Grant Palmer

[smac97]

No, it isn't.

You are correct. I believe it was originall "FARMS Review of Books on The Book of Mormon," then shortened to "FARMS Review of Books," then "FARMS Review."

Is that correct?

-Smac

[Chris Smith]

Hi Nightingale,

I very much doubt that David meant anything by it. I count David a friend, and I think (I hope) that he counts me a friend, as well. As long as such ribbing is done in the spirit of friendship, I'll laugh as much as the next guy.

The trouble with these boards is that it's sometimes hard to tell what spirit things are meant in. Someone who's familiar with my relationship with David would probably understand that he didn't mean anything by his remark, but other people might think that he was endorsing Pahoran's comment about me. The potential for miscommunication is enormous, as this thread has amply demonstrated.

Anyway, I thank you for your defense of me and for your kind comments. It's great to know that I have such good friends and colleagues here!

Peace,

-Chris

[Confidential Informant]

Smac is, of course, correct. If your status as an "insider" is part and parcel of the argument you forward, then having that claimed status actually reviewed and challenged is not an ad hominem. As I recall, Ed Decker liked to claim that he was a former bishop and he used that bolster his arguments. It was, therefore, not an ad hominem to review that claim and expose it as false. Likewise, in Palmer's case, it was not ad hominem to review his claim to be an "insider" since he was using that appelation as a way to bolster the veracity of his arguments.

C.I.

[LifeOnaPlate]

3. I also think think that The Review's scholarship, in the main, is pretty darn good. But rather than engage the substance of the reviewers' critiques, we see complaints about peripheral issues (such as occasional "ad hominem"). A good example of this is, well, the various reviews of Palmer's book. The flaws and gaps in its arguments are many and profound. And they have been explained at great length in The Review. Yet rather than address those flaws, folks like you gripe about Midgley's "ad hominem" (even though, as I have said, Palmer made himself a part of his thesis, thus making himself a legitimate subject of criticism).

Thanks,

-Smac

I think folks who have a problem with the FR reviews of Palmer's book would do well to provide better and exemplary reviews rather than criticize (which is sort of what they say they don't like about what the FR publishes anyway, right? "FARMS is a bunch of ad hominem jerk reviews!" Ok, well, what can I call your critique of FARMS then, right? Why not engage in a dialog with FARMS stuff they way you say you want FARMS to engage others? Why not recognize that Palmer's book has upset some members of the Church, and lend a hand their way?)

[LifeOnaPlate]

The trouble with these boards is that it's sometimes hard to tell what spirit things are meant in. Someone who's familiar with my relationship with David would probably understand that he didn't mean anything by his remark, but other people might think that he was endorsing Pahoran's comment about me. The potential for miscommunication is enormous, as this thread has amply demonstrated.

It's all about the emoticons, yo.

[David Bokovoy]

Hi Nightingale,

I very much doubt that David meant anything by it. I count David a friend, and I think (I hope) that he counts me a friend, as well. As long as such ribbing is done in the spirit of friendship, I'll laugh as much as the next guy.

The trouble with these boards is that it's sometimes hard to tell what spirit things are meant in. Someone who's familiar with my relationship with David would probably understand that he didn't mean anything by his remark, but other people might think that he was endorsing Pahoran's comment about me. The potential for miscommunication is enormous, as this thread has amply demonstrated.

Anyway, I thank you for your defense of me and for your kind comments. It's great to know that I have such good friends and colleagues here!

Peace,

-Chris

Thanks Chris. I appreciate our friendship as well and should have specified that in part, I found the comment so shocking, and hence humorous, because despite your anti-Mormon status, you clearly possess integrity.

For the record, however, I do feel that you not only over reacted to Dan's comments, but misrepresented his statements, so reading this thread, I fully sympathize with his frustration. Nevertheless, you've apologized and have as is usual tried to react kindly from here on out.

Best

[the narrator]

I think folks who have a problem with the FR reviews of Palmer's book would do well to provide better and exemplary reviews rather than criticize (which is sort of what they say they don't like about what the FR publishes anyway, right? "FARMS is a bunch of ad hominem jerk reviews!" Ok, well, what can I call your critique of FARMS then, right? Why not engage in a dialog with FARMS stuff they way you say you want FARMS to engage others? Why not recognize that Palmer's book has upset some members of the Church, and lend a hand their way?)

I think folks who have a problem with Roland Emmerich's 2012 would do well to make better movies rather than criticize the piece of crap.

If only we all had time and means to direct movies...

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think folks who have a problem with Roland Emmerich's 2012 would do well to make better movies rather than criticize the piece of crap.

If only we all had time and means to direct movies...

I think writing a book review is a bit less of a production than 2012, personally. And I personally am not very interested in the truth claims of the movie 2012, either, nor has it caused any loved ones of mine to question their faith.

