An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

Do you think you might just have a tiny credibility problem with this board? Fake Facebook account, fake Master's Thesis, etc.

It's hard to take what you say seriously for two reasons:

First, most of the time you are completely wrong; and

Second, you intentionally lie, fabricate and deceive.

You will find in life that those types of behavior will not get you far in life. Unless you feel that "getting far in life" is working night-shift at Carl's Junior.

First of all... I have been truthful. But I will point out that I have absolutely no obligation to be truthful to anonymous Internet attackers of my faith. My real life information is not up for discussion...not any more.

Now, try to stay on topic. If you believe my assessment of Palmer's insider status is wrong, then state your case.

[Guest]

Target #2 seems to be the fact that Palmer was on the payroll of CES while not believing in the truth claims of the LDS church (i.e., he is a hypocrite).

Does Jim Allen discuss this in his review? He may, but I don't recall it. Does Mark Ashurst-McGee mention it? Possibly, but I don't think so. Does Steven Harper bring it up? My memory may be foggy, but I don't remember him doing that. Does the Smith Institute statement raise the issue? I'm pretty sure that it doesn't. Heck, I don't even recall that Davis Bitton's review broaches the subject.

That leaves Lou Midgley's, which does indeed bring it up, but also discusses, among other things, the purported parallels between the Moroni story and Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf.

Palmer has rebutted this time and time again. Amazingly enough he was up front with his questions about the truth claims

And you have his word for this.

Target #3 is usually that Palmer is not an insider. This is a baseless claim since there is no clear definition of "insider," it's a loose term relatively defined. Was Palmer an insider? According to apologists, definitely not.

Not in any sense relevant to his book.

But the title of his book describes him as an "insider."

Hence, the question is directly relevant to the book.

I think to most non-LDS, a prime target audience for Palmer's book I might add, the term would not be controversial.

Palmer seemed to think that the prime target audience for his book was members of the Church.

However, my observation is that critics of the book rarely try and go after the other chapters,

So what were those reviews by Dr. Allen and Dr. Harper and Dr. Ashurst-McGee about, then? What was that brief statement from the Smith Institute responding to?

at least not with the same gusto as they go after the above three points.

Well, the Moroni/Hoffmann nonsense was a pretty rich target.

But, again, what were those reviews by Dr. Allen and Dr. Harper and Dr. Ashurst-McGee about?

The other chapters are mainly a fast paced summary of the New Mormon History, trimmed of academese,

Nonsense. Along with Leonard Arrington, Professors Allen and Bitton were among the principal architects of "the New Mormon History." They're scarcely peripheral figures. They certainly don't buy Palmer's supposed "summary," and, I'm confident -- I knew him -- neither would Arrington have bought it.

Nor (he's a very good friend) does Thomas Alexander, another very prominent Mormon historian (and another past president of the Mormon History Association) accept Palmer's purported "summary."

Nor, obviously, do Steven Harper and Mark Ashurst-McGee (two of the most promising younger figures in "the New Mormon History").

Nor, plainly, do those "New Mormon Historians" who were associated with the Smith Institute, since, in their statement, they explicitly contradict Palmer's claims.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Simon,

Do you think you might just have a tiny credibility problem with this board? Fake Facebook account, fake Master's Thesis, etc.

It's hard to take what you say seriously for two reasons:

First, most of the time you are completely wrong; and

Second, you intentionally lie, fabricate and deceive.

You will find in life that those types of behavior will not get you far in life. Unless you feel that "getting far in life" is working night-shift at Carl's Junior.

First of all... I have been truthful. But I will point out that I have absolutely no obligation to be truthful to anonymous Internet attackers of my faith. My real life information is not up for discussion...not any more.

Simon, not that it matters to me, but you have NEVER been truthful. Indeed, you have intentionally lied, fabricated and deceived at almost every opportunity (fake master's thesis, face Facebook account, etc., etc.,).

My only concern is that you are harming the Church with your behavior. You are the most damaging type of hypocrite. You profess to be a good LDS, but your deceitful behavior is out there for everyone to see.

Simon, dishonesty, deceiving and lying are never good. Someday you will be held accountable for not "letting your light show forth" and harming others.

Now if you will excuse me, I'm heading off to Hooters with my buddys for lunch. Good day, sir.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, not that it matters to me, but you have NEVER been truthful. Indeed, you have intentionally lied, fabricated and deceived at almost every opportunity (fake master's thesis, face Facebook account, etc., etc.,).

You have no way to demonstrate that. It is your word against mine. My word, however, holds more weight since I happen to be a pretty good authority on my own education and Facebook account.

I was truthful.

So, to stay on topic (something you seem to have a hard time doing lately), could you point out where my assessment of Palmer's "insider" status is wrong?

Themis?

Anyone?

[_Themis]

Themis, how am I wrong?

We have been over this before, and I think you are being purposly dishonest here. He does not say it is his view TO Mormon origins, but OF Mormon origins. This is what we call reading comprehension. Usually almost anyone would have got this, but you are either extremely stupid or being dishonest. No one thinks he is saying he was there when it happed, even if he mistakenly had used the word TO. The problem is this seems to be how you approach many things here, but I understand it is your way to try and deflect from the real issues.

[_Simon Belmont]

We have been over this before, and I think you are being purposly dishonest here. He does not say it is his view TO Mormon origins, but OF Mormon origins. This is what we call reading comprehension. Usually almost anyone would have got this, but you are either extremely stupid or being dishonest. No one thinks he is saying he was there when it happed, even if he mistakenly had used the word TO. The problem is this seems to be how you approach many things here, but I understand it is your way to try and deflect from the real issues.

Themis,

It is not I who is mistaken. For example:

Suppose I told you that I had "an insider's view of human Saturnians" would you automatically think "oh, yeah, he's human and so are they, so he must know everything about what it's like to be human and live on Saturn?" Of course you wouldn't. You'd think "he hasn't been to Saturn, nor does he know if there is even life on Saturn, let alone humans." I'd hope you'd think the latter, anyway, because any rational person would.

An Insider's View To Mormon Origins doesn't make sense. There is no way that sentence makes sense.

[_Themis]

Themis,

It is not I who is mistaken. For example:

Yes you are mistaken, and I wonder if purposely so, just to go on a childess attack as you have with so many.

Suppose I told you that I had "an insider's view of human Saturnians" would you automatically think "oh, yeah, he's human and so are they, so he must know everything about what it's like to be human and live on Saturn?" Of course you wouldn't. You'd think "he hasn't been to Saturn, nor does he know if there is even life on Saturn, let alone humans." I'd hope you'd think the latter, anyway, because any rational person would.

Your post here makes no sense.

An Insider's View To Mormon Origins doesn't make sense. There is no way that sentence makes sense.

Which is why it use the word OF. Anyone can have a view of Mormon origins. It' just there knowledge and opionions about it. He has knowledge most others do not, so most would consider him an insider. Even many members would have no problem with it, but many apologists in their bid to defend the church will go after silly things like this. You just take it to a new level of stupidity.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes you are mistaken, and I wonder if purposely so, just to go on a childess attack as you have with so many.

It's a childess attack, Simon. Simply childess.

He has knowledge most others do not, so most would consider him an insider.

Can you name any serious historians of Mormonism who consider him an "insider"? Have any gone on record to say so? (It's possible that somebody has, but I can't think of anyone.)

The residents of Dogpatch think their likker distillery is a purty tall buildin. What would residents of Manhattan think of it?

[_Simon Belmont]

Yes you are mistaken, and I wonder if purposely so, just to go on a childess attack as you have with so many.

I don't know what that means, but I think you might mean "childish."

Suppose I told you that I had "an insider's view of human Saturnians" would you automatically think "oh, yeah, he's human and so are they, so he must know everything about what it's like to be human and live on Saturn?" Of course you wouldn't. You'd think "he hasn't been to Saturn, nor does he know if there is even life on Saturn, let alone humans." I'd hope you'd think the latter, anyway, because any rational person would.

Your post here makes no sense.

Themis, please at least try to see what I am saying here.

I'll ask you again, and I hope you'll answer honestly.

Someone you have never heard of writes a book called "An Insider's View of Human Saturnians."

What does that actually mean, to you?

To me, it means that this person has an insider's view of human Saturnians; meaning he has lived among them, or at the very least has visited humans on Saturn.

An Insider's View To Mormon Origins doesn't make sense. There is no way that sentence makes sense.

Which is why it use the word OF.

But Themis, you yourself said "He does not say it is his view TO Mormon origins, but OF Mormon origins." That indicates that you believe either sentence would be correct English, but the two would convey different messages. However "An Insider's View to Mormon Origins" makes absolutely no sense. It means nothing.

Anyone can have a view of Mormon origins.

Yes, of course they can. If the book was titled simply, "A View of Mormon Origins" I would not have a problem with the title. As it stands, the title is "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

To repeat, I would be fine with the following titles:

• A View of Mormon Origins
• A Former CES Employee's View of Mormon Origins
• A Mormon's View of Mormon Origins
• An Educator's View of Mormon Origins
• Some Dude's View of Mormon Origins

The following titles of books are extremely misleading and wholly impossible:

• An Insider's View of Mormon Origins
• An Insider's View of Human Saturnians
• An Insider's View of The Roman Republic
• An Insider's View of The Creation of the Abacus

Hopefully, when spelled out simply for you in this manner, you can understand.

It' just there knowledge and opionions about it. He has knowledge most others do not, so most would consider him an insider.

He is an insider to many things: CES, his own brain, his family, his community. He is NOT an insider to the origins of Mormonism.

[_jon]

Simon,

Besides it's title, is there anything in the book that you think is factually inaccurate?