No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Here is a good place to start.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/a-summary-of-five-reviews-of-grant-palmers-an-insiders-view-of-mormon-origins

No thanks, I read many of these reviews already.  I've also read the book and thought it was quite good.  I didn't agree with many of his conclusions, but the historical information was quite accurate, IMO.  Much of what I've read in the reviews were more of an attack on Palmer himself rather than actually being able to point to errors in his book.  And, the critics always went right for the Golden Pot chapter (which I read and knew was just a theory...pretty far out too) and they didn't seem to have much more.

Do you have anything specific that you thought was wrong or inaccurate in his book?  Have you even read it?

Edited April 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why did Palmer have to use another name?

 

Fear...family..job..community..ward..etc.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No thanks, I read many of these reviews already.  I've also read the book and thought it was quite good.  I didn't agree with many of his conclusions, but the historical information was quite accurate, IMO.  Much of what I've read in the reviews were more of an attack on Palmer himself rather than actually being able to point to errors in his book.  And, the critics always went right for the Golden Pot chapter (which I read and knew was just a theory...pretty far out too) and didn't seem to have much more.

Do you have anything specific that you thought was wrong or inaccurate in his book?  Have you even read it?

And that's the nature of history.  Two historians can look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions.  That is why it is so important to be spiritually converted to the gospel, to have a personal relationship with God that goes beyond what is written in a book or what someone else claims to have experienced. 

One of my favorite quotes from Blake Ostler (which I have used here before)

"When we approach people who are not LDS and ask them to consider what we have to offer, we don’t suggest that we offer a superior theology of axioms and propositions (though I would suggest we have a compelling and beautiful theology and we may even share with them our best take on how our theology works for us). And we don’t try to persuade them through arguments from scripture that we can read the Bible better than they can, or that we have the best reading of scripture based on the most recent biblical scholarship (though we definitely will share our scriptures with them and will do our best to get them to read scripture, and I believe we have a persuasive reading of the texts). In fact, the last thing on earth we would do is send out a bunch of 19 year olds to argue with people about the Bible if that’s what we were serious about. Now, we don’t try to persuade them that we have overwhelming empirical evidence to demonstrate that we’re right (though we may offer them empirical evidence). Rather, what we offer is a way to enter into an interpersonal relationship directly with God to get answers directly from God. We don’t say, “Trust me and my brain and how well I can argue;” we say, “Despite the fact that I’m not such a great instrument, you can get it for yourself and you don’t have to rely on me.' "

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2007-fair-conference/2007-spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

And that's the nature of history.  Two historians can look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions.  That is why it is so important to be spiritually converted to the gospel, to have a personal relationship with God that goes beyond what is written in a book or what someone else claims to have experienced. 

True.  

(And, I'll assume your answer to both of my questions is "no", is that correct? ) 

Edited April 1, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  

(And, I'll assume your answer to both of my questions is "no", is that correct? ) 

No, it's not something I've read.  The reviews on it I've seen aren't positive, and there's already enough on my reading list to last a long time.

I am open to having my opinions corrected if someone has a convincing argument as to why I should read it.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

No, it's not something I've read.  The reviews on it I've seen aren't positive, and there's already enough on my reading list to last a long time.

The reviews are really quite good (from those who have actually read the book....4.5 star average out of 5 over on Amazon).  Those review are interesting to read too for a good mix of opinions on the book.

But, I certainly understand it not being a priority for you    (And, my reading list just keeps growing....and growing...)

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, he wasn't an outsider (" a person who does not belong to a particular group ").  He was a member of the church and he worked for the CES for years.  I'd say that qualifies for being an insider within the church (" a person within a group or organization ").  I doubt he had any special, secret knowledge, but I don't recall that he made that claim anywhere in his book, did he? 

Well, that's just the point. The title implies that he was a member of the Church's hierarchy or some inner circle that confers upon him some sort of esoteric knowledge. That's a false impression.

If all that was meant by being an "insider" was that he was a member of the Church, why bother putting it in the title? It doesn't have any particularly remarkable meaning.

