Palmer: Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early Mormon Polygamy

[_moksha]

It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

It doesn't matter who chose it. The salient fact is that the term was used and the point can be quibbled about when a good attack is needed as a rebuttal. The fact that Brother Palmer did not chain himself to the doors of either the City Weekly or Sam Weller's Zion Book store in protest over this insider's claim says a lot and certainly warrants its usage when other substance cannot be found. Quod erat demonstrandum not an insider without a key to the Celestial washroom.

.

[_Daniel Peterson]

when other substance cannot be found

But, of course, other substance was found.

Does anybody here want to attempt to defend Grant Palmer's link between the Moroni narrative and E. T. A. Hoffmann?

[_Themis]

Your remark is ambiguous.

Not at all.

You may have intended to endorse what I said, but I think you were actually intending to endorse Grant Palmer's claim that he had "insider" knowledge not accessible to other members of the Church.

I doubt Grant is saying other members could not access it unless of course it was documents needing Church permission to see. Even though members may technically have access to information, it does not mean that it would be easy to find

But if that's what you intended to say, you've just undercut your position that he was claiming to be an insider only in the sense that he, like his supposedly less knowledgeable audience, holds membership in the Church.

I only suggested that members can be viewed as insiders to those outside of the church. This is why the use of insider is not really a problem, and a childess game for those who go after him for usinf the term.

But, of course, it is precisely his claim that what he was telling was the "truth" about Mormon origins to which his reviewers took quite substantive exception.

Much of it is true. There may be a little that is in disagreement, but going aftre the use of insider does seem a little childess.

You can't have it both ways, Themis.

If he was claiming "insider" knowledge of which other members were unaware, then his "insider" claim didn't simply assert that he was a member of the Church. And it becomes a fair topic for a reviewer to examine.

Which is exactly what our reviewers did. And they argued that, in fact, he didn't have the "truth" about Mormon origins.

Much of what he did was true, and some is in dispute, but it is still an insiders view of it.

And I'm sure that you feel quite certain of that.

But five very serious and very respected Mormon historians -- Louis Midgley (who has written a great deal on Mormon intellectual history and about Mormon historiography, growing out of his formal training in the history of Protestant and Catholic political theology), Mark Ashurst-McGee, Steven Harper, Davis Bitton (a former president of the Mormon History Association and a former assistant Church historian), and James Allen (also a former president of the Mormon History Association and also a former assistant Church historian) -- denied this. And, in a formal statement from the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, a number of other prominent historians of Mormonism (led by Jill Derr), denied it as well.

So it's not indisputable that you're right.

I am not aware that they disagree with everything he says, only some. It still is irrelevant to him being an insider.

That isn't what the reviewers said.

Then I would say they are a little biased. Not unexpected.

He's not. Not in any relevant sense. The claim was a marketing ploy, but it was also false.

Sure it was a marketing ploy, but still accurate. It is only your extreme bias that make you play this childess game.

[_Themis]

when other substance cannot be found

But, of course, other substance was found.

Does anybody here want to attempt to defend Grant Palmer's link between the Moroni narrative and E. T. A. Hoffmann?

And how pages in his book make up this part? :)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I only suggested that members can be viewed as insiders to those outside of the church.

Grant Palmer seemed to believe that his primary audience was members of the Church. And I think it likely that Signature's publications are most effectively marketed to members of the Church and to those closely linked with it in some way.

Grant Palmer was not and is not an "insider," relative to members of the Church and with respect to knowledge of Church origins, simply because he is a member of the Church.

Nor can he plausibly be considered an "insider" on Mormon origins in any scholarly sense.

I could write a book entitled An Insider's View of the Biology of Mammalian Origins, on the grounds that I'm a mammal. But that would either be silly, since presumably a rather large proportion of my readers would also be mammals, or misleading, since it would falsely suggest that I had some kind of expert perspective on evolutionary biology.

This is why the use of insider is not really a problem,

It's not a "problem." It simply misleads purchasers and readers of his book.

He has no special "insider's" vantage point from which to pontificate on the origins of Mormonism.

and a childess game for those who go after him for usinf the term. . . . going aftre the use of insider does seem a little childess . . . It is only your extreme bias that make you play this childess game.

That he isn't the "insider" that he and his publisher claim him to be was, of course, only one of many criticisms that one or two of the reviewers (not all, nor even most) made of his book.

To pretend that it was the sole criticism, the principal criticism, or even among the most prominent criticisms of his book is misleading obfuscation.

Much of it is true. . . . Much of what he did was true

That's not what Dr. Allen, Dr. Bitton, Dr. Midgley, Dr. Ashurst-McGee, Dr. Harper, or the professional historians affiliated with the Smith Institute thought.

I don't doubt that you believe what you say. But the notion that what you and Grant Palmer say represents the consensus among historians of Mormonism is flatly wrong.

There may be a little that is in disagreement . . . , and some is in dispute,

What an understatement!

but it is still an insiders view of it.

