criticisms are:
Writing style and tone (twice)
Golden Pot
And a challenge to Palmers thinking about the witnesses on the basis that it relies on fokelore.

Did i read it correctly?
Are those the biggest conflicts that you have with the books contents?

[_Dan Vogel]

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.

It must be torture being so misunderstood!

[_why me]

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?

Actaully, I have been published but not in book form. And the author always has a say in the title. If the publisher does not like the title, they will suggest a different title. But if that title is misleading as in this case, the author has the power to say something and refuse publication if the publisher does not change their opinion. If not we would all be in a mess reading books with misleading titles to sell more books.

Palmer knew that the title was misleading. But he did nothing about it. And not we have exmormons referring to that book as if an insider wrote it. And that is misleading.

[_harmony]

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.

It must be torture being so misunderstood!

He holds up well, kinda like Atlas.

[_harmony]

Palmer knew that the title was misleading. But he did nothing about it. And not we have exmormons referring to that book as if an insider wrote it. And that is misleading.

I suspect Palmer's definition of "insider" is different from yours, why me. And if that is so, then he wasn't being misleading at all.

[_Buffalo]

Palmer knew that the title was misleading. But he did nothing about it. And not we have exmormons referring to that book as if an insider wrote it. And that is misleading.

I suspect Palmer's definition of "insider" is different from yours, why me. And if that is so, then he wasn't being misleading at all.

As a Mormon outsider, Why Me really resents Mormon insiders.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It must be torture being so misunderstood!

I got used to it many years ago.

It's probably better, though, than being transparently obvious.

I suspect Palmer's definition of "insider" is different from yours, why me.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

And if that is so, then he wasn't being misleading at all.

When she asked him point blank, Jack denied that he was having an affair. But, two weeks later, he was caught in a motel room with his mistress. Reproached for lying to his wife, Jack replied that he had a different definition of the word affair. He meant a formal party. He wasn't having a grand formal party. No. Wait! He meant an affair as in foreign affairs! (Yeah, that's it.) He meant that he wasn't engaged in diplomacy! So he wasn't being misleading at all.

And now, folks, I leave for ten days or so. I'll have little opportunity to play here, if any.