Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bammer

Grant Palmer Supporters Unite!

Recommended Posts

I just want to take the opportunity and space to publicly thank Brother Grant Palmer for writing one of the best books EVER written about Mormonism. The book (An Insider's View of Mormon Origins) should be read by every Latter-day Saint. He is an honest, straight-forward man who loves the Lord and the Church. FARMS and people like Daniel Peterson (who called the book "awful") are, in my opinion, professional deceivers in the employ of the Great Deceptor.

Keep going, Grant.

IJA,

BAMMER

Share this post


Link to post

Excuse me, did we read the same book? :P

Since you claim it is one of the best books ever, you must have others that you also consider "best books." Care to share what other great books fill the lofty heights of your must-read list?

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post

FARMS and people like Daniel Peterson (who called the book "awful") are, in my opinion, professional deceivers in the employ of the Great Deceptor.

Could you kindly detail the deception you have noticed thus far?

Share this post


Link to post

I just want to take the opportunity and space to publicly thank Brother Richard L. Bushman for writing one of the best books EVER written about Mormonism. The book (Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism) should be read by every Latter-day Saint. He is an honest, straight-forward man who loves the Lord and the Church. FARMS and people like Daniel Peterson (who called the book "excellent") are, in my opinion, unpaid volunteers in the service of the Good Shepherd.

Keep going, Richard.

IJA,

mormon fool

Share this post


Link to post

And Richard Bushman's forthcoming biography of Joseph Smith will, I predict, be a landmark of Latter-day Saint historical writing.

-dcp

Accredited Servant of . . . The Great Deceptotron

Share this post


Link to post

How can one 'love the Church' while at the same time writing a book that undermines its founding events and scripture? Without the first vision and the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church is simply another example of one guy's ideas about what the Bible means.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Just Curious
And Richard Bushman's forthcoming biography of Joseph Smith will, I predict, be a landmark of Latter-day Saint historical writing.

-dcp

Accredited Servant of . . . The Great Deceptotron

Dan do you know if Richards book will delve into such things as Josephs looking glass arraignment and the many accounts of those who had less than positive things to say about him?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Just Curious
How can one 'love the Church' while at the same time writing a book that undermines its founding events and scripture?

It is very simple...if they are writing truth then one cannot claim they are trying to undermine it...truth is eternal, something cannot be true today and false tomorrow. It is black and white, it is either true or false it cannot be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Dan do you know if Richards book will delve into such things as Josephs looking glass arraignment and the many accounts of those who had less than positive things to say about him?

I imagine that it will. His 1984 partial biography of the Prophet already deals with some of those issues. I know for a fact that he's aware of them, since we've discussed such matters.

Share this post


Link to post

If Bushman's standard is as good as his response to Walters in Dialogue, Spring 1969 then you assessment is not IMO sustainable. Walte'rs paper was ignored by Backman in his book on the first vision. Backman in a letter to myself about a footnote he had in his book which Walters disputed was demolished by Walters. There was no revival, the revival mentioned in Smiths story matches the 1823-24 revival and was reported in the Messenger and Advocate. Would be interesting what Bushman says about the joining date of the Family to the Presbyterian church, again the data supports the 1823-24 date. The chronology of Smith's story is all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post

As one of the impish minions of The Great Deceptor, I suppose that I shouldn't let this opportunity pass to draw attention, once again, to

(1) Jim Allen's excellent review of Grant Palmer's Insider's View of Mormon Origins in FARMS Review 16/1 (2004), the current issue:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...ume=16&number=1

(2) the official statement from the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History and the reviews by Davis Bitton, Steve Harper, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Lou Midgley, FARMS Review 15/2 (2003):

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...ume=15&number=2

My "Editor's Introduction" to FARMS Review 15/2 also has a few things to say about Mr. Palmer's book, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
If Bushman's standard is as good as his response to Walters in Dialogue, Spring 1969 then you assessment is not IMO sustainable. Walte'rs paper was ignored by Backman in his book on the first vision.  Backman in a letter to myself about a footnote he had in his book which Walters disputed was demolished by Walters. There was no revival, the revival mentioned in Smiths story matches the 1823-24 revival and was reported in the Messenger and Advocate. Would be interesting what Bushman says about the joining date of the Family to the Presbyterian church, again the data supports the 1823-24 date. The chronology of Smith's story is all over the place.

