cdowis Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 10 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. No, not that he was a member of the inner hierarchy, but that he had special access to insider knowledge of the church, unavailable to the members and the public, that he possessed hidden knowledge buried deep in the vaults of the church available to only a chosen few. The church has covered up, lied, mislead, brainwashed the general membership, and HE alone had the courage to disclose this hidden "insider knowledge" to the world. I personally do not find that funny at all. He is on a crusade to make this hidden knowledge available to the entire world. Others have used this technique -- I was a Bishop, I was a professor at BYU, I was an Institute teacher, I was a Stake Mission President, I was a Veil Worker at the Temple, each one claiming to possess that hidden knowledge that they are now willing to share with the world. Edited April 2, 2016 by cdowis 1
Tacenda Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, cdowis said: No, not that he was a member of the inner hierarchy, but that he had special access to insider knowledge of the church, unavailable to the members and the public, that he possessed hidden knowledge buried deep in the vaults of the church available to only a chosen few. The church has covered up, lied, mislead, brainwashed the general membership, and HE alone had the courage to disclose this hidden "insider knowledge" to the world. I personally do not find that funny at all. He is on a crusade to make this hidden knowledge available to the entire world. Others have used this technique -- I was a Bishop, I was a professor at BYU, I was an Institute teacher, I was a Stake Mission President, I was a Veil Worker at the Temple, each one claiming to possess that hidden knowledge that they are now willing to share with the world. He did handle the seer stone, that's pretty cool. Oh, and his neighbor was Bruce McConkie. 1
Calm Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 23 minutes ago, flameburns623 said: 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. My bias is driven because I see someone who claims that truth is so important to him that he wrote this book but then what he did was he went and hide it for at least 15 years until there was no financial risk to him for it to be published. So this may sound nasty but my gut response to him is that the value of truth to him is 15 years of paychecks and a nice retirement package. And then I have seen families deeply hurt by his role of exposer of Truth and not by the book itself, but by the narrative that was created to surround Palmer at the time and later on (he claimed in 2013 a GA---a current high profile member of many years of the First Quorum of the Seventy came to 'sit at his feet' to learn the truth after realizing after reading Palmer's book the Restoration claims were false and shared with him deep, dark secrets of high up in the Church where no one believes what they are teaching after 2 or 3 years as an apostle and they are all evil men for willfully deceiving church members, in part for money because they are given a million bucks when they become apostles). Perhaps the best way to explain my antipathy towards the man is I see him like someone who decides he wants to be a whistleblower against a big company, but he holds on to the damaging info he believes he has found for years until his company stock is at an all time high and then he sells his stock getting a nice financial windfall. Only once he has his own investment windfall, does he then release the info he has been sitting on for years and he does so to maximize exposure. And because of the way the info was released, there is a panic and many people sell their stock at a much lower value than it is worth because they no longer trust the company and thus a lot of families take a hit, some a big enough hit it destroys them. But his nest egg is safe and sound. 3
cdowis Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) And Sandra Tanner declares that she is a descendant of Brigham Young. To her credit, she doesn't claim to have been a member of this inner circle. Edited April 2, 2016 by cdowis
Calm Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Trying to contribute something of substance to balance out my lapse in keeping to my committment to avoid the button pushing ape ts... This is a review of a later paper of Palmer, but it demonstrates imo problems with his methodology, consistent in my belief (dependant on my less than perfect memory) with his previous work: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-response-to-grant-palmers-sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-and-the-beginnings-of-polygamy-in-nauvoo/
ALarson Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, cdowis said: No, not that he was a member of the inner hierarchy, but that he had special access to insider knowledge of the church, unavailable to the members and the public, that he possessed hidden knowledge buried deep in the vaults of the church available to only a chosen few. The church has covered up, lied, mislead, brainwashed the general membership, and HE alone had the courage to disclose this hidden "insider knowledge" to the world. Did he make that claim anywhere (the part I put in bold)? I have read that he was one of many who had access to the church archives as a historian (but many have been allowed in there and written about it). I haven't seen where he claims that "he alone" was allowed in. But if you have quote from him regarding this, I would love to see it. Quote 7 hours ago, cdowis said: He is on a crusade to make this hidden knowledge available to the entire world Again, where has he claimed this? He published his book in 2002. "On a crusade"? Such drama and also personal attacks on this thread from so many. Either buy the book and read it or don't, but why so many slurs and attacks? Have you read his book? If so, do you have anything of substance to say about his book? Other than his Golden Pot chapter, what do you feel he was inaccurate about in his book? Edited April 2, 2016 by ALarson
cdowis Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, ALarson said: Again, where has he claimed this? He published his book in 2002. "On a crusade"? Such drama and also personal attacks on this thread from so many. Either buy the book and read it or don't, but why so many slurs and attacks?] I am one of those weird, strange people who don't care what a person SAYS, but what his ACTIONS proclaim. May I suggest that you do a search on youtube for his videos. Have you read his book? I am very active in youtube apologetics, and his ACTIONS, his videos, tell me that he is a crusader on a mission. ((Forum rules forbid me to insert links)) Edited April 2, 2016 by cdowis
ALarson Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 8 hours ago, flameburns623 said: 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. I agree and it's ugly to watch. A lot of personal attacks, but no one seems to want to say what they felt was inaccurate in the book. I have read Palmer's book and I remember it being quite good. It's easy to read and he makes no claims of having special inside information (that I can remember). It's pretty straight forward and accurate (again from what I remember).
