Kevin Graham wrote: I think the term disingenuous/disingenuousness is a perfectly legitimate one, and neither inherently "uncivil" nor intrinsically "well-poisoning." When justified, it is simply an accurate descriptor.
And of course, you will say it is justified when it is applied to authors who write books that are less than friendly to the Mormon faith.
It's justified in some such cases, and in some other cases wholly unrelated to Mormonism, and almost certainly even in some pro-Mormon writings. Not all authors who write books that are less than friendly to the Mormon faith are "disingenuous." Most, in fact, probably aren't.
You've caricatured my position. You haven't represented it accurately.
Kevin Graham wrote:There is simply no way you can get away with complaining about incivility when you're the editor of a publication that is the antithesis to civility.
Those interested in surveying the
FARMS Review, and in deciding for themselves about its character, are welcome to do so. It's all on line:
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/Kevin Graham wrote:OK, since you're in self-destruction mode, and you want to throw what's left of your credibility into the fire, let's go over just one example:
"Moreover, other 'insiders' do not view things the way Palmer does. So what is really at work in the book's title? Essentially, it is a piece of disingenuous advertising."
So because all "insiders" don't think alike, Palmer is "disingenuouss" for calling himself an insider! This has to be one of the dumbest arguments. First of all, Palmer never said he represented all insiders. That's why he called it "an" insider's view, and not "the" insider's view. But you, Daniel C. Peterson find no reason at all to question the use of the term disingenuous, right? Just so we have you on record, you agree with this?
I agree with the assertion that the title that Signature Books gave to the volume was a specimen of disingenuous advertising or marketing.
And not their first, either. Amusingly, I was standing next to their booth at the annual joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature years ago when one of those staffing the booth complained to the other that their seemingly pro-Mormon titles (e.g.,
The Word of God, Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, Line upon Line: Essays upon Mormon Doctrine, Faithful History, and etc.), so contradictory to the books' actual contents but so helpful in marketing the books to unsuspecting Latter-day Saints, actually sent the wrong message to the non-LDS scholars wandering the meeting's vast academic book exhibit, who mistakenly viewed Signature's titles as Mormon-faith-affirming. We should, he said, really have two titles for each book, one for Mormons and one for non-believers.
Curiously, you cited only a truncated version of the relevant passage about Grant Palmer. It comes from the relatively young but widely respected historian Mark Ashurst-McGee, and reads as follows:
Thus Palmer carries on in the role of educator, offering to serve as a faithful guide to the ordinary Latter-day Saint who would like to learn more about the new discoveries in early Mormon history.
This brings us to the book's curious title. To what group is Palmer an "insider," and why does that perspective matter? The title apparently refers to his career as an instructor in the CES. But one may question whether Palmer's career as a gospel teacher furnishes him with more knowledge of "Mormon origins" than could be obtained by an "outsider." This is demonstrably not the case. Moreover, other "insiders" do not view things the way Palmer does. So what is really at work in the book's title? Essentially, it is a piece of disingenuous advertising. It intends to present Palmer as a seasoned gospel teacher who will shepherd those who wish to learn more about the origins of their faith.Dr. Ashurst-McGee is making a rather different point than the one you attribute to him (and to me). Your truncation of the quote makes your claim more plausible, on the surface, than it actually is.
The point is that Grant Palmer isn't an insider at
all,
and that what he writes doesn't represent the views of actual insiders. Accordingly, calling his book "an insider's view," while an effective marketing ploy, is misleading.
Grant Palmer, Dr. Ashurst-McGee says, is not an "insider" in any sense relevant to the historiography of Mormon origins. He wasn't an eyewitness, obviously, and he had no record -- not just not a strong record, but literally no record at all -- of published scholarship on the topic. (
Insider's View was his first publication, and -- I know that some here are positively obsessed with what they mistakenly believe to be the Maxwell Institute's lack of peer review -- it was, itself, published without peer review by a non-academic press.) Nor has he ever presented papers on the subject at scholarly gatherings, Mormon or non-Mormon. He may well have been an insider with respect to teaching seminary and, briefly, institute classes for the Church Education System, or even to internal CES politics . . . but, when people want an "insider's" view of formative early-nineteenth-century Mormon history, that's probably not the kind of "insider" they're looking for. And saying that he is an insider in the undeniable sense that he's one of several million members of the Church seems rather trivial and uninteresting. My home teaching companion, a former bishop and a physical therapist, is an "insider" in precisely that same sense, but I'll wager that he would never dream of publishing a book entitled "An Insider's View of Early Mormon History." I grew up a Dodger fan, and attended many games at Dodger Stadium, but it would be silly for me to publish a book called "An Insider's Guide to Dodger Baseball in the 1960s."
Kevin Graham wrote:your argument is wrong and I have demonstrated why.
LOL. Feel free to list it as yet another of your triumphs over me. You've defeated me, I'm told, even publicly humiliated me and sent me scurrying off with my tail between my legs, on several prior occasions.
Kevin Graham wrote:You arbitrarily use the term anti-Mormon as is needed
No. I do use it as needed, but relatively rarely and not arbitrarily but, rather, according to a reasonably strict and consistent standard that I've explained.
Kevin Graham wrote:for the purposes of shutting down discussion or to dismiss sincere critics who you feel pose a danger to the growth rate of your faith.
I've explained how and why I use it when I do.
This is where branding me as "disingenuous" is very helpful to your criticism; you can simply dismiss what I say and replace it with what
you say
about me. Quite handy, really.
What you say about me on this point wouldn't, however, stand up to an actual survey of my actual usage of the term. But, since nobody's really likely to do the kind of balanced survey of my published writing (again, thousands of pages) that would establish the truth --
I'm certainly not going to take the time to do it! I already know what I think -- you're relatively safe in asserting whatever you like about my evil rhetorical ways.
Well, against my better judgment and despite my long-held and quite successful vow to have nothing to do with you, I've allowed myself to be sucked into an exchange with you. But I'm quitting now. These things always end up -- when they don't absolutely begin -- ugly. (I know, I know. Because you mop the floor with me.)
Anyway, I'm going to flee like a coward now. I wish you all the best.