An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_LDS truthseeker]

To DCP. Let me be clear here since you seem to want to nitpick on words instead of understand the crux of the issue. When I referred the crowd of people at FARMS/Fair as well as people on the board, I was not necessarily referring to the employees at FARMS. I was mostly referring to the people that frequent and support the Mormon boards like FAIR and this board and like to reference the FARMS reviews as definitive evaluations of books.

Some of my comments on what many of these apologetic supporters have said about Grant did come from the reviews found on FARMS and some did not come from the FARMS reviews themselves, but rather on various message boards, that we are all familiar with. They also have come to me personally as well as to Grant. And of course I know that you DCP have no responsibility for emails not your own. And if you personally haven’t seen these arguments, then you haven’t seen them, so what?

Here’s one you did see:

This brings us to the book's curious title. To what group is Palmer an "insider," and why does that perspective matter? The title apparently refers to his career as an instructor in the CES. But one may question whether Palmer's career as a gospel teacher furnishes him with more knowledge of "Mormon origins" than could be obtained by an "outsider." This is demonstrably not the case. Moreover, other "insiders" do not view things the way Palmer does. So what is really at work in the book's title? Essentially, it is a piece of disingenuous advertising. It intends to present Palmer as a seasoned gospel teacher who will shepherd those who wish to learn more about the origins of their faith http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=513

The FARMS reviewer attempts, but fails, to discredit the author before he begins a serious review of it by HIS interpretation of the word Insider and saying Grant misused the term to mislead readers. Certainly a career CES teacher would know more about church history, especially the damaging stuff, then an outsider of the church.

These groups of people that support the FAIR/FARMS and other Mormon message boards write me often on Grant Palmer and I have debated this with those that support the FAIR boards especially. Why me, I guess it’s because I made the Grant Palmer Home Page http://www.mormonthink.com/grantpalmer.htm that is often referenced when Grant is in the news like he was last month http://www.ancientpaths.tv/search/label/Grant%20Palmer

Without fail the things that almost always come up with critics of Grant is the following:
1) They reference the 5 critical reviews of Grant that they found while searching FARMS and FAIR.
2) Referencing those reviews and perhaps their own opinions, they go on and on about how Grant isn’t an Insider, using their own definition of Insider.
3) They bash Grant for receiving his church pension saying he shouldn’t be allowed to have it.

Few comments are ever given about the substance of his book except an occasional comment about the Golden Pot chapter.

As a side note, the majority of emails are in support of Grant and questions usually focus on why is he still a member (though disfellowshipped).

So I have already given my defense of the title of the book – it was submitted by Grant under another name but changed by the publisher. I like the title and I don’ think people seeing the word ‘Insider’ should assume it is more than it is. Grant worked for the CES for 34 years and has far more knowledge of church history, especially the disturbing things that the church doesn’t teach, than the average member so that seems to fit the textbook definition of an “Insider”. Bushman, DCP and Ash fall into that category as well in my opinion. I don’t think the word “Insider” implies anything more than that. It is not misleading. Everyone knows that Grant didn’t live in the 1800s and didn’t witness the restoration first hand. To imply that an Insider has to have some knowledge that can’t possibly exist is nonsensical.

I want to publicly thank Grant for writing the book. It was one of the first books I read that helped me learn more about some of the church history that I was never, ever taught in my decades of attending church.

For balance, here’s some reviews in support of Grant’s book (the 2nd one is in response to the FARMS reviews - it even mentions you DCP):
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/07/revie ... n-origins/
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/06/a-rep ... institute/

[_harmony]

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.

I suspect something similiar can be applied to Daniel. I see no reason to think Palmer was being dishonest if he really thought of himself as an insider, due to his CES employment. Condemning him for having a broader definition of the word... an acceptable definition of the word... seems fairly petty.

[_Buffalo]

Reproached for lying to his wife, Jack replied that he had a different definition of the word affair.

Was it plural marriage?

Dan, you're just looking petty here. The use of Insider in the title is not at all what you're insinuating. The author IS an insider, just not in the definition you're trying to force upon the word. Surely by now you've figured out that any given word has several meanings.

insider [ˌɪnˈsaɪdə]
n
1. a member of a specified group
2. a person with access to exclusive information

[_Dan Vogel]

Jon,

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?

I know you don’t care about tone and style, but they can affect accuracy. There is more to scholarship than accurately quoting sources. Rather than a work of scholarship, one encounters a litany of reasons for Palmer’s disbelief. His treatment of the issues is certainly more readable than the Tanners, but one doesn’t come away with a deeper understanding of the First Vision, priesthood restoration, Book of Mormon witnesses, Book of Mormon’s content, angel Moroni story, or Joseph Smith. It’s a polemical work that doesn’t cite the other side of the debate. There’s more to Mormon history than problems.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Grant Palmer had no access to exclusive information, and Grant Palmer was not a member of any relevant specific group.

I'm a member of the National Geographic Society. But if, based on that, I claimed to have "insider" knowledge about the origin and inner workings of the Society, I would be misleading my audience.

it seems petty, to me, that people here won't admit the obvious: The title of the book was misleading hype.

