Grant Palmer

[Scott Lloyd]

No protest from me. I rejoice whenever Christ suceeds in saving another sinner.

Especially because it means that sinner has repented.

I wouldn't have to wait for the hereafter. I would rejoice here and now to learn of his humble repentance and return to the fold of God.

[Hyrum Page]

Then I repeat, I'm not worried. Nobody I respect or care about has yet censured me for wanting to know and understand the particulars about how Palmer's book came to be or wanting to understand more about his life's circumstances as a highly visible and rather vocal apostate.

Scott,

In case you missed it, I apologized to Daniel and dropped the whole thing. If you didn't miss it, I don't see the point in you carrying on with this, and I will not continue to argue with you about it. I am done.

T

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

In case you missed it, I apologized to Daniel and dropped the whole thing. If you didn't miss it, I don't see the point in you carrying on with this, and I will not continue to argue with you about it. I am done.

T

OK. I wish you a pleasant evening.

[Hyrum Page]

OK. I wish you a pleasant evening.

Likewise.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Especially because it means that sinner has repented.

I wouldn't have to wait for the hereafter. I would rejoice here and now to learn of his humble repentance and return to the fold of God.

Amen!

[Tarski]

Little pompous and baiting dont ya think?

no

[noel00]

Have any of you people thought of having Palmer invited to provide a response to his critics? I am sure John Dehlin knows how to contact him. I wonder how many other church employees might be closet doubters. It would be a terrible bind to be in. I understand Walter Rea and Ronald Numbers had problems with their pensions from the SDA church when they wrote their respective books on E G White.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm certainly hoping that this thread can continue much, much longer! My dream is to see ten pages for every line of my criminal post on the first page.

Do whatever you can to keep it alive!

You were questioning my faith. A tactic another popular figure on this thread seems to turn to as well when someone doesn't pledge allegiance to FAIR and FARMS.

I examined the passage to which you linked, in order to inspect an example of this "tactic" that you mention. I couldn't find it. Could you please point out specifically what you have in mind?

Personally, I repudiate any equation of FARMS or FAIR with the Gospel or the Church, and would reject any attempt to demand allegiance to the former as proof of loyalty to the latter. If anybody has ever really made such a claim, I would be interested to see it. I've never encountered such a person.

[the narrator]

I'm certainly hoping that this thread can continue much, much longer! My dream is to see ten pages for every line of my criminal post on the first page.

Do whatever you can to keep it alive!

I examined the passage to which you linked, in order to inspect an example of this "tactic" that you mention. I couldn't find it. Could you please point out specifically what you have in mind?

Personally, I repudiate any equation of FARMS or FAIR with the Gospel or the Church, and would reject any attempt to demand allegiance to the former as proof of loyalty to the latter. If anybody has ever really made such a claim, I would be interested to see it. I've never encountered such a person.

I was responding to Pahoran's questioning of my faith (which faith you have seen on numerous accounts, but yet have shown no intent to defend). The 'tactic' was in the comments, and is pretty easy to identify. Since my response was directed at Pahoran and has nothing to do with you, I'd like to leave it with Pahoran. I really don't care to stir things up with you again--nor with anyone really--as I am working on a paper for Bushman on Ammon as state emissary on a mission to establish a relationship with the Lamanites, and I really don't have time for these silly games here.

And I'm glad that you repudiate any equation of loyalty to FARMS or FAIR with loyalty to the gospel, cuz that is just silliness.

[Calm]

The 'tactic' was in the comments, and is pretty easy to identify. Since my response was directed at Pahoran and has nothing to do with you, I'd like to leave it with Pahoran.

For the sake of those of us following these various conversations among various participants, it would be helpful and appreciated greatly for you to clarify the "tactic" you are referring to as I at least (and probably the majority of the lurkers on the thread I suspect), prefer not to jump to conclusions in discussions where misunderstandings based on misinterpretations appeared to abound (plus Pahoran doesn't post with great regularity so it may be in the next minute or next week before he responds and I lack the patience to wait for him).

[Pahoran]

For the sake of those of us following these various conversations among various participants, it would be helpful and appreciated greatly for you to clarify the "tactic" you are referring to as I at least (and probably the majority of the lurkers on the thread I suspect), prefer not to jump to conclusions in discussions where misunderstandings based on misinterpretations appeared to abound (plus Pahoran doesn't post with great regularity so it may be in the next minute or next week before he responds and I lack the patience to wait for him).

The "tactic" boils down to nothing more or less than this: I pointed out to The narrator that, on an anonymous message board -- and one that has seen its share and more of mischievous poseurs -- the only way any of us can really know where someone stands is not what they say about themselves, but the positions they argue.

The narrator chose, for reasons known only to himself, to interpret that as "questioning his faith."

