An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's fairly simple. I think the book title is more than a bit cheesy and sounds pretentious for a CES employee. But if you feel impressed by it, then swell for you. Knock yourself out.

Look, the only insiders are prophets and apostles. Perhaps the secretaries of these men. Beyond that, we're all outsiders.

CES directors are a dime a dozen and don't know anything more than you or I. This guy doesn't sound scholarly, Seattle just loves him because he supports his preconceptions. Usually views any CES employee with complete contempt, utterly worthless, ignorant as useless pieces of crap. Suddenly a piece of crap becomes a polished turd once he turns on the Church. That doesn't all of a sudden improve his "scholarship." Disaffecteds stop being so transparent.

[All-American]

I take classes from CES employees. I don't believe half of what they teach. I sleep through the other half.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I read the book last year some time. It has been a while, but it seems like most of it made sense to me. I didn't get the feeling that he was anti-mormon, in fact, if I recall correctly, he was still active and wanted to stay in the church. Has he been excommunicated since then? What I took from the book was that he thought Joseph Smith had a geniune desire to bring people to Christ. Whether the BOM was to be taken literally was another issue.

As far as the "insider" title goes, he probably was trying to sell more books. So what? It would make sense to sell as many books as you can. The church added "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" to make it look more Christian to outsiders.

He was disfellowshipped following publication of the book. If you listen to his interview with John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories podcast, it's pretty apparent that he has a very strong desire to bring people to Christ and is advocating a more-Christ centered approach to LDS teaching.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

And for this desire to focus more on Christ he is disfellowshiped?

Somehow I have this sneaking suspicion this is not why he was disfellowshipped.

[Indy Coug]

It's one thing to desire a more Christ-centric worship and another thing entirely to be professing faith in the Gospel all the while trying to shoot holes in virtually everything to do with the founding events of the Restoration.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Somehow I have this sneaking suspicion this is not why he was disfellowshipped.

I'm surprised at someone of your proven sensitivity, spiritual discernment and charity irresponsibly throwing sexual innuendo around. Your suggestion is untrue. He was disfellowshipped for what he wrote in his book:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon211.html

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm surprised at someone of your proven sensitivity, spiritual discernment and charity irresponsibly throwing sexual innuendo around. Your suggestion is untrue. He was disfellowshipped for what he wrote in his book:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon211.html

I'm sorry ... maybe you didn't understand what I wrote.

I'm having a hard time visualizing the stake president filling out the disciplinary form, and in the "reason for disfellowshipping" box he puts, "wants more focus on Christ."

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Just Curious to know how many of you have read Grant Palmer's "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" and what your impressions are on the book.

I read the book. Personally I think that the book is *important*. It is not particularly scholarly, since it is one sided. His work is, however, factually based, and pretty solidly grounded in good history (with the exceptions where he isn't actually dealing with history).

Now, as to why it is important: the book is almost as one sided as the history presented by the LDS church itself, only (obviously) in the other direction. As such, IMO, it is a great complement to what folks learn in church. Second, epistemology is a one way street in the church. "You can find out if this is TRUE." But don't dare ask how you would know if it's false. Testimony building is a terribly unfair and onesided process that demands that nobody ever question whether it might NOT be true. This book allows the non-technical access to the other side of the coin. It provokes the question: "Okay, if it's NOT true, how WOULD I know it?" IMO a knowledge of any "truth" requires dealing with this question as earnestly as "How would I know IF it were true".

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

First, there is a disciplinary form? Why/what/where?

Second, the statement "wants more focus on Christ" is the flip side of the coin "wants less focus on Joseph Smith/Restoration". To have more of something automatically means something else is either diluted or reduced.

Because you are smart, you know this. So I assume you are being irrelevant cute on purpose. Why?

1. There is a form. My mission president served as the equivalent of the stake president for our mission, and I saw a blank disciplinary form when I served in the mission office. I had nothing to do with any disciplinary councils or the like, of course, but I did see the blank form.

2. Lighten up, Adam. You're being unnecessarily vindictive.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

First, there is a disciplinary form? Why/what/where?

Second, the statement "wants more focus on Christ" is the flip side of the coin "wants less focus on Joseph Smith/Restoration". To have more of something automatically means something else is either diluted or reduced.

Because you are smart, you know this. So I assume you are being irrelevant cute on purpose. Why?

As All-American notes, there is a form, but I was actually speaking in more of a metaphorical sense, the message being: one wouldn't be disciplined for such a thing.

I don't think "focus on Christ" and "focus on the Restoration" have to be mutually exclusive.