Palmer: Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early Mormon Polygamy

[_Themis]

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

Not at all. I only said insider could be used for a variety of ways without a problem. I am quite convident that most other people outside of the apolgetic community would not agree with this childish stance.

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.

No need to be a jerk. He is still considered an insider by many whether you like it or not, and he is very knowlegable about the topic, and must have some influence to get such a reaction from you and the apolgetic community. No offence but it is easy to see just how much he bothers you, and your appeal to authority shows you probably don't have much to argue against.

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

Only with the apoogetic community. Not a real loss there, nor unexpected for anyone who may say things they don't like.

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

It is a bit of humor, but it does make one wonder when you put so much into a trival matter.

[_Daniel Peterson]

[I am quite convident that most other people outside of the apolgetic community would not agree with this childish stance.

I'm quite confident that they would understand our point and share our reaction.

No need to be a jerk.

Good. I wasn't planning to be, but, the way this conversation is going, one never knows.

He is still considered an insider by many whether you like it or not,

I really don't care, actually. I simply deny your claim, and point out that he's no "insider" in any sense relevant to the title of his book.

he is very knowlegable about the topic,

So am I. But I have no "insider" knowledge.

Nor does he.

Except, possibly, for his equation of the Moroni story with Der goldne Topf. But that didn't exactly work out very well for him.

must have some influence to get such a reaction from you and the apolgetic community.

Yup. He wrote a book. We review books.

So we reviewed his book.

Very unusual. Virtually unprecedented.

No offence but it is easy to see just how much he bothers you,

I go whole years without so much as thinking about him.

I didn't bring him up here. I'm not responsible for the two Palmerthreads.

Buffalo brought him up, quite irrelevantly, on the thread about "Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early Mormon Polygamy." And, from there, it was all downhill.

your appeal to authority shows you probably don't have much to argue against.

Hmmmmm.

Earlier today, it was my supposed fixation on the fact that Grant Palmer isn't really an "insider" that supposedly demonstrated that I really didn't have much to argue against.

And yet, even though you've assured me that the men whose reviews you mostly haven't read actually pretty much agree with Grant Palmer, those reviews are already on record as arguing against Grant Palmer's position on many subjects.

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

Only with the apoogetic community.

Uh huh. And you have the survey data to back this claim?

Nobody who read the reviews found them convincing?

How do you know this?

it does make one wonder when you put so much into a trival matter.

Whereas, in stark contrast to me, you're not posting in this thread or in the other one?

[_Themis]

I'm quite confident that they would understand our point and share our reaction.

Not outside the church, and many inside would not either.

So am I. But I have no "insider" knowledge.

Nor does he.

Except, possibly, for his equation of the Moroni story with Der goldne Topf. But that didn't exactly work out very well for him.

He has knowledge as you and I do that most members do not. I don't expect to agree with everything he comes up with.

I go whole years without so much as thinking about him.

I didn't bring him up here. I'm not responsible for the two Palmerthreads.

I never started them but you were interested enough to post.

Hmmmmm.

Earlier today, it was my supposed fixation on the fact that Grant Palmer isn't really an "insider" that supposedly demonstrated that I really didn't have much to argue against.

And yet, even though you've assured me that the men whose reviews you mostly haven't read actually pretty much agree with Grant Palmer, those reviews are already on record as arguing against Grant Palmer's position on many subjects.

LOL I see you have moved away from all to many. At least you are moving towards what I said. YOu did try to use their expertise to dismiss him earlier.

Uh huh. And you have the survey data to back this claim?

Why would I need a survey when it is obvous that he has credibility with many here

Nobody who read the reviews found them convincing?

Convincing of what? Many people who disagree with some of the things he said would still consider him a credible author. No author is going to be right on everything. That does not mean they lose credibilty over it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm quite confident that they would understand our point and share our reaction.

Not outside the church, and many inside would not either.

Few outside the Church care one way or another. The book was aimed at members and at those otherwise associated with the Church in some way.

You can claim that many inside would not understand our point. I think they would. Many, in fact, have indicated quite clearly that they did.

In the absence of any real data, you're free to go with your position. I'll stick with mine.

you were interested enough to post.

I was accused of unfair ad hominem attacks on Grant Palmer.

I defend myself.

LOL I see you have moved away from all to many.

I never said that the Maxwell Institute reviewers disagree with Grant Palmer on absolutely everything.

Nobody disagrees with anybody on absolutely everything.

YOu did try to use their expertise to dismiss him earlier.

And I continue to do so.

I think, by the way, that we're simply repeating our positions now. And I'm losing interest.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

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.

Was that a problem?

Is it still a problem?


Grant simply wanted chapel Mormons to know more about their religion. What is wrong with that?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Was that a problem?

No.

Is it still a problem?

It can't "still" be a problem if it never was a problem.

Grant simply wanted chapel Mormons to know more about their religion. What is wrong with that?

Nothing, as such.

You're a bit late to the discussion, it seems, and don't really know what's going on.

[_Themis]

Few outside the Church care one way or another. The book was aimed at members and at those otherwise associated with the Church in some way.

Compared to the worlds population, sure.

You can claim that many inside would not understand our point. I think they would. Many, in fact, have indicated quite clearly that they did.

I never said they wouldn't understand your point, only that many would not agree with it, and since I am one of those, I am confident many others would as well.

I was accused of unfair ad hominem attacks on Grant Palmer.

Well it is an ad hominen.

And I continue to do so.

I know. It's what we call an appeal to authority.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well it is an ad hominen.

That's ad hominem.

And no, it's not.

Read a basic logic book, particularly on the so-called "practical fallacies."

It's what we call an appeal to authority.

No it's not.

Read a basic logic book, particularly on the so-called "practical fallacies."

[_Themis]

Read a basic logic book, particularly on the so-called "practical fallacies."

Sorry but you are wrong. You tried to appeal the the expertise of others in order to dismiss Grant and his book.

[_mikwut]

Themis,

You tell Dr. Petersen that he has made what can only be construed as a fallacious appeal to authority. He tells you to look it up because you are wrong. You post again insisting that he is wrong. There isn't anything wrong with Dr. Petersen appealing to actual bona fide authorities as he did. An appeal to authority is fallacious when the authority referred to is not actually an authority on the matter. My god, every time I utilize the services of an expert in court I would be guilty of your appeal to authority.

Secondly, YOU are guilty of an appeal to authority by appealing to this message boards members who are not an actual authority on the matter.

I am thoroughly convinced that members of this board that for some unknown reason (other than many lacks) have developed credence with other posters, mostly for posting a long time or having an ability to be clever and humorous, and through snarky disrespect and insults have poisoned the well with Dr. Petersen and that foolish virus then spreads unthinkingly. He is not anonymous. He is a bona fide academic scholar. He is a brilliant writer. He is extremely well read and he is extremely well educated. I don't care if someone disagrees with his religious beliefs (I have my disagreements, most people disagree somewhere about religious beliefs) but they would be fools of the highest order to disrepect his education and intelligence in these ways. If he told me I was wrong on a simple matter of logic I would at least not have the temerity to fail to look it up.

my best, mikwut