ALarson Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, cdowis said: I am one of those strange people who don't care WHAT a person says, but what his ACTIONS proclaim. May I suggest that you do a search on youtube for his videos. So no, you have not read his book. I have seen an interview with Palmer on youtube (several years ago) and watched parts of a few more at that time (I think it may have been when I was looking at his book to purchase). I felt they were fair and he seems like a very good, honest man. Just because you disagree with what he is saying, doesn't mean he's an awful, dishonest person. He has every right to express his views. Edited April 2, 2016 by ALarson
cdowis Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Of course. And we would all agree that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, even Satan himself has "every right to express his views." But you appear to be using the rhetorical technique of deflection, trying to turn something inherently evil into a virtue. Very clever.
ALarson Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, cdowis said: Of course. And we would all agree that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, even Satan himself has "every right to express his views." But you appear to be using the rhetorical technique of deflection, trying to turn something inherently evil into a virtue. Very clever. So, now you're comparing Palmer to Hitler, Stalin and Satan himself? Wow....Unbelievable! You guys really hate this man and I can't quite figure out why that is. Why such vitriol? And I'm not the one deflecting here. I've asked several times if you've even read Palmer's book and if you have anything of substance to say about his book (specifically about the content). Since you haven't addressed that, I'm going to assume you do not. But continue with personally attacking Grant Palmer. This thread seems to be selling books for him Edited April 2, 2016 by ALarson
california boy Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Calm said: My bias is driven because I see someone who claims that truth is so important to him that he wrote this book but then what he did was he went and hide it for at least 15 years until there was no financial risk to him for it to be published. So this may sound nasty but my gut response to him is that the value of truth to him is 15 years of paychecks and a nice retirement package. And then I have seen families deeply hurt by his role of exposer of Truth and not by the book itself, but by the narrative that was created to surround Palmer at the time and later on (he claimed in 2013 a GA---a current high profile member of many years of the First Quorum of the Seventy came to 'sit at his feet' to learn the truth after realizing after reading Palmer's book the Restoration claims were false and shared with him deep, dark secrets of high up in the Church where no one believes what they are teaching after 2 or 3 years as an apostle and they are all evil men for willfully deceiving church members, in part for money because they are given a million bucks when they become apostles). Perhaps the best way to explain my antipathy towards the man is I see him like someone who decides he wants to be a whistleblower against a big company, but he holds on to the damaging info he believes he has found for years until his company stock is at an all time high and then he sells his stock getting a nice financial windfall. Only once he has his own investment windfall, does he then release the info he has been sitting on for years and he does so to maximize exposure. And because of the way the info was released, there is a panic and many people sell their stock at a much lower value than it is worth because they no longer trust the company and thus a lot of families take a hit, some a big enough hit it destroys them. But his nest egg is safe and sound. What a strange post coming from you. You don't call out anything he has said but you condem him for making prudent financial decisions so as to not put his family in jepardy? And perhaps he was not ready 15 years ago to publish his book. If you have a problem with what he wrote then you should tell us why. This just seem petty and unjustified. I am kinda surprised this is coming from you. 1
Tacenda Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 42 minutes ago, ALarson said: Did he make that claim anywhere (the part I put in bold)? I have read that he was one of many who had access to the church archives as a historian (but many have been allowed in there and written about it). I haven't seen where he claims that "he alone" was allowed in. But if you have quote from him regarding this, I would love to see it. Again, where has he claimed this? He published his book in 2002. "On a crusade"? Such drama and also personal attacks on this thread from so many. Either buy the book and read it or don't, but why so many slurs and attacks? Have you read his book? If so, do you have anything of substance to say about his book? Other than his Golden Pot chapter, what do you feel he was inaccurate about in his book? If the people that disfellowshipped him won't read it, I don't think some here will. I guess the book has caused many a faith crisis. Some better not read the church essays either for the same reason. I'm guilty of not reading all of Palmer's book, which I checked out at the library several years ago, along with Rough Stone Rolling. Both books were hard reads for me. 1