He was wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

I just ran across this, and, though I don't want to prolong the ridiculous thing that this thread has long since become, I'm going to comment:

Dan's antics here . . . antics like Dan exhibited here

How my little response on page one of this thread can be described as "antics" eludes me utterly.

antics: "an attention-drawing often wildly playful or funny act or action," "absurd or grotesque acts or postures," "a playful trick or prank; caper," "a grotesque, fantastic, or ludicrous gesture, act, or posture."

Here's the entirety of my crime: In answer to the question of whether Grant Palmer's collecting a CES pension was troubling in any way, I responded that "It bothers me, and should bother anybody of integrity, if Louis Midgley's sources are correct in suggesting that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment (and, thus, to qualify for a CES pension) by disingenuous means. Otherwise, no problem."

Please note the wild playfulness, the grotesque absurdity, the pranksterish attempt to draw attention, the ludicrous posture, and the fantastic humor of that reply. Marvel, too, at the way I simultaneously managed, as others have noted, to be brutal, gossipy, hateful, and unethical, all in the short space of a single sentence followed by a sentence fragment.

there are many out there who believe that the FARMS Review (and those involved) repeatedly exhibit a tactic of beginning and/or focusing their critical responses with personal attacks, which are designed to go after the character of the reviewed author, establish them as an enemy, and wage personal jabs that are irrelevant to the discussion.

There are many, too, who believe that summer is warm because the earth is closer to the sun during that season.

While this may be exhibited in only a portion of the Review's essays (you say 10%, my friend and your associate says 25%), the percentage becomes significantly larger when it is taken into account that only a portion of the Review's reviews are even critical responses. Thus the percentage of critical reviews which contain this tactic is, in my and many others views, alarming and unsettling.

I deny that unethical personal attacks have occurred in the FARMS Review at all.

The writing in the Review is often spirited. I don't apologize for that. I don't think that academic writing has to be dull. I don't share Mike Quinn's apparent conviction that polemics is a dirty word. I don't believe that believers have to pretend not to care about their faith. But we have never published anything, in my view, that can justly be described as vicious or as unethical.

.

[rockslider]

Maybe the "attention-drawing often wildly playful or funny act or action" did not refer to your first post.

[Daniel Peterson]

Maybe the "attention-drawing often wildly playful or funny act or action" did not refer to your first post.

Maybe it referred to an alternate reality, another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Who knows?

[rockslider]

my votes on the cry baby post

[Daniel Peterson]

my votes on the cry baby post

My songs on the bumbleberry goo.

Our names at the iceberg lettuce.

His home under the iambic pentameter.

What on earth are you talking about?

[rockslider]

My songs on the bumbleberry goo.

Our names at the iceberg lettuce.

His home under the iambic pentameter.

What on earth are you talking about?

Where you threatened to pack up your toys and not play with the other children in Claremont

[Daniel Peterson]

Where you threatened to pack up your toys and not play with the other children in Claremont

Ah. I think I understand what you were attempting to say in your broken English.

I know that you're trying weally weally hard to insult me (I've seen your little efforts over at the Compound), but I'm afraid that your suggestion doesn't fit the context.

Bzzzzzt! Next contestant?

[rockslider]

what can I say?

Educated guys are my heros

edit:

so is this a speaking engagement for you?

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm speaking in Richard Bushman's seminar at Claremont Graduate University early on Thursday afternoon, having a public "conversation" about "Muslim-Christian Relations" with Professor Hamid Mavani later that afternoon, giving a public lecture connected to Richard Bushman's program that evening, speaking at the main mosque in Orange County just after noon on Friday, speaking to the Miller-Eccles study group in Orange County on Friday evening, and speaking to the Miller-Eccles study group in Los Angeles County on Saturday evening.

[rockslider]

boxen!

edit:

I used to be a carpenter ... pretty good with nails

[the narrator]

I just ran across this, and, though I don't want to prolong the ridiculous thing that this thread has long since become, I'm going to comment:

How my little response on page one of this thread can be described as "antics" eludes me utterly.

antics: "an attention-drawing often wildly playful or funny act or action," "absurd or grotesque acts or postures," "a playful trick or prank; caper," "a grotesque, fantastic, or ludicrous gesture, act, or posture."

Here's the entirety of my crime: In answer to the question of whether Grant Palmer's collecting a CES pension was troubling in any way, I responded that "It bothers me, and should bother anybody of integrity, if Louis Midgley's sources are correct in suggesting that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment (and, thus, to qualify for a CES pension) by disingenuous means. Otherwise, no problem."

