An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Baker]

This debate is so mind-numbingly stupid. If a former FLDS member - not even a leadership member or teacher - wrote a book called "An Insider's View of FLDS ...." - I have to believe none of the offended parties here would take issue. So bloody petty!

I think he should have entitled it - "35-year Church Education Veteran on Mormon Origins". To my mind that would actually carry more weight.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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

Come on, Simon. "Insider" is clearly referring to his experience in the CES.

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.

That's like saying that a Ph.D. "does not lend much credibility" simply because Ph.D.s in various fields disagree on certain things.

[_jon]

Simon,

If my memory serves me correctly, on a thread some time back you said you hadn't read Grant Palmers book.

Is that true?

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

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

Apparently, you are trying to win the argument by constructing a question-begging definition of “insider”. You are setting up a vicious circle by insisting on a definition that is clearly not intended by the publisher or author. It’s quite clear that “insider” refers to Palmer’s 35 years as an LDS educator. Insider doesn’t have to mean someone with “secret” or “special” knowledge of Mormon origins.

Random House Dictionary has:

1. One who is inside some place, society, etc.
2. Informal. One who is within a limited circle of persons who understand the actual facts in a case.
3. Informal. One who has some special advantage.

Clearly the first definition was intended with slight allusion to the second.

Concerning this first definition, Google’s dictionary includes for web uses:

•(Insiders) those people who identify with and belong to a community and/or have a dependent relationship with the community.

•someone from inside a folk group who learns and passes on the folklife of the group, also called the emic point of view by folklorists and other social scientists. Emic--the point of view of a cultural insider. http://www.louisianavoices.org/edu_glossary.html

The context of Palmer’s “insider” status is defined in his own words in his introduction, where he explains his purpose for writing:

… Unfortunately, our adult lessons and discussions at church rarely rise above the seminary level, even though many of our members are well educated. Our discussions are usually an inch deep and a mile wide as they say. We seem to have a lingering desire for simple religion. We like to hear confirmations that everything is as we assumed it was: our pioneer ancestors were heroic and inspired and the Bible and Book of Mormon are in perfect harmony, for instance. We never learn in church that the Book of Abraham papyri were discovered and translated by Egyptologists or that researchers have studied Native American genes and what the implications are for the Book of Mormon. Questions about such topics are discouraged because they create tension; they are considered inappropriate or even heretical. This approach has isolated many of us from the rest of the world or from reality itself in those instances when we insist on things that are simply untrue.

All the while, such remarkable research has been conducted over the past thirty years into Mormon origins. It is exciting to see what has been done collaboratively by church historians–the faculty of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at Brigham Young University, BYU history and religion professors and scholars from other disciplines and other church schools, and seminary and institute faculty–and by unaffiliated scholars. Together, they have painstakingly collated and compared accounts of the most important events in church history from the original minutes and diaries; gathered data from the environment to better understand the circumstances under which activities occurred; studied the language of the revelations and scriptures and compared it to the general idiom and to literary expressions; excavated and restored sites; scoured archives; translated documents; gathered genealogical records and pursued traces of people’s lives for additional testaments. They have published, critiqued, and re-evaluated a veritable mountain of evidence. Too much of this escapes the view of the rank-and-file in the church.

There was a day when Latter-day Saint history was considered unworthy of this kind of attention by professional historians. In large part, due to the Mormon History Association and the involvement by LDS scholars in other professional groups, this is no longer the case. Today, publishers, both academic and general interest presses, accept and publish Mormon topics on a regular basis. Yet the relatively modest print runs these books usually receive indicate that they sell mostly to other professionals rather than to the LDS public at large. There is a lingering distrust of anything that hasn’t come directly from, or with an endorsement by, the church leadership. …

Over the years, scholars of all stripes have made contributions and counterbalanced each other by critiquing each other’s works. We now have a body of authentic, reliable documents and a near-consensus on many of the details. From this base, the overall picture of Mormon origins begins to unfold. This picture is much different from what we hear in the modified versions that are taught in Sunday school. …

First, this book is not intended for children or investigators. So much of our attention is directed toward children and potential converts that long-standing adult members rarely have an opportunity to speak freely to each other. We worry that tender ears may overhear. I am a fourth-generation Mormon, and I want to address this discussion to other second-, third-, and fourth-generation Mormons who will better understand where I am coming from. …

I have two purposes in writing. One is to introduce church members who have not followed the developments in church history during the last thirty years to issues that are central to the topic of Mormon origins. I hope my survey will be enlightening and useful to anyone who has wanted to understand what has been termed the New Mormon History.
Second, I would like church members to understand historians and religion teachers like myself. When I or my colleagues talk or write about the LDS past, we tend to avoid superlatives that members expect when hearing a recital of our history. Their ears finely tuned to the nuances of such parlance, they assume that we have secularized the story, that we are intentionally obtuse, or that we split hairs. They have heard that we are revisionists, and by this they understand that we are rewriting history in a way that was never intended. In truth, we are salvaging the earliest, authentic versions of these stories from the ravages of well-meaning censors who have abridged and polished them for institutional purposes. …
I, along with colleagues, and drawing from years of research, find the evidence employed to support many traditional claims about the church to be either nonexistent or problematic. In other words, it didn’t all happen the way we’ve been told. For the sake of accuracy and honesty, I think we need to address and ultimately correct this disparity between historical narratives and the inspirational stories that are told in church.

