Repressed Church History?

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, I read History of the Church vols 1-6 on my mission, and it was not the most energetic selection I read. I want get a hold of Roberts' Comprehensive History and take a gander at that, but the DI thus far has yielded no results.

Your best option is to buy one of the CD-ROM collections. I think the newest one is Gospel Library 2006. It not only has Roberts' Comprehensive History but thousands of other works as well.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your best option is to buy one of the CD-ROM collections. I think the newest one is Gospel Library 2006. I not only has Roberts' Comprehensive History but thousands of other works as well.

I know, but I really dislike reading on a computer screen. I work on a computer all day, and strongly prefer books, which I can annotate, highlight and carry around.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know, but I really dislike reading on a computer screen. I work on a computer all day, and strongly prefer books, which I can annotate, highlight and carry around.

Get a PDA (Palm, Pocket PC, etc.). You can load the digital text onto your pocket device and, with a good word-processing program, do the annotating, highlighting, etc.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Get a PDA (Palm, Pocket PC, etc.). You can load the digital text onto your pocket device and, with a good word-processing program, do the annotating, highlighting, etc.

I have an ipaq; but there's just something about the sweet papery paper of a sweet book.

[Phillistine]

These comments are now completely off topic. Would someone like to post a new one?

Was anyone ever able to address the original concern?

[LifeOnaPlate]

These comments are now completely off topic. Would someone like to post a new one?

Was anyone ever able to address the original concern?

Up until the last 10 or so posts it was heavily discussed. Feel free to pick it up again.

[Daniel Peterson]

Really Dr Peterson?

Really.

I find that comment quite curious considering whoever wrote this overview of FARMS material

Here is the false allegation that you made:

The good folks at FARMS will tell you he (Grant Palmer) is not a true "insider" so what ever he has written or thinks is tainted thereby worthless and anti.

Nobody at FARMS has ever made the argument

Grant Palmer is not a "true insider."

Therefore, whatever he has written or thinks is worthless and "anti."

Nobody.

Such an argument never occurs in any of the reviews. It never occurs, even, in the little newsletter summary that you cite.

It is, of course, entirely correct to point out that Grant Palmer is in no real sense an "insider," despite the claim made by the title of his book. He isn't an "insider" in Mormon historical circles, and he isn't an "insider" in Church leadership. But nobody connected with FARMS has declared that, "therefore," for that simple reason alone, everything he says can be discounted. It is flatly false to accuse us of asserting any such thing. The various reviews offer evidence and analysis in their critique of Mr. Palmer's book. It is grossly misleading to insinuate that they do not.

Words are not infinitely plastic or malleable, TAK. You can't make them say what they don't say. And you're unwise to assume that the readers here are too stupid, too illiterate, or too doped up to realize that your claim is transparently false.

character assassination . . . seems to be a key tool in Mormon Apologia

That false allegation is itself a shameful specimen of false witness and character assassination.

to be clear -- I these are "my opinions" and most of my opinion is based on perspective.

I saw a performance of Shakespeare's King Lear on Saturday night.

If I said that it was a play about a widowed Austrian naval commander and his children during the Nazi Anschluss, a few here might quibble with that description. And they would not be mollified if I defended myself by saying that I was simply sharing my opinions and perspective.

as Dr Peterson pointed out the "Louis Midgley and Davis Bitton" reviews are interesting. the Mark Ashurst-McGee review is also a good read. all of them have a little venom towards Palmer.

Including even Jim Allen's? You must have an extraordinarily sensitive venom-dictator.

I believe in episode three Mormon Stories Podcast Grant Palmer discusses in details his opinion of the FARMS reviews. it's a good listen.

The last I heard, he was refusing to read them or, indeed, to look at anything from FARMS.

[Pahoran]

Neither does character assassination and yet it seems to be a key tool in Mormon Apologia ..

As your example demonstrates, it is clearly a "key tool" in anti-Mormon polemics; and evidently the more counterfactual, the better.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Verified information: I read somewhere that Palmer was asked about the title, and he said he was encouraged by the publisher to use the "Insider" angle in order to increase interest and establish more ethos; in other words, to sell more books. If anyone has heard or read this, let me know. I can't recall the source.

FOUND IT:

Palmer claims that in 1996, when he started preparing his manuscript for publication, "it was called 'Understanding Mormon Origins' and was submitted to Signature Books with that title. For sales purposes they re-titled the book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which by contract was their prerogative."--Palmer, "Biographical Sketch."

[TAK]

DCP

Words are not infinitely plastic or malleable, TAK. You can't make them say what they don't say. And you're unwise to assume that the readers here are too stupid, too illiterate, or too doped up to realize that your claim is transparently false.

LOL! The reader is free to draw their own conclusions as to what is transparent..

[Pahoran]

LOL! The reader is free to draw their own conclusions as to what is transparent..

Two things are quite transparent to me, Tak.

1) Your accusation that "character assassination... seems to be a key tool in Mormon Apologia" is transparently false.

2) You prefer it that way.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

LOL! The reader is free to draw their own conclusions as to what is transparent..

I'm entirely comfortable with that.

You can make all the false claims that you want to, but, unfortunately for you, reality is out there and is, in this case at least, easily accessible for inspection.

[TAK]

I'm entirely comfortable with that.

I am not so sure you are .. you seem to think that if people agree with the concept of Mormon Apologists attacking the person (and thereby not agree with you... ) they must be " too stupid, too illiterate, or too doped".. But I am sure you donâ??t consider that character assassination either ..

[ruski_canuk]

Isn't "personal attack" subjective ?

I mean my wife sometimes thinks I've *personally attacked* her if I look at her sideways

Why argue over fluff ?

I think describing people with the intent to diminish their character generally weakens ones own position, but that is just me. Name calling is for children.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am not so sure you are ..