In what sense was Grant Palmer an "insider" in Mormon historiographical circles? Did he write a dissertation on Mormon history? No. Had he published on Mormon history? No. Had he presented papers on Mormon history at academic gatherings? No. Did he hold an academic appointment in Mormon history? No. Did he have special access to documentary collections on Mormon history? Again, no.

I am not aware that they disagree with everything he says, only some.

Oh come on. I'm sure that Davis Bitton and Grant Palmer would agree that 2+2=4, that Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, and that the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.

But really . . .

I would say they are a little biased.

Fortunately, though, you and Grant Palmer have transcended human subjectivity into the realm of pure, unbiased truth.

What's it like up there?

[_Themis]

Grant Palmer seemed to believe that his primary audience was members of the Church. And I think it likely that Signature's publications are most effectively marketed to members of the Church and to those closely linked with it in some way.

Grant Palmer was not and is not an "insider," relative to members of the Church and with respect to knowledge of Church origins, simply because he is a member of the Church.

He was an insider due to his knowledge, yet if this childess game is any indication, there must not be much to attack him.

I could write a book entitled An Insider's View of the Biology of Mammalian Origins, on the grounds that I'm a mammal. But that would either be silly, since presumably a rather large proportion of my readers would also be mammals, or misleading, since it would falsely suggest that I had some kind of expert perspective on evolutionary biology.

He does have some expertise on Mormon history and it's origins. I think you just don't like him being an insider. It bothers you so much you have spent countless hours arguing something that does not bother most people, and it shouldn't. LOL

To pretend that it was the sole criticism, the principal criticism, or even among the most prominent criticisms of his book is misleading obfuscation.

I never said it was, but certainly spending any time on it shows just how little people can be.

That's not what Dr. Allen, Dr. Bitton, Dr. Midgley, Dr. Ashurst-McGee, Dr. Harper, or the professional historians affiliated with the Smith Institute thought.

And yet it's hard to find much critism of most of his book. I agree with AS post onthe other thread on this topic.

I don't doubt that you believe what you say. But the notion that what you and Grant Palmer say represents the consensus among historians of Mormonism is flatly wrong.

Not really. I have found reading many reviews that apologists due tend to agree with most of the stated facts surrounding histroical events from even people like Grant. Sure there might a some differences on what they might mean.

Oh come on. I'm sure that Davis Bitton and Grant Palmer would agree that 2+2=4, that Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, and that the Book of Mormon was published in 1830.

But really . . .

Yes really. Even on some of the more interesting history> most apologists I have read seem to agree to things like Joseph having sex with some of his wives. Their is more we agree on then what we don't reagarding church history.

Fortunately, though, you and Grant Palmer have transcended human subjectivity into the realm of pure, unbiased truth.

What's it like up there?

It's always nice to see you misrepresent what I said, but on this issue where I am is a lot better then where seem to be.

[_Joey]

As it happens, I've actually published more on Mormon history than Grant Palmer had by my age, and more than he had published prior to publishing Insider's View. (It was easily accomplished: He had published precisely nothing.)

Amazing!  Coming from the guy who claims ticket sales and record Tony awards mean nothing for the Book of Mormon Musical!!  Like printing tickets have nothing to with the actual purchase of them.  Publish all day in Provo - what is your point when in comes to credibility or interest in what you have said??? 

Fortunately, though, you and Grant Palmer have transcended human subjectivity into the realm of pure, unbiased truth.

What's it like up there?

Probably a lot like what it is north of Spanish Fork and south of American Fork.  You would be the expert!  Simply amazing the hypocrisy in your statements.  Good to be in Provo I guess!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

He was an insider due to his knowledge,

Which is rather different from your earlier claim that he was an insider due to his sheer membership in the Church.

But, now that you claim that he's an "insider" because he has unique "insider's" knowledge, you've implicitly acknowledged that it's perfectly legitimate for universally recognized insiders like Dr. Bitton, Dr. Allen, Dr. Midgley, Dr. Ashurst-McGee, Dr. Harper, and the other professional historians on the staff of the Smith Institute to evaluate his claim to having special knowledge.

Which is what they did. And he didn't emerge with his credibility wholly intact.

yet if this childess game is any indication, there must not be much to attack him.

If puncturing his inflated claim to "insider" status were the only point of the reviews, or even their principal point, your response might have some merit. But it wasn't. Not by a long shot.

Incidentally, my curiosity has grown every time you've used the word: What does childess mean?

He does have some expertise on Mormon history and it's origins.

He's read quite a bit.

So have I.

I think you just don't like him being an insider.

I simply can't discern any substantial way in which he is.

It bothers you so much you have spent countless hours arguing something that does not bother most people, and it shouldn't. LOL

It's your issue. You brought it up here. You keep asserting your faith that it's "childess."

I simply deny your claim that he's an "insider" in any relevant sense.

To pretend that it was the sole criticism, the principal criticism, or even among the most prominent criticisms of his book is misleading obfuscation.

I never said it was, but certainly spending any time on it shows just how little people can be.

Aieeeee! You're shrinking!

And yet it's hard to find much critism of most of his book.

You can't possibly be serious.

Have you actually read the reviews?

Amazing!

Yes!!!!! Indeed!!!!!!

Coming from the guy who claims ticket sales and record Tony awards mean nothing for the Book of Mormon Musical!!

I never said they meant nothing!!!!!!!

Like printing tickets have nothing to with the actual purchase of them.

I never said anything of the kind!!!!!!!!!!!

Publish all day in Provo - what is your point when in comes to credibility or interest in what you have said???

My point had nothing to do with credibility!!!! It concerned only the question of quantity!!!! Very simple, for those who can read!!!!!!

I don't claim to have published a great deal on Mormon history!!!!! It's not my field of specialization!!!!! But I've published several items on the subject -- Grant Palmer had published precisely none when he announced himself to be an "insider" with regard to Mormon history -- and not all of them were published in Provo, or even in Utah!!!!!! The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, for example, and the Review of Religious Research, and the Encyclopedia of Religious Revivals in America aren't published in Provo!!!!!

Good to be in Provo I guess!!

I'm actually in Orem!!!!!!

But what difference does it make where I live!?!?!?!?!?!? Your attempts to depict me as a provincial hick are never going to be convincing to any reasonable and reasonably sentient person!!!!! Despite your peerless status as a mighty captain of industry who zooms around the globe Making Payrolls and Establishing Fortune 500 Corporations!!!!!

Anyhow, I leave Utah on Wednesday!!!!!

I don't understand your fixation on Provo!!!!! Nor your addiction to exclamation points!!!!!! Can anybody explain these to me?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!?!!!!!?

[_Themis]

Which is rather different from your earlier claim that he was an insider due to his sheer membership in the Church.

The claim was not that Grant was doing this, but that the word insider can be used for members. Those outside would view a member as an insider, just as we would for someone who used to or currently a member of scientology.

But, now that you claim that he's an "insider" because he has unique "insider's" knowledge, you've implicitly acknowledged that it's perfectly legitimate for universally recognized insiders like Dr. Bitton, Dr. Allen, Dr. Midgley, Dr. Ashurst-McGee, Dr. Harper, and the other professional historians on the staff of the Smith Institute to evaluate his claim to having special knowledge.

I would say they can be viewed insiders in the same way. Anyone can evaluate what he has said in his book.

Which is what they did. And he didn't emerge with his credibility wholly intact.

It is intact with many people.

If puncturing his inflated claim to "insider" status were the only point of the reviews, or even their principal point, your response might have some merit. But it wasn't. Not by a long shot.

If you spend so much time on this, I doubt you have much else to go on.

Incidentally, my curiosity has grown every time you've used the word: What does childess mean?

No be honest, you knew what it meant. It is a misspelling. Thanks for the correction. Don't have any spell check on explorer that I am aware of.

I simply can't discern any substantial way in which he is.

Well many of us can. :)

It's your issue. You brought it up here. You keep asserting your faith that it's "childess."

Incorrect. I did not bring it up, only ciommented on why I think you are wrong, and being Childish(that better :).

Aieeeee! You're shrinking!

Not if you read for comprehension

Have you actually read the reviews?

Some of them, but my point was not that they can't make vaid criticisms, only that this was not one of them.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the word insider can be used for members. Those outside would view a member as an insider, just as we would for someone who used to or currently a member of scientology.

Essentially irrelevant. The book was primarily written for, and marketed to, members of the Church.

But, now that you claim that he's an "insider" because he has unique "insider's" knowledge, you've implicitly acknowledged that it's perfectly legitimate for universally recognized insiders like Dr. Bitton, Dr. Allen, Dr. Midgley, Dr. Ashurst-McGee, Dr. Harper, and the other professional historians on the staff of the Smith Institute to evaluate his claim to having special knowledge.

I would say they can be viewed insiders in the same way.

How gracious of you!

They've earned doctorates in the field, published extensively in the field, taught in the field, won awards in the field, given academic papers in the field, and held important positions in professional associations in the field, yet you're still going to allow them to be "insiders" in the field "in the same way" as Grant Palmer, who had done absolutely none of those things when he declared himself an "insider"?

That's very generous.

Anyone can evaluate what he has said in his book.

Which is what the reviewers did. And he didn't emerge with his credibility wholly intact.

It is intact with many people.

Many people read newspaper horoscopes.

Has any serious historian of Mormonism endorsed Grant Palmer's book as a summary of the consensus of professionals in the field, as you claim it to be?

[I've read] some of them, but my point was not that they can't make vaid criticisms, only that this was not one of them.

Then your comment that, since we made this criticism, we must not have much else to say was, basically, fatuous.