Nevo Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ALarson said: A lot of personal attacks, but no one seems to want to say what they felt was inaccurate in the book. I have read Palmer's book and I remember it being quite good. It's easy to read and he makes no claims of having special inside information (that I can remember). It's pretty straight forward and accurate (again from what I remember). I disliked An Insider's View almost from the start. And I've never found much to admire about Palmer either. These were some of my initial reactions to the book: http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/106390/A-Selective-Continuing-Commentary-on-Grant-Palmer http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/127389/My-Testimony-Took-a-BIG-hit-Please-Help http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/142724/The-Golden-Pot#reply-142724 http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/152839/Grant-Palmer-Not-the-first-Insider-to-be-mistreated And my estimation of Palmer's scholarship has not really improved over the years: Edited April 2, 2016 by Nevo 1
ALarson Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 15 minutes ago, Nevo said: I disliked An Insider's View almost from the start. And I've never found much to admire about Palmer either. These were some of my initial reactions to the book: http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/106390/A-Selective-Continuing-Commentary-on-Grant-Palmer http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/127389/My-Testimony-Took-a-BIG-hit-Please-Help http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/142724/The-Golden-Pot#reply-142724 http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/152839/Grant-Palmer-Not-the-first-Insider-to-be-mistreated And my estimation of Palmer's scholarship has not really improved over the years: Thanks for something finally of substance regarding his book! I'll take a look (I do agree with the criticism of his Golden Pot chapter, by the way....that was pretty far out...) I just can't remember any other major inaccuracies. I do disagree with some of his conclusions, but can't remember any large errors regarding church history details. I'm interested to see what you've written as I respect your views on here.
Tacenda Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: Thanks for something finally of substance regarding his book! I'll take a look (I do agree with the criticism of his Golden Pot chapter, by the way....that was pretty far out...) I just can't remember any other major inaccuracies. I do disagree with some of his conclusions, but can't remember any large errors regarding church history details. I'm interested to see what you've written as I respect your views on here. Maybe what the critics don't like among many things, is that his book doesn't give a faith promoting slant. It looks like one of Nevo's links just gripes that Palmer isn't scholarly enough. But doesn't that give the un-scholarly a chance to understand a bit better. Doesn't go over my head, down to earth, mistakes and all.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Tacenda said: All biased scholars. All very competent scholars. To dismiss them all as being biased is an ad hom. Palmer is far from unbiased.
ALarson Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: All very competent scholars. To dismiss them all as being biased is an ad hom. Palmer is far from unbiased. Hey, we're all biased. Or do you claim to be unbiased regarding this topic?
Tacenda Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: All very competent scholars. To dismiss them all as being biased is an ad hom. Palmer is far from unbiased. Should have added an IMO.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Hey, we're all biased. Or do you claim to be unbiased regarding this topic? I didn't raise bias as an issue. Tacenda did. Talk to her about it. 1
JulieM Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. You can't possibly know why the title was selected or what was contemplated (unless Grant Palmer shared this, did he?) I woukd bet that most authors select a title that will help sell copies of their book. That doesn't mean the title is dishonest.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JulieM said: You can't possibly know why the title was selected or what was contemplated (unless Grant Palmer shared this, did he?) I can make my best guess, just as you are doing. Quote I would bet that most authors select a title that will help sell copies of their book. That doesn't mean the title is dishonest. Sometimes it does. I'm not objecting to selecting titles that help sell books per se, only when it is done so misleadingly or in a manner that seems to endow the author with stature or credibility he does not possess. Then, it doesn't pass the smell test for me. Edited April 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) 56 minutes ago, ALarson said: Thanks for something finally of substance regarding his book! I'll take a look (I do agree with the criticism of his Golden Pot chapter, by the way....that was pretty far out...) I just can't remember any other major inaccuracies. I do disagree with some of his conclusions, but can't remember any large errors regarding church history details. I'm interested to see what you've written as I respect your views on here. You've already had material of substance presented to you. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it lacks substance. Edited April 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: What a strange post coming from you. You don't call out anything he has said but you condem him for making prudent financial decisions so as to not put his family in jepardy? And perhaps he was not ready 15 years ago to publish his book. If you have a problem with what he wrote then you should tell us why. This just seem petty and unjustified. I am kinda surprised this is coming from you. If I understand correctly, he did endeavor to self-publish it before and to do it anonymously (under the false name Paul Pry). He didn't have the muscle of Signature Books behind him, but he tried just the same.
JulieM Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I can make my best guess, just as you are doing. Sometimes it does. And, sometimes it doesn't mean anything was dishonest in selecting a certain book title. He quite possibly felt like an insider since he was in the church for so many years. I personally see nothing wrong with the title and am more interested in the contents of the book.
Recommended Posts