Palmer from Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early

[_Pahoran]

Okay, so when you whiiiiiined about "ad hominem" and "vox mopologia" etc, what you really meant was that you assumed the article would be laden with such things because you didn't like what someone else had written about Mister Palmer.

(You are wrong, by the way, that those articles are "ad hominem" in any meaningful way. It was Palmer who chose to make himself, his background and his credentials an issue in the debate. The reviewers were examining the claims he made for himself. If he hadn't wanted those claims examined, he shouldn't have made them.)

By contrast, your expressions of anti-FARMS prejudice are classic ad hominem. You dismissed the article, without once engaging any of its arguments, based entirely upon your expectation of what "Mopologists" are likely to write.

Regards,
Pahoran

Two observations about your response:

1) So you're saying when FARMS makes ad hominem attacks, it must be the fault of the target of those attacks. He was ASKING for it, dressing all sexy like that.

No, I'm not. (Cute attempt at poisoning the well, by the way.)

What I'm saying is this: Palmer published a book called An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. He marketed the book on the strength of his standing as an "Insider." If you don't believe he's an Insider, just look at his impressive CES resume. Grant Palmer's an Insider, and he's here to tell you how he and his fellow Insiders, the members of that exclusive club of those who are really in the know, view Mormon origins.

In other words, he put himself forward as an authority.

Therefore, questioning the basis of his claimed "Insider" status -- including, but not limited to, the impressiveness of his CES resume -- is both relevant to his claims and appropriate to a review of his book.

2) Pahoran doesn't know what "ad hominem" means. (Hint: what is the translation of ad hominem?)

It is "to the man." The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of dismissing arguments or evidence, not upon their merits, but on the basis of something irrelevant about the person (or group) presenting them.

Examples:

"Sure Professor Longwind says that the economic outlook is poor, but what do you expect? Professor Longwind is a Democrat."

"Senator Goldberg argues for the abolition of the death penalty. Don't be taken in by his sophistries; Senator Goldberg once argued for the relaxation of immigration laws, too."

"FARMS published a review of George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy. Don't bother reading that stuff; it's always just full of ad hominem."

By contrast, Grant Palmer's non-insider status is directly relevant to his claim of insider status. His unimpressive CES resume is directly relevant to his inflated claims about his CES resume. The fact that he was surreptitiously circulating the same anti-Mormon material in the 1980's is directly relevant to his claim to be reporting the latest scholarship being produced in faithful LDS circles. All of these points are relevant to his status as an authority on the views of the "Insiders."

And George D. Smith's misuse of sources is directly relevant to the conclusions he adduces from those sources.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Themis]

When themis and later yourself simply attacked Farms neither of you engaged any of the arguments.

Actaully I stated an opionon, and when asked for some evidence gave some.

[_mikwut]

Hello Themis,

Actaully I stated an opionon, and when asked for some evidence gave some.

Opinions are open to the same criticism as arguments regarding a failure to engage the relevant arguments and issues (in fact opinions can be expressed as arguments which seemingly yours was). Your opinion also uses the possibly vague adjective "attack". You haven't defined what that means to you and I can only assume you mean an ad hominem unless you state otherwise.

You began by stating the first link is just one long attack (do you mean ad hominem?) piece on the author. You were told that is nonsense. You responded it is clearly an attack article (do you mean ad hominem?). You also stated one would have to sift through all the attacks (a.h.?) to get to the arguments. I took that as an ad hominem against the article unless your original "attack" accusation was substantiated. I asked you to provide examples of how the article linked focused on the author and not the article critiqued. You then seemingly (to me) backtracked off your initial stance and offered the tone of the first paragraph was off putting to you and you acknowledged the article brought up good points. Is off putting or the tone what you meant by attack? Or was my initial take that you were saying the article focuses on the author and not arguments or an ad hominem what you meant? Because the first paragraph only stated that the review of the book is going to be negative and the author won't like it, the article then presents a series of substantive points and arguments to substantiate that. Like I asked Buffalo earlier, who (believer or non) would not like to know that an author misrepresented not only the context of historical statements but the actual content of them! One of many of the important arguments and points the article makes and substantiates. I would care to know these nuances and arguments as a once believer and a non believer. I would do a disservice if I just said, "ahhhh it's an attack piece pay no attention."

I still invite you to provide examples of where the article attacked the author personally or in an ad hominem fashion if that is what you meant by "attack" or to clarify if the tone is just off putting, then our tastes are just at variance I suppose.

my best, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

Palmer's character is completely irrelevant to his arguments.

Palmer's personal story and the extent of his involvement (or lack thereof) in historical scholarship on Mormonism are directly relevant to his claim to be speaking about Mormon history from the uniquely privileged vantage point of an "insider" -- the book is, after all, entitled An Insider's View of Mormon Origins -- and, since his work is marketed as that of a "longtime LDS educator," it's entirely appropriate to say something about his career in CES.

If one doesn't want an issue to be discussed, one shouldn't raise the issue. Having raised it, though, one cannot justly complain if others respond to it.

[_Themis]

Palmer's personal story and the extent of his involvement (or lack thereof) in historical scholarship on Mormonism are directly relevant to his claim to be speaking about Mormon history from the uniquely privileged vantage point of an "insider" -- the book is, after all, entitled An Insider's View of Mormon Origins -- and, since his work is marketed as that of a "longtime LDS educator," it's entirely appropriate to say something about his career in CES.

If one doesn't want an issue to be discussed, one shouldn't raise the issue. Having raised it, though, one cannot justly complain if others respond to it.

All of us members would be viewed as insiders to those outside of the church. His qualifications would make him moreso. I suppose a GA would be even more of an insider. This is just a pathetic attack on Palmer, simply because you don't like what he wrote. Get to the real issues Dan.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

I would concur with Pahoran that your argument is more relevant regarding being an Ad hominem. The style farms utilizes (which come on each writer is distinct in that category) has nothing to do with the arguments they make or defend. The fallacy of an ad hominem isn't so much concerned about rhetoric or style but more so the engagement with the relevant arguments (big or small) or lack thereof. When themis and later yourself simply attacked Farms neither of you engaged any of the arguments. It is related to the red herring by trying to bring the focus away from the arguments.

my regards, mikwut

My main concern with FARMS is their unprofessional writing style. It should be embarrassing to any faithful Saint who is being represented in this way.

I only brought up the ad homs against Palmer to show that it does happen. I don't know how frequently.

[_Buffalo]

snip

Some points:

1) Grant Palmer IS an insider, just by virtue of being a lifelong Mormon
2) The title he came up with wasn't the one that was used
3) It's still irrelevant to the content of the book
4) Now that you understand ad hominem means "to the man," hopefully you can make the connection that an attack of someone's writing style is not an ad hominem attack. I'm confident that you can make this connection, despite your obvious mental limitations (see, that was an ad hominem)

[_Buffalo]

Palmer's character is completely irrelevant to his arguments.

Palmer's personal story and the extent of his involvement (or lack thereof) in historical scholarship on Mormonism are directly relevant to his claim to be speaking about Mormon history from the uniquely privileged vantage point of an "insider" -- the book is, after all, entitled An Insider's View of Mormon Origins -- and, since his work is marketed as that of a "longtime LDS educator," it's entirely appropriate to say something about his career in CES.

If one doesn't want an issue to be discussed, one shouldn't raise the issue. Having raised it, though, one cannot justly complain if others respond to it.

Anyone who is raised Mormon is an insider. It's an irrelevant ad hominem and you (unlike Pahoran) are smart enough to know it.

Furthermore, even if Palmer had been a dirty fifth column infiltrator from the start (which he never was), that wouldn't make him any less of an "insider," having taught and lived the doctrine for most of his life.

[_Daniel Peterson]

All of us members would be viewed as insiders to those outside of the church.

That's an extraordinarily weak justification, in my view.

Get to the real issues Dan.

We did. In spades.

But, in classic ad hominem fashion -- by the real definition of the ad hominem fallacy -- some of Grant Palmer's defenders sought to deflect attention from the substance of the reviews toward their allegedly bad tone. Which, even if it were far worse than it is, would be irrelevant.

Your first response to my links to the Foster/Bringhurst book and the Smith article -- no substance! just personal attacks! -- demonstrates that you are inclined to precisely that fallacy of irrelevance. You've had to back off, more recently, and to admit that, as a matter of fact, the materials to which I linked do contain considerable substance, but your initial reaction was very telling.

[_Themis]

]
That's an extraordinarily weak justification, in my view.

Those honest enough can see that being a member of the church makes one an insdier to those outside of the church. Again stop with the obvious BS.

We did. In spades.

This insiders crap is just an attack on palmer and does not deal with his work.

But, in classic ad hominem fashion -- by the real definition of the ad hominem fallacy -- some of Grant Palmer's defenders sought to deflect attention from the substance of the reviews toward their allegedly bad tone. Which, even if it were far worse than it is, would be irrelevant.

The real deflection is coming from you when you go after him about being an insider.

Your first response to my links to the Foster/Bringhurst book and the Smith article -- no substance! just personal attacks! -- demonstrates that you are inclined to precisely that fallacy of irrelevance. You've had to back off, more recently, and to admit that, as a matter of fact, the materials to which I linked do contain considerable substance, but your initial reaction was very telling.

I may have been a little to harsh, but the basic essence is still correct from my expereince of reading many reviews over many years. Again I understand why we disagree.