Quote

I can't remember many inaccuracies in his book (the Golden Pot theory was interesting  ).

Not referring to Palmer's book specifically, but speaking in general terms, one can, strictly speaking, be facially accurate yet misleading at the same time through selective presentation of facts, slanting, out-of-context citation, etc.

So saying that you can't remember any inaccuracies in it is not particularly impressive to me.

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Fear...family..job..community..ward..etc.

Right. He was skulking around writing a book that defamed the entity that gave him a regular paycheck and pension, and he wanted to duck any repercussions.

He was leading a double life. I share Calm's assessment of him.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, that's just the point. The title implies that he was a member of the Church's hierarchy or some inner circle that confers upon him some sort of esoteric knowledge. That's a false impression.

Funny, but I never read the title that way or felt that's what he meant.  I simply thought he was saying that he had been a member for years, so it was written from a member's point of view.  I haven't seen anything in any descriptions of the book that state this is the case either (read this book to learn hidden or secret information). 

Have you seen where he wrote that he was a "member of the Church's hierarchy or some inner circle" or had "some sort of esoteric knowledge"?  It sounds like this is your interpretation and impression from the title.  I do understand how the word "insider" could possibly mean that, but you don't know that was his intent. 

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If all that was meant by being an "insider" was that he was a member of the Church, why bother putting it in the title? It doesn't have any particularly remarkable meaning.

To let readers know he was actually a member of the church?   This might be important to know, especially for those looking at the book who were not members of the church.  (Just like with other topics written by other authors....I like to know if they are familiar or knowledgeable on a topic, myself).  Again, that's how I interpreted it when I saw the title for the first time, but you obviously interpreted it differently.

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not referring to Palmer's book specifically, but speaking in general terms, one can, strictly speaking, be facially accurate yet misleading at the same time through selective presentation of facts, slanting, out-of-context citation, etc.

Of course.

Edited April 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Funny, but I never read the title that way or felt that's what he meant.  I simply thought he was saying that he had been a member for years, so it was written from a member's point of view.  I haven't seen anything in any descriptions of the book that state this is the case either (read this book to learn hidden or secret information). 

Have you seen where he wrote that he was a "member of the Church's hierarchy or some inner circle" or had "some sort of esoteric knowledge"?  It sounds like this is your interpretation and impression from the title.  I do understand how the word "insider" could possibly mean that, but you don't know that was his intent. 

Of course it was my impression. I believe Palmer or his handlers -- or perhaps both -- intended to convey it. It was a marketing tool to sell copies and to give it undue credibility.

Quote

To let readers know he was actually a member of the church?   This might be important to know, especially for those looking at the book who were not members of the church.

There are better, more honest, ways to convey that than the potentially deceptive "Insider's View."

Any member of the Church can disparage its beliefs, doctrines, history, leadership, etc. In fact, many do just that. Identifying such an individual as an "insider" doesn't make him particularly special or endow him with any added credibility.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Right. He was skulking around writing a book that defamed the entity that gave him a regular paycheck and pension, and he wanted to duck any repercussions.

He was leading a double life. I share Calm's assessment of him.

"Skulking around"?  "Double life"?  This made me crack up!  You really hate this guy, don't you?

I don't own his book but I think I'll buy it now.  I have to see what "inside information" this sinister, evil man exposed.

By the way, people write under different names for a variety of reasons.  He did publish the book using his real name though, correct?  If he wrote using a pseudonym while he was having doubts and questions, that's not a huge sin like you're trying to portray here.  He may never have even planned on publishing his notes if he'd found the answers that helped him. 

Also, when he may have lost his livelihood and had his family to support, it's understandable as well.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

"Skulking around"?  "Double life"?  This made me crack up!  You really hate this guy, don't you?

I don't own his book but I think I'll buy it now.  I have to see what "inside information" this sinister, evil man exposed.

By the way, people write under different names for a variety of reasons.  He did publish the book using his real name though, correct?  If he wrote using a pseudonym while he was having doubts and questions, that's not a huge sin like you're trying to portray here.  He may never have even planned on publishing his notes if he'd found the answers that helped him. 

Also, when he may have lost his livelihood and had his family to support, it's understandable as well.  

While you're checking into the book, you might want to go here for the backstory.

And here.

And here.

By the way, I don't hate Palmer.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

While you're checking into the book, you might want to go here for the backstory.

And here.

And here.

By the way, I don't hate Palmer.

I just read several of the reviews (most seemed fair and honest, it looks interesting).  I went ahead and ordered a copy.

I like to read books myself and form my own views too.   But, thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I just read several of the reviews (most seemed fair and honest, it looks interesting).  I went ahead and ordered a copy.

I like to read books myself and form my own views too.   But, thank you.

If you're talking about the brief consumer reviews on Amazon, or something like that, I don't think you'll get the information that's in the links I gave you. These are articles written by informed scholars.

I'm not telling you not to read the book and form your own views, just to approach it with your eyes wide open.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course it was my impression. I believe Palmer or his handlers -- or perhaps both -- intended to convey it. It was a marketing tool to sell books and to give it undue credibility.

His "handlers"?  Wow, you have quite the conspiracy theory going here....  

You don't really know how he came up with the title (unless Grant Palmer has written or spoken about that).

(And, there is nothing wrong with marketing a book you've written.)

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are better, more honest, ways to convey that than the potentially deceptive "Insider's View."

Well, I don't see the title as being dishonest or deceptive.  He spent his life "inside" the Mormon church and even was employed by them and the book contains his "views".  I find the title to be a good description and honest.  You interpreted it differently and that's fine, of course.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Any member of the Church can disparage its beliefs, doctrines, history, leadership, etc. In fact, many do just that. Identifying such an individual as an "insider" doesn't make him particularly special or endow him with any added credibility.

Wow, you really hate that he used that word ("insider"), don't you?  You do understand that he was inside the church for years, correct?  He was a member of the church.  I understand that you feel he was trying to convey a certain, specific meaning, but do you have proof that's the definition he meant in his title?  

Even if he did mean it that way (and was attempting to pique a reader's curiosity), one can read the description of the book and make their own decision whether to buy it and read it.  

Edited April 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

"Skulking around"?  "Double life"?  This made me crack up!  You really hate this guy, don't you?

I don't own his book but I think I'll buy it now.  I have to see what "inside information" this sinister, evil man exposed.

By the way, people write under different names for a variety of reasons.  He did publish the book using his real name though, correct?  If he wrote using a pseudonym while he was having doubts and questions, that's not a huge sin like you're trying to portray here.  He may never have even planned on publishing his notes if he'd found the answers that helped him. 

Also, when he may have lost his livelihood and had his family to support, it's understandable as well.  

I really enjoyed his book.  Let me know what you think.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

His "handlers"?  Wow, you have quite the conspiracy theory going here....  

 

Quote

 

han•dler

(ˈhænd lər)

n.

1. a person or thing that handles.

2. a person who assists in the training of a boxer or is the boxer's second during a fight.

3. a person who trains, exhibits, or directs an animal, as a dog in a show.

4. a person who manages and represents a public figure, esp. a political candidate.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that an author and/or speaker might have one or more publicists who arrange speaking engagements and market, edit and title his printed materials, etc.?

 

Or do you think Palmer, now that he has emerged from the Paul Pry persona, is still self-publishing his own stuff and arranging his own speaking events? He's not, you know. That's done by Signature Books.

 

Quote

Well, I don't see the title as being dishonest or deceptive.

I do and have explained why. Life goes on.
 

Quote

 

Wow, you really hate that he used that word ("insider"), don't you?  You do understand that he was inside the church for years, correct?

 

 

 

 

I have already explained why I don't see this as remarkable enough that it merits being used as a selling point for a book that disparages the Mormon faith. No need for a repetitious back-and-forth about it.

Quote

Even if he did mean it that way (and was attempting to pique a reader's curiosity), one can read the description of the book and make their own decision whether to buy it and read it.  