[the narrator]

I think writing a book review is a bit less of a production than 2012, personally. And I personally am not very interested in the truth claims of the movie 2012, either, nor has it caused any loved ones of mine to question their faith.

My point, as I'm sure you well know, is that the notion that one could only criticize if one is willing to do the thing oneself (aka put up or shut up) is simply absurd, and you know it. But alas, you are taking it even further and saying that one should not even criticize, but should both shut-up and go to the efforts to write a review as well.

[the narrator]

I think writing a book review is a bit less of a production than 2012, personally. And I personally am not very interested in the truth claims of the movie 2012, either, nor has it caused any loved ones of mine to question their faith.

By your own reasoning, critical reviews should not even exist in the FARMS Review. Instead of criticizing Palmer, Vogel, Quinn, Metcalfe, and others, they should all just be writing their own books about these things. While I recognize that some of the reviewers have in fact done that, it is certainly not true for the whole.

[LifeOnaPlate]

My point, as I'm sure you well know, is that the notion that one could only criticize if one is willing to do the thing oneself (aka put up or shut up) is simply absurd, and you know it. But alas, you are taking it even further and saying that one should not even criticize, but should both shut-up and go to the efforts to write a review as well.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My recommendation is that people who have problems with Palmer's book, and the available reviews of it (for instance), could do a lot of good by providing a review of it. Criticize away, by all means, but it would be ironic if such criticism devolved into the same sort of attacks it is complaining about.

[LifeOnaPlate]

By your own reasoning, critical reviews should not even exist in the FARMS Review. Instead of criticizing Palmer, Vogel, Quinn, Metcalfe, and others, they should all just be writing their own books about these things. While I recognize that some of the reviewers have in fact done that, it is certainly not true for the whole.

If I've given that impression, it wasn't intentional. I think the FARMS Review should publish critical reviews. My complaints here deal with tone and approach. I don't have a problem with reading (or even writing) a critical review.

[Nightingale]

Hi Nightingale,

I very much doubt that David meant anything by it. I count David a friend, and I think (I hope) that he counts me a friend, as well. As long as such ribbing is done in the spirit of friendship, I'll laugh as much as the next guy.

The trouble with these boards is that it's sometimes hard to tell what spirit things are meant in. Someone who's familiar with my relationship with David would probably understand that he didn't mean anything by his remark, but other people might think that he was endorsing Pahoran's comment about me. The potential for miscommunication is enormous, as this thread has amply demonstrated.

Hi Chris. Thanks for the explanation. You're right. Not being an insider, most of all of that whooshed over my head. It did seem exactly like Bokovoy siding with Pahoran against you, agreeing that you had no integrity. Who knew you needed a guidebook to comprehend the posts here. I thank you for taking the time to explain it to me, unlike the Bokovoy response, which is a good example of how unfriendly the natives can be around here. I don't have an in-depth manual of the nature and methodology of Pahoran so yeah, I take his comments at face value. As for the Bokovoy laughter response, I missed the point of that entirely. I need a map!

I hope you work it all out, Chris. For me, I don't enjoy the personal scrums. I'm used to Christians of various stripes disagreeing on doctrine, perhaps, but acknowledging their brotherhood in spite of that. I guess I'm fortunate to live in some kind of exalted world in that way. I've heard debates between Christians and atheists on the topic of evolution vs creation where they were friendlier and more respectful to each other and in some cases even friends despite their opposing views. That is more what I'm used to. I guess you enjoy the cut and thrust. You're right about the written word and how difficult it can be to communicate effectively. I'm sure it really helps that you can interact in person.

The interesting thing to me about communication is seeing how a reader understands one's words; for instance, in this case you paraphrased what DCP said but to him the way his comments were restated was totally inaccurate. It's interesting to see how readers interpret a writer's comments. I used to think it was up to the reader to work to gain an accurate idea of what had been said but I have come to see that it's up to the writer to strive to communicate accurately. Even so, misunderstandings abound. Writers expect or at least hope to be quoted accurately or to have their ideas passed on reasonably intact. This is harder to accomplish and occurs more rarely than one would wish. I quite often find it necessary to correct someone's interpretation of my spoken or written words. It's irritating. But I no longer think it's 100% the listener's or reader's error if they misunderstand my comments. I do think, though, that care should be taken when paraphrasing someone else's remarks. It is very easy to completely change what was said or written, even inadvertently and even if one takes care to avoid misinterpretations. I often transcribe dictation and edit as I type for clarity and grammar correction, etc. I must exercise the greatest care not to inadvertently change what the dictator has stated. When you're extremely conscious of this, like I must be when doing this work, it's amazing and disturbing to see how miscommunication abounds and how easy it is to inadvertently change the meaning, even to render it completely opposite to what the speaker (or writer) intended. Word choice and even punctuation come into play. That's why I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Verify, verify, verify is my motto.

Still, for the personal exchanges, it's hard to sort out what's going on, who said what, what do they mean, who's right, is anybody wrong, etc. Especially when you don't know the back story.

