An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Buffalo]

Hooked on Phonics didn't work for Simon. :(

[_harmony]

Not true. Mormonism originated in the 1820s. To have an insider's view of Mormon Origins means you have special, insider knowledge or access to that time period.

So you're saying since no one alive now lived during the 1820's, that no one has access to that time period? You just brush aside history entirely?

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

If one can have an insider’s view of Mormonism, one can certainly have an insider’s view of Mormon origins, which is a subset of Mormonism.

Not true. Mormonism originated in the 1820s. To have an insider's view of Mormon Origins means you have special, insider knowledge or access to that time period. Does Grant Palmer have a 1985 DeLorean, or is he over 200 years old? I don't think so.

I’ve already said that was a literal reading, and pointed out that most people aren’t reading it that way. Titles of books aren’t definitive representations of books, nor are they generally intended to be taken literally. They are intended to be symbolic and impressionistic.

Above I’m opening up a philosophical discussion with you about the meaning of “Mormon origins” in which I’m suggesting that it has a different meaning than you assume. Since no one can have the kind of view you describe, that is not the probable interpretation of the title. Rather, one can have an “insider’s view” of contemporary Mormonism, as well as contemporary Mormonism’s discussion of its origins.

You think there is only one Mormon origins—the one that happened more than 100 years ago, which no one has access to anyway.

That is the only Mormon origins.

No one has direct access to that. We only have indirect access through documents and sources, which are being interpreted in the present by insiders and outsiders.

The only “Mormon origins” that exists is the one we create now, which everyone has access to. This “Mormon origins” has insiders.

Are you claiming that Mormonism originated now? That it did not originate with Joseph Smith in the early 1800s?

I reject your claim, if so.

That Mormonism is gone and our current discussions of it aren’t the same thing, and those discussions are highly politicized and a need to control definitions of words. A more acceptable and less powerful title to a believer would have been:

An Anti-Mormon’s View of Mormon Origins

Or

An Apostate Mormon’s View of Mormon Origins

Anything but

An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins

That implies an authority that isn’t easily dismissed.

[_Buffalo]

Not true. Mormonism originated in the 1820s.

It's nice to know that Simon has rejected the doctrine of the restoration.

[_Themis]

No it doesn't. It means you have an insider's view of Hindu origins, not Hinduism in your lifetime, or now. Being Hindu does not grant you insider access to the faith's origins.

It getting really funny that you are the only one not getting it. by the way it's not insiders access but insiders view. View meaning knowledge or opinion about. Continue playing dumb though. :)

[_Fifth Columnist]

If one can have an insider’s view of Mormonism, one can certainly have an insider’s view of Mormon origins, which is a subset of Mormonism.

Not true. Mormonism originated in the 1820s. To have an insider's view of Mormon Origins means you have special, insider knowledge or access to that time period. Does Grant Palmer have a 1985 DeLorean, or is he over 200 years old? I don't think so.

ROFL!! LMAO!!

In all seriousness guys, Simon is protecting all of those really gullible people who might interpret the title to mean that Palmer claims to have been a witness to events in the early 1800s. Hahahahah. LOL.

Simon, it would probably be best to vacate this thread. I think you have made a complete fool out of yourself with this line of reasoning.

[_Simon Belmont]

So you're saying since no one alive now lived during the 1820's, that no one has access to that time period? You just brush aside history entirely?

No, harmony. I am saying that no one has insider access to that time period.

[_Simon Belmont]

I’ve already said that was a literal reading, and pointed out that most people aren’t reading it that way. Titles of books aren’t definitive representations of books, nor are they generally intended to be taken literally. They are intended to be symbolic and impressionistic.

Above I’m opening up a philosophical discussion with you about the meaning of “Mormon origins” in which I’m suggesting that it has a different meaning than you assume. Since no one can have the kind of view you describe, that is not the probable interpretation of the title. Rather, one can have an “insider’s view” of contemporary Mormonism, as well as contemporary Mormonism’s discussion of its origins.

Yes, I agree. The title of the book should have been "An Insider's View of Comtempory Mormonism's Discussions of its Origins."

No one has direct access to that. We only have indirect access through documents and sources, which are being interpreted in the present by insiders and outsiders.

Yup, see above.

Palmer is trying to use a status that neither he nor anyone else can claim to gain credibility with the casual reader. It is dishonest and wrong.

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

Palmer is trying to use a status that neither he nor anyone else can claim to gain credibility with the casual reader. It is dishonest and wrong.

So anyone who doesn’t share your definition of these words is dishonest and wrong?

I think someone who insists on a definition so obviously not intended by either the author or publisher shouldn’t throw stones.

Even without the title, some readers would be impressed by Palmer’s 35 years as an LDS educator. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee his views are right, but it does carry some authority.

You have argued that the wording, if taken literally, is absurd and applies to no one. The most that can be made of this is that the title wasn’t well thought out. Any accusation about evil intentions would have to be mind reading on your part.

[_Simon Belmont]

So anyone who doesn’t share your definition of these words is dishonest and wrong?

The definition of insider is pretty well known. So, if by insider, Palmer really means no particular special access, then I reject his definition.

Even without the title, some readers would be impressed by Palmer’s 35 years as an LDS educator. Of course, that doesn’t guarantee his views are right, but it does carry some authority.

The title is misleading, dishonest, and wrong. It supposes credibility to something that is impossible.

I am not commenting on the contents of the book, since I don't intend to read it.

And, by the way, 35 years in CES is great and all, but there are many other CES veterans who don't share Palmers view, so that in itself does not lend much credibility.

You have argued that the wording, if taken literally, is absurd and applies to no one. The most that can be made of this is that the title wasn’t well thought out. Any accusation about evil intentions would have to be mind reading on your part.

I didn't say evil intentions. I said dishonest, misleading, and wrong.