Please note the wild playfulness, the grotesque absurdity, the pranksterish attempt to draw attention, the ludicrous posture, and the fantastic humor of that reply. Marvel, too, at the way I simultaneously managed, as others have noted, to be brutal, gossipy, hateful, and unethical, all in the short space of a single sentence followed by a sentence fragment.

There are many, too, who believe that summer is warm because the earth is closer to the sun during that season.

I deny that unethical personal attacks have occurred in the FARMS Review at all.

The writing in the Review is often spirited. I don't apologize for that. I don't think that academic writing has to be dull. I don't share Mike Quinn's apparent conviction that polemics is a dirty word. I don't believe that believers have to pretend not to care about their faith. But we have never published anything, in my view, that can justly be described as vicious or as unethical.

.

I guess we just disagree. I don't care to fight you Dan. I'm done.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess we just disagree. I don't care to fight you Dan. I'm done.

I take it from this that you won't be continuing your sanctimonious stage show for the adoring crowd over at the other board.

[the narrator]

I take it from this that you won't be continuing your sanctimonious stage show for the adoring crowd over at the other board.

If you want to question my sincerity, that's your problem. If so, I'm done with you as well.... Though I don't know if we were ever started.

[Pahoran]

If you aren't capable of seeing the the fair comparison of groups creating a common Other to create self-identification and unification, then that is your own fault.

A "fair comparison" only exists where the resemblance is actual and not merely contrived.

And since that is the point at dispute, you are engaged in question-begging.

Did you really not realise that? Oh dear.

But perhaps you are right; perhaps there really are no actual anti-Mormons. Anywhere. Perhaps the Tanners are a figment of our imagination. Perhaps Ed Decker doesn't really exist. Perhaps Loftes Tryk is a hoax. Perhaps nothing IRR publishes is intended to call into question the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Dr Ankerberg and Dr Dr Weldon are really stooges secretly in the employ of FARMS.

But then again, perhaps not. (With the possible exception of Loftes Tryk.)

The empirical evidence tells me that, even if we wanted to (and it has not been plausibly established that we would want to) we simply have no need to "create" anti-Mormons; they exist in their own right.

And your question of my faith.

No such thing.

Still, perhaps your own argument applies to you; perhaps you feel a need to create and vilify an "other" in order to establish your own claims of pre-eminence. Is that it?

You were questioning my faith.

No. I was not.

I have already explained my position to you. You don't have to agree with it; you are at all times entitled to take issue with it, or any portion thereof. But it is not for you to tell me what my position is.

And it is the very height of arrogance for you to presume to try to do so.

Nothing to explain. I wasn't demonstrating anything to anyone. I was just defending Chris from what I felt was an unfair backlash.

It's an "unfair backlash" to call an anti-Mormon to account for a baseless accusation? Really?

Actually. It really is much more hilarious to see a horse's *** claiming that FARMS doesn't make personal attacks, while simultaneously questioning the faith of someone they are attacking.

Maybe someday you will know enough to make a worthwhile contribution to this forum. In the meantime, it would do you well to note that gratuitous name-calling is not acceptable here.

And even if my remarks were as you choose to characterise them -- they were not -- is that the best you've got? Remarks made on a message board that is entirely unaffiliated with FARMS or FAIR are somehow relevant to the nature of what is published by them?

How does that work, exactly?

I see you also like to play the game of plausible deniability with your rhetoric. Fair enough. I also didn't say that you a horse's *** either.

So you expect me to accept, on faith, everything you choose to say about yourself -- but you refuse to acknowledge the rather uncontroversial fact that I own my own position?

One rule for you and another for me, because it suits you?

You must be a Gen-Y guy.

Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it really isn't all about you. Sorry.

I don't know what either of those acronyms mean. Care to fill me in?

TLA: Three-letter acronym.

FCAN: Four-character alpha-numeric.

It's not my place to name them.

In which case, it's not your place to claim them as sharing your opinion, either.

Which is probably just as well. You see, The Narrator, the old claim that "FARMS-just-does-ad-hominem" is a canard. It is undiluted wastewater from a swine cleaning facility, and I recommend against you swallowing it any more.

I first saw it claimed by the Tanners, and have since seen it mechanically repeated by an increasingly unanimous herd of "independent thinkers." I have no doubt that Chris thinks you're a splendid fellow for helping to propagate one of his favourite memes, and so you probably achieved what you wanted.

In the meantime, no-one has ever managed to show that review essays in the FARMS Review, or indeed any other FARMS or FAIR publication, contain a higher proportion of ad hominem argumentation or "character assassination" than any other publication where controversial positions are discussed. To my knowledge, no-one has ever even tried.

The reviews of Palmer's book certainly did not. They addressed specific claims that Mister Palmer made about himself in order to boost his claimed standing as an "insider" to something. Showing those claims in their proper light was relevant to the book under review.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran