Palmer from Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early

[_mikwut]

Buffalo,

No, they don't. An insider is someone with inside knowledge. Period. Someone who disagrees with the policies of a company but stays on is just as much an insider as someone who doesn't disagree and stays on.

That is a response to the argument (it might be valid, might not I'm bowing out of that debate). By making that counter argument (the importance and effect of the credibility) of the defining parameters of "insider" your conceding it isn't fallacious - because your countering the argument. Your better argument than ad hom would be the importance of the argument is minimal when compared to the substance of Palmer's cumulative case.

There ARE legitimate uses of ad hom, but that isn't what you've been saying - you've been saying it isn't an ad hom at all.

I'm saying it isn't fallacious and that amounts to the same thing. Legitimate Ad Hom is no fallacious so you use of deriding it as ad hom is fallacious. I am more concerned with legitimacy of your arguments not semantics. I am happy to concede whatever semantical compromise you want to make.

By the way, their criticism of his honesty/integrity are well off the mark too. Palmer was upfront with his supervisor about his feelings all the way through.

I don't know the man.

best, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

By the way, why six reviews? Seems unprecedented.

They volunteered.

I was trying to find a single reviewer, and various people demurred. And then, all of a sudden, six reviews poured in.

I thought them worthwhile and distinct, so I published them.

By the way, their criticism of his honesty/integrity are well off the mark too. Palmer was upfront with his supervisor about his feelings all the way through.

And you know this . . . how, exactly?

[_Pahoran]

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.

Actually as Lou Midgley demonstrated, he'd been a crypto-anti-Mormon since at least the mid 1980's.

Which, of course, explains why you'd like to dismiss Midgley's intellectual history as "irrelevant ad hominem;" not despite the fact that it directly addresses the claim you make for Palmer, but because of that fact.

Themis,

You previously wrote:

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.

But then you wrote:

And I still think it remarkably weak and lame to claim that Palmer is an "insider" with regard to the historiography of Mormonism simply because he's a member of the Church.

He is more an insider then you, and yes his qualification clearly make the use of insider appropriate.

How does that work, exactly? How does Mister Palmer, a non-believer and member in questionable standing, get to be "more an insider" than a current BYU professor and member in good standing? Can you explain that to me?

You just don't like what he says, not that I agree with it all, and attack him on this to divert from the message.

Actually that sounds rather like the tactics the palmapologists use to deflect criticism from their hero.

The fact is that Mister Palmer, he of the inflated resume, is not and never was an "insider" to the founding events of the Restoration, i.e. "Mormon origins." Given his actual employment history and work experience, the book he is best qualified to write should probably carry a title similar to "An Insider's View of the Utah Prison System."

Regards,
Pahoran

[Guest]

[


Themis,

You previously wrote:

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

But then you wrote:

He is more an insider then you, and yes his qualification clearly make the use of insider appropriate.

How does that work, exactly? How does Mister Palmer, a non-believer and member in questionable standing, get to be "more an insider" than a current BYU professor and member in good standing? Can you explain that to me?

I stated my opinion that all members could be seen as insiders, not that Palmer's was saying it that way. In another post you admitted that insider could be used in a variety of ways. He can and is seen as an insider to many including members like myself due to knowledge most members do not have. I wouldn't think someones current standing somehow lessens them having been an insider.

Actually that sounds rather like the tactics the palmapologists use to deflect criticism from their hero.

He is not my hero, but many apologists and critics do many times attack the messenger. I think Palmer has experienced this as well.

The fact is that Mister Palmer, he of the inflated resume, is not and never was an "insider" to the founding events of the Restoration, i.e. "Mormon origins."

You do show a good example of attacking the messenger, and Plamer never says or implies that he was an insider "TO" the founding events of Mormon Origins, but then you know that. I also due to this last post accept that my CFR to Simon has been meet.

Given his actual employment history and work experience, the book he is best qualified to write should probably carry a title similar to "An Insider's View of the Utah Prison System."

Another attack. Nicely done.

[_jon]

Themis, to be fair to Pahorun, it is easier to attack the author than it is to refute the points he raises in his book.

[_Pahoran]

How does that work, exactly? How does Mister Palmer, a non-believer and member in questionable standing, get to be "more an insider" than a current BYU professor and member in good standing? Can you explain that to me?

I stated my opinion that all members could be seen as insiders, not that Palmer's was saying it that way. In another post you admitted that insider could be used in a variety of ways. He can and is seen as an insider to many including members like myself due to knowledge most members do not have. I wouldn't think someone current standing somehow lessen them having been an insider.

You misapprehend. Whenever someone claims to be an "insider," it means that he is "inside" of something; when he purports to offer "an insider's view" of something to others, it means that he claims to see that thing "from the inside" in contrast to the view those others must have.

The term "insider" cannot "be used in a variety of ways." It can only be used in one way; but it could be used with respect to a variety of different things.

He could be called an "insider" to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So can millions of others, including most of the audience he addresses. He hadn't been a believer for years before writing his book, so in that respect he is less of an "insider" than most of the people I see every Sunday.

He could be called an "insider" to the Church Educational System, but he didn't write his book about that.

The title of his book strongly implies that he's an "insider" with respect to "Mormon Origins." That can mean one of only two things: either he was there, in which case he can provide a first-hand account based upon his "inside" participation, or he is claiming "inside" access to some kind of privileged elite group of informed cognoscenti.

And yes, he could legitimately be called an "insider" to the Utah prison system, since that's where he worked for years.

Actually that sounds rather like the tactics the palmapologists use to deflect criticism from their hero.

He is not my hero, but many apologists and critics do many times attack the messenger. I think Palmer has experienced this as well.

As have I.

The fact is that Mister Palmer, he of the inflated resume, is not and never was an "insider" to the founding events of the Restoration, i.e. "Mormon origins."

You do show a good example of attacking the messenger,

I'll agree that pointing out the fact that he inflated his resume is a "good example" of what passes for "attacking the messenger" in your acutely partisan view.

and Plamer never says or implies that he was an insider "TO" the founding events of Mormon Origins, but then you know that. I also due to this lost accept that my CFR to Simon has been meet.

In which case he is claiming to be an insider to something else.

Incidentally, your argument from prepositions is preposterous. The title again is:

An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.

Whatever Mister Palmer claimed to be an insider to, his book purported to be an insider's view of something. Of what? Of whatever he had privileged "insider" knowledge of, of course. The "of" connects "Mormon origins" with "view," not "insider." Your understanding of English syntax is fundamentally flawed.

Given his actual employment history and work experience, the book he is best qualified to write should probably carry a title similar to "An Insider's View of the Utah Prison System."

Another attack. Nicely done.

You are being overly defensive. It's just a fact.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Themis]

The term "insider" cannot "be used in a variety of ways." It can only be used in one way; but it could be used with respect to a variety of different things.

Which is what I said.

He could be called an "insider" to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So can millions of others, including most of the audience he addresses. He hadn't been a believer for years before writing his book, so in that respect he is less of an "insider" than most of the people I see every Sunday.

I would argue that one can still be an insider, especially if it is dealing with knowledge which is not affected by his current status. I understand he still believes certain things, and attends, but I could be wrong. Their are lots of members who have very different beliefs

The title of his book strongly implies that he's an "insider" with respect to "Mormon Origins." That can mean one of only two things: either he was there, in which case he can provide a first-hand account based upon his "inside" participation, or he is claiming "inside" access to some kind of privileged elite group of informed cognoscenti.

One cannot get the first without being more then a little daft. IT is easy to see he is referring to information not easily accessed by most members. Not that any member couldn't get a hold of it. SO yes he is an insider in this way, and it does not exclude a good number of people who could be considered insiders in the same way.

As have I.

It might help if you don't dish it out so much and lose the hate.

I'll agree that pointing out the fact that he inflated his resume is a "good example" of what passes for "attacking the messenger" in your acutely partisan view.

You never provided evidence that he did, so it can only be viewed as an attack.

An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.

I laughed when you and simon have both used the word TO, but he says of. It is his view OF Mormon Origins. We can all have our own view of the same thing.

Whatever Mister Palmer claimed to be an insider to, his book purported to be an insider's view of something. Of what? Of whatever he had privileged "insider" knowledge of, of course. The "of" connects "Mormon origins" with "view," not "insider." Your understanding of English syntax is fundamentally flawed.

It is easy to see that view is being used as opinion and knowledge, not that he saw it with his own eyes. Funny how words can have several meanings and if you read for comprehension it is not hard to figure out which they mean. I think you know what he means and are just making this up.

You are being overly defensive. It's just a fact.

While it may be true, but probably is not. You have stated it as fact but not provided any facts that would show his time working in the prison system is more extensive then his study of Church history. Your tone was clearly meant as an attack on him. It is how some people try to be subtle.

[_Daniel Peterson]

IT is easy to see he is referring to information not easily accessed by most members. Not that any member couldn't get a hold of it. SO yes he is an insider in this way,

I don't believe that I've ever seen the word insider used in such way.

This wouldn't sell many books:

"In his new book, Forty Years a Mafia Hit Man -- or, More Precisely, . . . Well, Not, Bobby Joe Pumpernickel provides an 'insider's' perspective on the Mafia based entirely on publicly accessible information, available to everybody, that he found while reading in the library during breaks from his job as a seventh grade music teacher."

and it does not exclude a good number of people who could be considered insiders in the same way.

What????

[_moksha]

Do any academic journals approach the critique of a book in the manner of Professor Midgley in which he interrogated friend, colleagues, former students, (I am guessing neighbors as well), fellow Church members and even Grant Palmer himself in an effort to dig up dirt on Brother Palmer?

Isn't this methodology part of either a J. Edgar Hoover dossier exploit or a planned hatchet job, rather than the traditional book review?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do any academic journals approach the critique of a book in the manner of Professor Midgley in which he interrogated friend, colleagues, former students, (I am guessing neighbors as well), fellow Church members and even Grant Palmer himself in an effort to dig up dirt on Brother Palmer?

Isn't this methodology part of either a J. Edgar Hoover dossier exploit or a planned hatchet job, rather than the traditional book review?

The FARMS Review is somewhat sui generis, as it is an entire volume, essentially, of reviews. Thus, they can be longer, more detailed, etc.

What you're describing is, I think, pretty much what historians do. Literary and intellectual historians and biographers seek as many sources as possible to learn about the genesis of a book or a symphony or a play or an opera.

I don't believe that Professor Midgley "interrogated" -- the neutral word would, I believe, be interviewed, though (given your "effort to dig up dirt") I'm thinking that you weren't in quest of a neutral word -- but, if he had, it would be just what has been regularly done to Joseph Smith, Charles Darwin, Bill Clinton, Ted Bundy, Napoleon, Richard Nixon, Winston Churchill, and any number of others.

Every day, indeed hundreds and thousands of times daily, journalists and historians interview friends, colleagues, former students, neighbors, fellow church members, and even, where at all possible, the person himself or herself in order to gather information about individuals living and dead. They scrutinize letters and diaries, too.

I myself was interviewed on Friday afternoon, and I think I'm going to be interviewed for a podcast tomorrow afternoon.

People wanted to know what kind of an "insider" Grant Palmer was, with respect to Church history. We provided an answer.

Are you really, as it seems, calling for the suppression of information, the silencing of sources, in order to produce a whitewashed history?