Palmer sees an information gap between serious scholars of Mormon history (both Mormon and non-Mormon) and the “rank-and-file membership”. He expresses dismay over this situation and, as a member of the scholarly community, he wants to reach the general membership and convey to them what has been discussed about Mormon origins inside the community of scholars over the past thirty years. So, as I told you before, Palmer is not discussing Mormon origins as an insider to the 19th century, but as an insider to contemporary discussions.

There is nothing dishonest in Palmer’s title, but it remains to be seen how honest you are in critiquing his book. Are you an honest apologist, or a mere polemicist?

[_Simon Belmont]

Come on, Simon. "Insider" is clearly referring to his experience in the CES.

Yes, of course it does. I've admitted that Palmer is an LDS Insider. He is an Insider of Mormonism. No one doubts that. He can therefore have an insider's view of Mormonism. He cannot have an insider's view of Mormon origins. No one can. He can have Grant Palmer's view of Mormon Origins. He can have an insider's view of contemporary Mormonism's discussion on its origins, as Vogel pointed out.

It’s quite clear that “insider” refers to Palmer’s 35 years as an LDS educator. Insider doesn’t have to mean someone with “secret” or “special” knowledge of Mormon origins.

Yes, he is an LDS Insider. He can therefore have an insider's view of Mormonism. No one doubts that. He cannot have an insider's view of Mormon origins. No one can. He can have Grant Palmer's view of Mormon Origins. He can have an insider's view of contemporary Mormonism's discussion on its origins, as you pointed out.

[_Buffalo]

Come on, Simon. "Insider" is clearly referring to his experience in the CES.

Yes, of course it does. I've admitted that Palmer is an LDS Insider. He is an Insider of Mormonism. No one doubts that. He can therefore have an insider's view of Mormonism. He cannot have an insider's view of Mormon origins. No one can. He can have Grant Palmer's view of Mormon Origins. He can have an insider's view of contemporary Mormonism's discussion on its origins, as Vogel pointed out.

It’s quite clear that “insider” refers to Palmer’s 35 years as an LDS educator. Insider doesn’t have to mean someone with “secret” or “special” knowledge of Mormon origins.

Yes, he is an LDS Insider. He can therefore have an insider's view of Mormonism. No one doubts that. He cannot have an insider's view of Mormon origins. No one can. He can have Grant Palmer's view of Mormon Origins. He can have an insider's view of contemporary Mormonism's discussion on its origins, as you pointed out.

I hope you're not actually this stupid, and are just trolling as usual.

[_Dan Vogel]

Simon,

Yes, he is an LDS Insider. He can therefore have an insider's view of Mormonism. No one doubts that. He cannot have an insider's view of Mormon origins. No one can. He can have Grant Palmer's view of Mormon Origins. He can have an insider's view of contemporary Mormonism's discussion on its origins, as you pointed out.

So it all comes down to a quibble about wording that is both irrelevant and uninteresting and an unfounded accusation of dishonesty.

[_jon]

Simon,

Yes, he is an LDS Insider. He can therefore have an insider's view of Mormonism. No one doubts that. He cannot have an insider's view of Mormon origins. No one can. He can have Grant Palmer's view of Mormon Origins. He can have an insider's view of contemporary Mormonism's discussion on its origins, as you pointed out.

So it all comes down to a quibble about wording that is both irrelevant and uninteresting and an unfounded accusation of dishonesty.

It has to in Simon's world, because he hasn't ever read the book in question...

[_Simon Belmont]

So it all comes down to a quibble about wording that is both irrelevant and uninteresting and an unfounded accusation of dishonesty.

Yes. The title is misleading and wrong. It's dishonest, and paints a picture of credibility that doesn't exist.

[_Baker]

So it all comes down to a quibble about wording that is both irrelevant and uninteresting and an unfounded accusation of dishonesty.

Yes. The title is misleading and wrong. It's dishonest, and paints a picture of credibility that doesn't exist.

That, or your drawers are sticking to your sphincter again. What a waste of bandwith ...