It seems petty that they are willing to die on this ridiculous hill, for something so plainly devoid of merit.

Acknowledging that wouldn't prove that the Church is true. It wouldn't let President Packer off the hook for being a blood-sucking vampire who tortures kittens and terrifies young children. It wouldn't even discredit Grant Palmer's book.

I suspect something similiar can be applied to Daniel. I see no reason to think Palmer was being dishonest if he really thought of himself as an insider, due to his CES employment. Condemning him for having a broader definition of the word... an acceptable definition of the word... seems fairly petty.

And I, in turn, think these defenses of the book's misleading title are incredibly silly, not to say sophistical and more than a bit desperate.

When people see the title An Insider's View of the NFL, they expect that the author has been or is somehow uniquely "inside" the NFL -- as, say, a player or a referee or a team or league official -- and that, accordingly, they're going to get the inside scoop from someone peculiarly well situated to give it. If they then find out that the book is entirely based on publicly-available press accounts, and written by a guy who had merely sat in the stands on a few occasions, they'll justly think that the title was a bit misleading. And it won't do to say that, well, he had subscribed to Sports Illustrated for quite a few years.

Gotta go. Really. Gotta go.

[_stemelbow]

I know you don’t care about tone and style, but they can affect accuracy. There is more to scholarship than accurately quoting sources. Rather than a work of scholarship, one encounters a litany of reasons for Palmer’s disbelief. His treatment of the issues is certainly more readable than the Tanners, but one doesn’t come away with a deeper understanding of the First Vision, priesthood restoration, Book of Mormon witnesses, Book of Mormon’s content, angel Moroni story, or Joseph Smith. It’s a polemical work that doesn’t cite the other side of the debate. There’s more to Mormon history than problems.

that reminds me of a book I once read, "Joseph Smith--the Making of a Prophet". Thanks for that.

I'm just kidding. I've never read your book. I should.

[_Buffalo]

Grant Palmer had no access to exclusive information, and Grant Palmer was not a member of any relevant specific group.

Extra! Extra! Daniel C Peterson says Church Educational System is irrelevant! Implies that educators and directors of CES are ignorant about church history! Read all about it!

[_MCB]

Dan V. wrote:

Your chapter on the “Golden Pot” is utterly unconvincing and I would expect that FARMS would make easy prey of it. Simply, Joseph Smith told his story beginning in 1823 as his family attests—both Lucy and William—not 1827 as you assert. There would be no purpose for Walters [the magician] to tell Smith the story [of the Golden Pot] since it is only remotely associated with treasure lore. Smith’s story follows more well-known treasure motifs without entering into the contortions that your chapter does. Moreover, there is no evidence that Smith and Walters had contact in 1827. Walters was hired by Alvin Smith and Willard Chase I the early 1820s and soon after fired. …

My theory is that "The Golden Pot" is indirectly related to Mormon literature and doctrine. The bizarre imagery and schizophrenic characters indicate Swedenborgian influence. And much of Mormonism also displays such influence. I could list those commonalities (between Emanuel Swedenborg's witings and LDS literature), if you would like to see them.

Sorry for not having participated in this thread earlier. I am much more interested in seeking employment at the present time.

[_Buffalo]

To DCP. Let me be clear here since you seem to want to nitpick on words instead of understand the crux of the issue. When I referred the crowd of people at FARMS/Fair as well as people on the board, I was not necessarily referring to the employees at FARMS. I was mostly referring to the people that frequent and support the Mormon boards like FAIR and this board and like to reference the FARMS reviews as definitive evaluations of books.

Some of my comments on what many of these apologetic supporters have said about Grant did come from the reviews found on FARMS and some did not come from the FARMS reviews themselves, but rather on various message boards, that we are all familiar with. They also have come to me personally as well as to Grant. And of course I know that you DCP have no responsibility for emails not your own. And if you personally haven’t seen these arguments, then you haven’t seen them, so what?

Here’s one you did see:

This brings us to the book's curious title. To what group is Palmer an "insider," and why does that perspective matter? The title apparently refers to his career as an instructor in the CES. But one may question whether Palmer's career as a gospel teacher furnishes him with more knowledge of "Mormon origins" than could be obtained by an "outsider." This is demonstrably not the case. Moreover, other "insiders" do not view things the way Palmer does. So what is really at work in the book's title? Essentially, it is a piece of disingenuous advertising. It intends to present Palmer as a seasoned gospel teacher who will shepherd those who wish to learn more about the origins of their faith http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=513

The FARMS reviewer attempts, but fails, to discredit the author before he begins a serious review of it by HIS interpretation of the word Insider and saying Grant misused the term to mislead readers. Certainly a career CES teacher would know more about church history, especially the damaging stuff, then an outsider of the church.

