Palmer from Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early

[_Pahoran]

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.

Only because of the lapse of time. Had a book with a similar title been published in the 1860's, one would expect the author to be telling of events he witnessed and/or participated in. The only reason we know Mister Palmer can't plausibly claim to be that kind of insider is that he's not very likely to be quite old enough.

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.

But that's not what an "insider" is. Words mean something, and "insider" means "one who is on the inside," not merely "one who knows stuff." Since we agree that he's not an insider to the events of LDS history, then he must somehow claim to be an "insider" to a reasonably exclusive group that has some connection with that history; perhaps through the study of hard-to-access documents, for example.

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.

Yes, your silly argument from prepositions. The best thing you can do about that is drop it and hope that it is forgotten.

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.

It's easy to see that his claim of "insider" status means that his view is uniquely privileged and worth having. I'm making nothing up; if you want anyone other than the anti-Mormon yes-men to take you seriously, you need to drop the knee-jerk assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is lying.

Particularly since it is now abundantly clear to me that you speak English as a second language. That's not a fault; you generally do it well, but in this instance you are trying to school me, a native English-speaker, about a matter of English usage in which you are quite obviously in error.

Palmer could have called his book "My View of Mormon Origins." I, for one, would not have quarrelled with such a title -- it clearly is his view -- but the immediate response is: who are you, and why does your view matter so much that I should shell out my hard-earned to find it out? To pre-empt that question, his book is published as "An Insider's View." This promises us that, at least, we are being treated to a view that only a privileged few ever get to see.

Only, as it turns out, we're not. He claims "insider" status to give his book authority. He has no "insider" status to anything relevant to the contents of his book. We are all agreed that he's not an "insider" to the founding events themselves. Nor is he an "insider" to any privileged clique who get exclusive access to protected documents. He is not, as his book tried to imply, an "insider" to the deliberations at the highest levels of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute. He's really not an "insider" to anything at all. You want him to be an "insider" based upon him knowing stuff that other people don't know. What does that make him an "insider" of? A library?

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.

His last -- and longest standing -- role with CES was as a chaplain in a jail. I have no doubt that he must have had some interesting experiences there. That would seem to qualify him to write a book on the subject, and as an "insider," too.

But by your own admission, his book on "Mormon Origins" arises, not from anything he knows as an "insider," but from "study," A student is not an insider, except to his school.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Themis]

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."

Well we both agree it is a marketing ploy, and if I understand correctly he did not come up with it. For such a small matter it sure seems to have ruffled a few feathers in the apologetic community that it still gets discussed even now.

What????

I thought we had covered this already in talking about some others who would know at least most of the same information.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For such a small matter it sure seems to have ruffled a few feathers in the apologetic community that it still gets discussed even now.

It ruffled no feathers.

It was brought up on this board -- not by me -- and used as part of an attack on me and my colleagues.

I defend myself and my colleagues.

As the French witticism goes, "Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque il se défend."

[_Themis]

Only because of the lapse of time. Had a book with a similar title been published in the 1860's, one would expect the author to be telling of events he witnessed and/or participated in. The only reason we know Mister Palmer can't plausibly claim to be that kind of insider is that he's not very likely to be quite old enough.

Well then, glad you are coming around.

But that's not what an "insider" is. Words mean something, and "insider" means "one who is on the inside," not merely "one who knows stuff." Since we agree that he's not an insider to the events of LDS history, then he must somehow claim to be an "insider" to a reasonably exclusive group that has some connection with that history; perhaps through the study of hard-to-access documents, for example.

Glad to see you are coming around. He has some connection with the history not easily available to everyone, and hard to access. Historians usually do.

Yes, your silly argument from prepositions. The best thing you can do about that is drop it and hope that it is forgotten.

You would have thought you would have been smart enough to drop the he can't be that old line.

It's easy to see that his claim of "insider" status means that his view is uniquely privileged and worth having.

In some ways it is.

I'm making nothing up; if you want anyone other than the anti-Mormon yes-men to take you seriously, you need to drop the knee-jerk assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is lying.

I don't know any anti-Mormon yes men, not that I know any real anti-Mormons though.

Particularly since it is now abundantly clear to me that you speak English as a second language. That's not a fault; you generally do it well, but in this instance you are trying to school me, a native English-speaker, about a matter of English usage in which you are quite obviously in error.

Nice, another attack.

Palmer could have called his book "My View of Mormon Origins." I, for one, would not have quarrelled with such a title -- it clearly is his view -- but the immediate response is: who are you, and why does your view matter so much that I should shell out my hard-earned to find it out? To pre-empt that question, his book is published as "An Insider's View." This promises us that, at least, we are being treated to a view that only a privileged few ever get to see.

Oh I know many apologists get upset at his title using the word insider. How dare anyone who disagrees with us call themselves that.

Only, as it turns out, we're not. He claims "insider" status to give his book authority.

Actually I thought it was not his idea, but a marketing ploy. Must be working.

You want him to be an "insider" based upon him knowing stuff that other people don't know. What does that make him an "insider" of? A library?

I really don't care that much about it, but it is funny to see you and others go after him for using it.

His last -- and longest standing -- role with CES was as a chaplain in a jail. I have no doubt that he must have had some interesting experiences there. That would seem to qualify him to write a book on the subject, and as an "insider," too.

Really, his longest standing role. These guys usually move around a lot. Do you consider each move a new role? You do know that he got a Masters degree in history, and was working on a doctorate at one time. Seems that he has stayed involved in it since as well. I would think he would be more qualified to write about church history then about the jail.

[_Themis]

It ruffled no feathers.

I believe it was brought up long ago first by the apologists who objected to it. If it didn't bother them I see no reason it ever would have been a topic of conversation.

[_moksha]

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?

Well, to that end Professor Midgley did try to present the scoop on Grant Palmer. You are right in that I would not want to see a whitewashed history, but I am not sure that Brother Palmer should himself have been the target in a review of his book. You could make the case that this methodology has previously been employed in Doctor Philastus Hurlbut's review of the Book of Mormon and that as such, the precedent has been well established. However, knowing some arcane information about the author's alleged donut consumption tells me nothing about his book.

.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I thought that Professor Midgley's research on the pre-publication gestation and evolution of Insider's Guide was extraordinarily interesting, and that it shed considerable light on the book.

I also find such background information on Darwin's Origin of Species and Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises very interesting, and I wish we had comparable data for Homer's Iliad, Virgil's Aeneid, Dante's Inferno, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and Milton's Paradise Lost.

It's the kind of thing that literary and intellectual historians travel to archives around the world to find.

[_moksha]

In that case, I suppose we can all be grateful someone took the time to interview the people in Homer's life to aid in our understanding of the Iliad and the Odyssey, rather than just plucking some olives to throw at him.