The book description on Amazon.com calls him a "longtime LDS educator." That communicates very little. That combined with the term "insider" is apt to give one the impression he was a principal privy to the secrets and inner workings of this or that elite entity rather than merely an institute and seminary teacher, which is what he was. It certainly doesn't convey the information that is in the scholarly reviews by distinguished scholars Lou Midgley, Daniel Peterson, Steven Harper, Davis Bitton, Mark Ashurst-McGee and James B. Allen.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The book description on Amazon.com calls him a "longtime LDS educator." That communicates very little.

"[Grant Palmer] began teaching religion, which led to a 34 year career in the Church Educational System(CES). He was director of the LDS Institute of Religion in Whittier, California (1970–73) followed by Chico, California (1975–80). Returning to Utah, he then taught LDS seminary at East High School in 1980 and at Brighton High School from 1980 to 1988."

I'd say that qualifies Grant Palmer as being "a longtime LDS educator", don't you?

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I really enjoyed his book.  Let me know what you think.

Thanks Jeanne!   I'm looking forward to reading this book  .  I hadn't heard about it until reading here and it sounds interesting. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

"[Grant Palmer] began teaching religion, which led to a 34 year career in the Church Educational System(CES). He was director of the LDS Institute of Religion in Whittier, California (1970–73) followed by Chico, California (1975–80). Returning to Utah, he then taught LDS seminary at East High School in 1980 and at Brighton High School from 1980 to 1988."

I'd say that qualifies Grant Palmer as being "a longtime LDS educator", don't you?

But not an "insider."

Over the decades since Palmer began his career, I daresay there have been thousands of individuals who have served in the Church Educational System as seminary and institute teachers. Some of them don't even have college degrees in that field. They do it part time as volunteer Church service. Palmer is no more an "insider" than they are.

Question: Have you looked at any of the links I gave you yet? All are good, but I recommend you start with the one by Midgley.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But not an "insider."

Over the decades since Palmer began his career, I daresay there have been thousands of individuals who have served in the Church Educational System as seminary and institute teachers. Some of them don't even have college degrees in that field. They do it part time as volunteer Church service. Palmer is no more an "insider" than they are.

I do feel he could say he was an insider as far as being in the church and in the church education system.  

Maybe all those you refer to in your second paragraph above could be seen as insiders in the church too.

You seem to have a group in mind when you think of someone qualifying for being  an "insider" in the Mormon church.  Who are they? Who is an "insider"?

[JulieM]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Question: Have you looked at any of the links I gave you yet? All are good, but I recommend you start with the one by Midgley.

Thanks for posting those links.  I'll read them tomorrow and I really do appreciate you posting them.  I'm interested to see what the contain.  Thanks again!

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I do feel he could say he was an insider as far as being in the church and in the church education system.  

Maybe all those you refer to in your second paragraph above could be seen as insiders in the church too.

You seem to have a group in mind when you think of someone qualifying for being  an "insider" in the Mormon church.  Who are they? Who is an "insider"?

I don't think that's what was contemplated when the book title was chosen. I believe it was selected to sell copies by conveying the notion that the book contains hidden or secret knowledge.

[flameburns623]

Book titles are designed to sell books. I've heard authors mention or even complain that their publisher CHOSE the title for the author's work. Just to make the book seem a bit "sexier" and sell a bit better 

And "insider" can be ambiguous enough to be understood on a lot of levels.

And people have worked in other industries, seeing things which disturbed them, drawing paychecks for years, before stepoing up with damaging information.

WITHOUT the added stress that one's employer is also a religious institution from which one draws great personal support. 

This Grant Palmer fellow is a stranger to me: don't know his work, don't think it likely I will read him. I don't have the training in history or other fields to sort out the issues that get batted around in those kinds of discussions.

But, just watching this conversation, it feels as if a lot more energy has gone into impugning his character and motives than addressing whatever points he raised in his book.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're talking about the brief consumer reviews on Amazon, or something like that, I don't think you'll get the information that's in the links I gave you. These are articles written by informed scholars.

I'm not telling you not to read the book and form your own views, just to approach it with your eyes wide open.

All biased scholars.