So really, I should have just passed this one by.

It's hard to remember, though, that there is a back story to everything, it seems. Sometimes it seems like the boards are just for the insiders. And hey, if you have to explain the joke...

[smac97]

I think folks who have a problem with Roland Emmerich's 2012 would do well to make better movies rather than criticize the piece of crap.

Irony alert!

-Smac

[the narrator]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. My recommendation is that people who have problems with Palmer's book, and the available reviews of it (for instance), could do a lot of good by providing a review of it. Criticize away, by all means, but it would be ironic if such criticism devolved into the same sort of attacks it is complaining about.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Chris Smith]

lol, Nightingale. I hear you. And having done some interviews myself, I know exactly what you mean. It's shockingly easy to misunderstand or accidentally distort what someone said. And unfortunately, the person whose words have been distorted all too often takes this as a sign of malice or stupidity on the part of the distorter.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the clarification.

[LifeOnaPlate]

(I haven't seen 2012 parenthetically)

Do you think FARMS should never publish a review that is critical of a book, the narrator?

[Wiki Wonka]

Yeah, yeah, sure LoaP...we all know that you are always just a single emoticon away from "flying into a rage."

WW *

* Your devoted sockpuppet

[ttribe]

Yeah, yeah, sure LoaP...we all know that you are always just a single emoticon away from "flying into a rage."

WW *

* Your devoted sockpuppet

Someone saw a certain thread "elsewhere".

[Pahoran]

Off-the-cuff, what percentage of critical reviews would you say go too deep into personal attacks?

I haven't seen any.

The popular anti-FARMS ad hominem claim that the FARMS Review is saturated with personal attacks is glaringly and demonstrably false. More to the point, it is an ideological statement that functions as a kind of recognition code among anti-Mormons in general, cultural Mormons, fringe Mormons and the Signaturi. A shared myth that, although having no probative value at all, nevertheless performs a useful function as a kind of cultural glue, enabling them to stand shoulder to shoulder against the common enemy.

Narrator, you claim to be a believing Latter-day Saint. Many others in this forum have made that claim; rather more than those who actually were. DCP's Malevolent Stalker comes to mind. That's not to say that I disbelieve you, but you will forgive me for reserving judgement on the question until more evidence is in. Perhaps you are simply one of those who, as so penetratingly observed by the late great Hugh W. Nibley, think the way to earn the respect of the world is simply to agree with everything it says about us.

As your "new Mormon scholars," the ones who think FARMS is such a joke, have yet to actually publish anything of note, we'll wait and see what they have to say, shall we?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yeah, yeah, sure LoaP...we all know that you are always just a single emoticon away from "flying into a rage."

WW *

* Your devoted sockpuppet

Must...control...rage...

Can't...use...pronouns...!

[volgadon]

That is the best emoticon I have ever seen!!!!!

[LifeOnaPlate]

The popular anti-FARMS ad hominem claim that the FARMS Review is saturated with personal attacks is glaringly and demonstrably false. More to the point, it is an ideological statement that functions as a kind of recognition code among anti-Mormons in general, cultural Mormons, fringe Mormons and the Signaturi. A shared myth that, although having no probative value at all, nevertheless performs a useful function as a kind of cultural glue, enabling them to stand shoulder to shoulder against the common enemy.

I think in general the claim is largely overblown. At the same time, there have been some reviews that are snarky (even some that I have found pretty entertaining!) Sometimes snark has gotten in the way of the larger objective of helping sustain or foster faith, though, and unfortunately some people take that and run with it. DCP noted in his FAIR address from above "Some are critical because they are concerned with the tone and method. Hard as it is to say we need to listen to them, though many of their accusations can be flat-out false. There is an ad hominem story about how apologists behave and they are wrong in many cases. Many people haven't even read the stuff. Still, it is never wrong to listen to your critics. And to the extent that tone has gotten into what we wanted to say, we need to improve in that area."

I agree with that sentiment. I assume DCP still does too, and I assume the narrator could agree with it. That is to say, I am aware of the myth of evil FARMS, but I can also understand a little about how easy it has been for critics of the Church (or FARMS, or whatever) to exploit the snark to the detriment of the whole. But on the whole, I still think what the FARMS Review has published is really cool, despite where I feel uncomfortable with tone.

[gmormon]

...

Narrator, you claim to be a believing Latter-day Saint. Many others in this forum have made that claim; rather more than those who actually were. DCP's Malevolent Stalker comes to mind. That's not to say that I disbelieve you, but you will forgive me for reserving judgement on the question until more evidence is in. Perhaps you are simply one of those who, as so penetratingly observed by the late great Hugh W. Nibley, think the way to earn the respect of the world is simply to agree with everything it says about us.

...

Apparently a MsJackMeyer over at MD on a topic ererily similar to this one has provided a link to more information on "Narrator" maybe he/she will provide the same link here ? (I can't access it do to my firewall here )