Daniel Peterson wrote: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.
CES employee for 35 years = sat in the stands a few times. Really? I would think it would be more along the lines of a player.
Daniel Peterson wrote: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.
CES employee for 35 years = sat in the stands a few times. Really? I would think it would be more along the lines of a player.
Dan sure doesn't think much of the CES.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
If Grant Palmer's objective was to write about things that are not prominent in the core curricula of the church, and he was intimately familiar with the core curricula over the course of his CES career, I have a hard time understanding the objection to his use of self-designated insider status. It's just petty.
For the record, who the hell was misled by the title? Anyone, Bueller?
"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. ... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I." - Joseph Smith, 1844
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."
I couldn’t care less about the politics of it.
The letter shows that Palmer was warned by someone in his own “camp” about the weaknesses of his book and approach.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Hades wrote: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.
Although Palmer made some slight improvements, there wasn’t anything in his book that hadn’t been previously published. What attracted attention was that he had made a career teaching in the church educational system—which gave a legitimacy to the ideas that the Tanner’s didn’t have.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
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.
I’m not impressed with parallels to either.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Hades wrote: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.
Although Palmer made some slight improvements, there wasn’t anything in his book that hadn’t been previously published. What attracted attention was that he had made a career teaching in the church educational system—which gave a legitimacy to the ideas that the Tanner’s didn’t have.
That's probably true, except for the GP idea. However, I think the book is very well written. It is is easy to read and has a pleasant tone to it when discussing things that can be very disturbing to most LDS. It is far friendlier to read than say most of the Tanner's books even though it relays similar information.
I might add that all through out Grant's disfellowship and subsequent meetings with his local leadership, the facts in his book were never argued. They just said that the book was causing members to leave the church. When Grant asked them to tell him what was incorrect in his book, his SP and bishop and others on the council had dead silence.
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.
Since Palmer’s book isn’t materially different than the Tanners’ publications in both content and tone (although better written), the main feature is that it’s written by someone inside Mormonism rather than outside, which gives the ideas more legitimacy. This is what Signature tried to capitalize on—only because such things matter to most people. Of course, it doesn’t matter to scholars. A scholarly review of Palmer’s book would probably not mention the title beyond the connection to his 35 years in the church educational system. Only those concerned about the politics of ideas—like FARMS—would attempt to diminish its influence by denying its implied authority. To non-Mormons, and many church members as well, Palmer is an insider. Ironically, Palmer was only exploiting the special reverence and status religious educators in the Mormon community enjoy and cultivate, including DCP and many of Palmer’s critics.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
Dan Vogel wrote:Since Palmer’s book isn’t materially different than the Tanners’ publications in both content and tone (although better written), the main feature is that it’s written by someone inside Mormonism rather than outside, which gives the ideas more legitimacy. This is what Signature tried to capitalize on—only because such things matter to most people. Of course, it doesn’t matter to scholars. A scholarly review of Palmer’s book would probably not mention the title beyond the connection to his 35 years in the church educational system. Only those concerned about the politics of ideas—like FARMS—would attempt to diminish its influence by denying its implied authority. To non-Mormons, and many church members as well, Palmer is an insider. Ironically, Palmer was only exploiting the special reverence and status religious educators in the Mormon community enjoy and cultivate, including DCP and many of Palmer’s critics.
Very well said Dan. By the way, I'm going to start reading your book Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet next week. I read the intro and I find it quite intriguing.