These groups of people that support the FAIR/FARMS and other Mormon message boards write me often on Grant Palmer and I have debated this with those that support the FAIR boards especially. Why me, I guess it’s because I made the Grant Palmer Home Page http://www.mormonthink.com/grantpalmer.htm that is often referenced when Grant is in the news like he was last month http://www.ancientpaths.tv/search/label/Grant%20Palmer

Without fail the things that almost always come up with critics of Grant is the following:
1) They reference the 5 critical reviews of Grant that they found while searching FARMS and FAIR.
2) Referencing those reviews and perhaps their own opinions, they go on and on about how Grant isn’t an Insider, using their own definition of Insider.
3) They bash Grant for receiving his church pension saying he shouldn’t be allowed to have it.

Few comments are ever given about the substance of his book except an occasional comment about the Golden Pot chapter.

As a side note, the majority of emails are in support of Grant and questions usually focus on why is he still a member (though disfellowshipped).

So I have already given my defense of the title of the book – it was submitted by Grant under another name but changed by the publisher. I like the title and I don’ think people seeing the word ‘Insider’ should assume it is more than it is. Grant worked for the CES for 34 years and has far more knowledge of church history, especially the disturbing things that the church doesn’t teach, than the average member so that seems to fit the textbook definition of an “Insider”. Bushman, DCP and Ash fall into that category as well in my opinion. I don’t think the word “Insider” implies anything more than that. It is not misleading. Everyone knows that Grant didn’t live in the 1800s and didn’t witness the restoration first hand. To imply that an Insider has to have some knowledge that can’t possibly exist is nonsensical.

I want to publicly thank Grant for writing the book. It was one of the first books I read that helped me learn more about some of the church history that I was never, ever taught in my decades of attending church.

For balance, here’s some reviews in support of Grant’s book (the 2nd one is in response to the FARMS reviews - it even mentions you DCP):
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/07/revie ... n-origins/
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/06/a-rep ... institute/

This is pretty classic:

I have thought recently about a poem I read in a German class at BYU, “Galileo Galilei, der Bibelzertrümmerer.” The poem, by Bertold Brecht, is sung as a ballad in Brecht’s play, “The Life of Galileo,” and is somewhat farcical but nevertheless identifies the two issues that confronted Galileo. The first was whether the sun revolved around the earth and the second was the assumption that the Pope stood at the center of the universe encircled by cardinals, bishops revolving around the cardinals, and common people orbiting the bishops—everything in its place. As I read the FARMS Review with its flippancy and defense of Cardinal Belarmino and the Inquisition and ridicule of Thomas Murphy for stating the obvious and of Grant Palmer for his beliefs, I am struck by the absence of any convincing evidence of scholarship. What readers are confronted with is, not just the question of Indian origins, but the universe FARMS inhabits, backed by BYU, and their role to shout down any opposition to their revisionist view of the Book of Mormon and of Mormon history. In terms of obstructing other viewpoints, Tvedtnes even e-mailed Murphy’s dean to try to have him censured.

The real issues confronting FARMS and the Smith Institute are institutional loyalty, obedience to authority, and status within their spheres of influence. FARMS chafes at the suggestion that DNA research has created a Galileo event for LDS members, but FARMS itself contributes to a sense of a worldview in transition. Their defensiveness is enough to make one wonder, with 225 pages in the Review and over 50 pages in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies devoted to Murphy’s 32-page article (148 pages to respond to Palmer’s 300-page book). FARMS claims to have been the first to acknowledge that Native Americans are not necessarily Lamanites. Their limited geography model has Book of Mormon people inhabiting a space that is so small, it would be a pin prick on a map. Now they envision a population so small, it would be a drop in the ocean of Native American DNA. If their model shrinks any farther, it will disappear altogether. At the same time, FARMS adherents excoriate the very scholars who brought these issues to their attention. It’s a convenient hedge against an uncertain future.

What I think is lacking is a critical examination of FARMS publications. Scholars find FARMS to be too absurd to take seriously. Church members fear that if they question FARMS, it will appear that they are questioning the church. In other words, FARMS gets a free ticket and the quality of their work suffers. The recent article in Sunstone magazine (“Defending the Kingdom, Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics is Reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy”) by John-Charles Duffy is a good start in the direction of turning a critical eye on FARMS, although I disagree with Duffy’s assessment that, when it comes to FARMS, their hearts are right even if their methods are wrong. There may be a need for an annual review of the FARMS Review. Any volunteers? More importantly, as Duffy mentions, FARMS needs to decide whether it will embrace scholarship or continue their polemical rants. In any case, their attempt to counter the impressive work of Murphy and Palmer is wanting and appears to be a case of special pleading to accept a fuzzy view of science and history for the sake of being faith-promoting.

[_Hades]

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.

It certainly hasn't been a problem to bring up "golden pot" and "insider" without having to click the mouse somewhere else. When someone asks for something more substantial they are called lazy and given a link to an apologetic source. Why can't these things be simplified and brought to the table? Maybe they are meant to be read through the apologetic smokescreen. Just putting them in the thread might give someone the wrong impression. So far the other two dead horses are just smoke and mirrors meant to keep everyone's attention drawn away from anything real.

If this were a poker game, this is where I go all in because I think you're bluffing. I have a feeling you're going to fold without showing your hand.