An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yeah, I know, everything is true, everything is a lie. I think you would find you and Palmer aren't that far apart. I was facinated by “The Golden Pot” by E. T. A. Hoffmann. A postmodern allegory almost 200 years ahead of its time.

Friend, I cannot tell when you are being polemical, sarcastic, or truly investigational.

If you find Palmer's assertions truly that novel, then you really have been out of the loop. Some of your aspertions on the FARMS article are out of place, if you are not simply being sarcastic. Although his book is of interest, I don't find some of his observations that empirical.

Take for instance the claim that Mormons receive confirmations from the Holy Ghost. Mormons never claim nonMormons can have the same sensations. In fact, if you read what is said, we claim all can feel those sesnsations and not just on matters affecting LDS claims. He uses that episode to disabuse us of the notion that religion should not seek nonempirical confirmation of religious issues.

Your departure from LDS culture seems to have been at a time before a vast amount of information was released and digested, or at least during the time much of it was redigested. Thus, it is amusing to read, if you're not being polemical, your childlike revelations to old information.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Friend, I cannot tell when you are being polemical, sarcastic, or truly investigational.

If you find Palmer's assertions truly that novel, then you really have been out of the loop. Some of your aspertions on the FARMS article are out of place, if you are not simply being sarcastic. Although his book is of interest, I don't find some of his observations that empirical.

Take for instance the claim that Mormons receive confirmations from the Holy Ghost. Mormons never claim nonMormons can have the same sensations. In fact, if you read what is said, we claim all can feel those sesnsations and not just on matters affecting LDS claims. He uses that episode to disabuse us of the notion that religion should not seek nonempirical confirmation of religious issues.

Your departure from LDS culture seems to have been at a time before a vast amount of information was released and digested, or at least during the time much of it was redigested. Thus, it is amusing to read, if you're not being polemical, your childlike revelations to old information.

Palmer reaches the same conclusion as Brodie, stripped to its essence (mind you, I have only read the reviews), which is what made FARMS so angry. It's the way he goes about getting there that is original and interesting. The entire mainstream intellectual/academic world agrees with Brodie. So yes, the conclusioin is not earth shattering.

I confess to being out of the loop.

Responding to Pelagius' comment that Palmer's not a "historian," as I've noted, many authors of estimable even classic historical works--Shelby Foote and Barbara Tuchman are two examples among many--don't have formal training as historians. Plamer certainly has an impressive platform for this work, and, as I've noted, this isn't rocket science. There isn't that much there there.

[Taq Man]

I read the book ~ a year ago. I thought the discussion on the parallels between camp meeting preaching language and the language used in the BOM was interesting. It gives a plausible explanation for how the BOM could have been written by other than miraculous means.

It reads more like an opinion piece than an actual scholarly work. However, the title of the book tells you as much. It is one insiders view. It is an interesting quick read.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

I read the book ~ a year ago. I thought the discussion on the parallels between camp meeting preaching language and the language used in the BOM was interesting. It gives a plausible explanation for how the BOM could have been written by other than miraculous means.

It reads more like an opinion piece than an actual scholarly work. However, the title of the book tells you as much. It is one insiders view. It is an interesting quick read.

Re the title of Palmer's book --

John Dehlin interviewed Palmer for his Mormon Stories podcast last year. In the interview, Palmer says that the original title of the book was "New York Mormons" and then something like "the Origins of Mormonism." But as a marketing ploy, his publisher (Signature Books) elected to change the title to "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

So the FARMS criticism -- that Palmer isn't really an "insider" (e.g. GA, official church historian) -- is really a hollow criticism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Re the title of Palmer's book --

John Dehlin interviewed Palmer for his Mormon Stories podcast last year. In the interview, Palmer says that the original title of the book was "New York Mormons" and then something like "the Origins of Mormonism." But as a marketing ploy, his publisher (Signature Books) elected to change the title to "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

So the FARMS criticism -- that Palmer isn't really an "insider" (e.g. GA, official church historian) -- is really a hollow criticism.

Huh? Hollow in what way? Is he or is he not an "insider"?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Huh? Hollow in what way? Is he or is he not an "insider"?

Wasn't he an instructor with the CES for years and years? Why doesn't that make him an insider?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Wasn't he an instructor with the CES for years and years? Why doesn't that make him an insider?

Please tell me you are joking.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Please tell me you are joking.

Joking about what? Was he not a former CES guy? I have no idea, that's why I'm asking.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Huh? Hollow in what way? Is he or is he not an "insider"?

Hollow in the sense that whether or not he is a "Insider" has nothing to do with the quality of his research and conclusions.

Hollow in the sense that the title was a marketing ploy to which he freely admits was his publisher's decision.

Hollow in the sense that "Insider" is an ambiguous term with plenty of room for reasonable interpretations.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Please tell me you are joking.

I'm not joking. I have no idea if he is an insider. Is he a notorious character or something? I assume BKP and others like him want his head on a pike.