If you don't mind (and I do hope that this won't offend you), I would like to be the judge, myself, of what I'm comfortable with, rather than turning that judgment over to you.

you seem to think that if people agree with the concept of Mormon Apologists attacking the person (and thereby not agree with you... ) they must be " too stupid, too illiterate, or too doped".

Don't attempt to shift the subject so shamelessly. l'm not going to let you get away with it, and it will simply make you look worse.

Here is the false allegation that you made:

The good folks at FARMS will tell you he (Grant Palmer) is not a true "insider" so what ever he has written or thinks is tainted thereby worthless and anti.

Here is what I wrote in response:

Nobody at FARMS has ever made the argument

Grant Palmer is not a "true insider."

Therefore, whatever he has written or thinks is worthless and "anti."

Nobody.

Such an argument never occurs in any of the reviews. It never occurs, even, in the little newsletter summary that you cite.

It is, of course, entirely correct to point out that Grant Palmer is in no real sense an "insider," despite the claim made by the title of his book. He isn't an "insider" in Mormon historical circles, and he isn't an "insider" in Church leadership. But nobody connected with FARMS has declared that, "therefore," for that simple reason alone, everything he says can be discounted. It is flatly false to accuse us of asserting any such thing. The various reviews offer evidence and analysis in their critique of Mr. Palmer's book. It is grossly misleading to insinuate that they do not.

Words are not infinitely plastic or malleable, TAK. You can't make them say what they don't say. And you're unwise to assume that the readers here are too stupid, too illiterate, or too doped up to realize that your claim is transparently false.

Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

The texts don't say what you claim they say. They simply don't. This isn't a matter of taste or opinion. Likewise, King Lear is not about an Austrian naval commander, and 2+2 doesn't equal five.

But I am sure you donâ??t consider that character assassination either ..

Whose character do you imagine that I'm "assassinating," TAK? I stated my view that the readers here, if they actually take the time to read the texts that you so egregiously misrepresent, are not so stupid, so illiterate, or so doped up as to be unable to recognize your false allegation for what it is. That's a vote of confidence, not a slap.

[Pahoran]

I am not so sure you are .. you seem to think that if people agree with the concept of Mormon Apologists attacking the person (and thereby not agree with you... ) they must be " too stupid, too illiterate, or too doped".. But I am sure you donâ??t consider that character assassination either ..

Tak,

it is a fact that anti-Mormons frequently accuse Mormon apologists of "attacking the person." It is likewise a fact that this accusation is usually, if not always, unfounded. The specific example under discussion conforms to the usual pattern. The examples you gave, pretending that they supported the accusation, did no such thing, of course. People who are capable of reading ordinary English, and who understand the function of a book review, can see that quite well.

The book is bad. It is interesting, and relevant, to know the history of its development. It is rather hard to provide that history without at some point mentioning the person who developed it. But the FARMS reviews you have quite brazenly misrepresented contain no suggestion that the book is bad because Palmer was a bad man. Rather, the book is bad because its arguments are poor and because its facts are off.

Thus, the accusation that said reviews rely upon "character assassination" is a clear falsehood.

As you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

After completing the FARMS reviews again, I see the "ad hominem" attacks are actually dealing with points brought up in the writers book; his history is brought up. And knocked down as misrepresented. Ad hominem attack?

[Hawkmoon]

Will the two of you quit with the character assassination of TAK... I am trying very hard to take his "arguments" seriously, which was hard enough to do without you making him look even sillier.

[rickg]

Wow! You guys(gals) really DO tear into a subject! Thanks. Keep going if there's more. I'm going to re-read some of this later when I have more time.

[TAK]

Thus, the accusation that said reviews rely upon "character assassination" is a clear falsehood.

I find it extremely rich that you of all people would have the temerity to make any comment on "character assassination" ..

[Hawkmoon]

I find it extremely rich that you of all people would have the temerity to make any comment on "character assassination" ..

Er, wouldn't this be a form of character assassination? Just saying...

[TAK]

Er, wouldn't this be a form of character assassination? Just saying...

That would be more .. calling the kettle black..

[Daniel Peterson]

Er, wouldn't this be a form of character assassination? Just saying...

Yes. Plainly.

The sadly-all-too-typical critics' refrain about the FARMS Review is that it deals in personalities rather than substance -- which, ironically, besides being demonstrably false, is a manifest attempt to distract reader attention from substance to personalities!

[TAK]

If you don't mind (and I do hope that this won't offend you), I would like to be the judge, myself, of what I'm comfortable with, rather than turning that judgment over to you.

Don't attempt to shift the subject so shamelessly. l'm not going to let you get away with it, and it will simply make you look worse.

Here is the false allegation that you made:

Here is what I wrote in response:

Please try to keep your eye on the ball.

The texts don't say what you claim they say. They simply don't. This isn't a matter of taste or opinion. Likewise, King Lear is not about an Austrian naval commander, and 2+2 doesn't equal five.

Whose character do you imagine that I'm "assassinating," TAK? I stated my view that the readers here, if they actually take the time to read the texts that you so egregiously misrepresent, are not so stupid, so illiterate, or so doped up as to be unable to recognize your false allegation for what it is. That's a vote of confidence, not a slap.

DCP,

I think the subject has run its course ..

I am off to my sailboat and the beautiful Chesapeake Bayâ??s eastern shore of Maryland for a very long weekend. Happy Holidays ..

[Daniel Peterson]

I think the subject has run its course ..

It certainly has. The final authority is the printed texts. They are what they are. They say what they say, and they don't say what they don't say. Period.

I am off to my sailboat and the beautiful Chesapeake Bayâ??s eastern shore of Maryland for a very long weekend. Happy Holidays ..

Danke. Gleichfalls.