"Sez you," Peterson hissed nastily. "I don't happen to share your opinion."

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious:

It is very simple...if they are writing truth then one cannot claim they are trying to undermine it...truth is eternal, something cannot be true today and false tomorrow. It is black and white, it is either true or false it cannot be both.

BB: I'm not sure you really addressed the intent of my question. I agree that truth is eternal, although there are many things that are true today and false tomorrow - it's raining, the Yankees are the best team in baseball (sorry RedSoxin04), I hate watermelon, etc. That being said, I think I know what you meant. Certainly the foundational events of the Restoration either happened or they didn't - either Joseph saw Christ and the Father or he did not. Either he was visited by Moroni, a resurrected Nephite prophet or he was not. Those things are fairly black and white. Other things are rather gray, especially when it comes to interpreting history and trying to understand the motives of people long dead.

The point I was originally trying to make, to restate, is that it is difficult for me to understand how someone could claim to love the LDS Church while at the same time writing a book that attempts to discredit its most fundamental reason for existing. If the First Vision never happened and the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then the Church is built upon falsehood and has no priesthood authority or sealing power. If it is a fraud, why should a sincere, truth seeking person love it? Because it fills people with a false hope for salvation and eternal families? I just don't understand how to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions.

Share this post


Link to post
There was no revival, the revival mentioned in Smiths story matches the 1823-24 revival and was reported in the Messenger and Advocate.

The Palmyra Register, dated Wednesday, 28 June 1820 (The Palmyra Newspaper) says James Couser, aged about forty years, died from intoxication at one of those non existent revivals. :P

Too bad for Mr. Walters.

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
please hold.....

Is that the only other mention of the revival that Joseph Smith alleges?

Share this post


Link to post
Is that the only other mention of the revival that Joseph Smith alleges?

Isn't it enough?

Joseph Smith said it happened, and the Newspaper backs him up.

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Is that the only other mention of the revival that Joseph Smith alleges?

Isn't it enough?

Joseph Smith said it happened, and the Newspaper backs him up.

Scott

Joseph Smith said a lot of things that aren't true. I'm not saying that the revival didn't happen, I'm just asking if there is any more reliable evidence than just a single newspaper article.

Share this post


Link to post

Unless you want to postulate time-travelling demons with a bias in favor of Joseph Smith, one contemporary newspaper reference to a revival in the time and place identified by Joseph Smith really ought to be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
There was no revival, the revival mentioned in Smiths story matches the 1823-24 revival and was reported in the Messenger and Advocate.

The Palmyra Register, dated Wednesday, 28 June 1820 (The Palmyra Newspaper) says James Couser, aged about forty years, died from intoxication at one of those non existent revivals. :P

Too bad for Mr. Walters.

Scott

Anyone have the complete quote from the Palmyra Register?

Share this post


Link to post

Bob Bennett said:

The point I was originally trying to make, to restate, is that it is difficult for me to understand how someone could claim to love the LDS Church while at the same time writing a book that attempts to discredit its most fundamental reason for existing. If the First Vision never happened and the Book of Mormon is a fraud, then the Church is built upon falsehood and has no priesthood authority or sealing power. If it is a fraud, why should a sincere, truth seeking person love it? Because it fills people with a false hope for salvation and eternal families? I just don't understand how to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions.

i have to agree, although i don't have nearly as negative a view of his book as others on this site (rather i thought a lot of it was fascinating). but it seems to me what palmer is pushing for is basically for the church to do something similar to what the rlds did in morphing into the coc.

i don't know if it just that he has been a member and in the culture for so long that he doesn't want to give all of that up, or if he sees a lot of positive things in the church and doesn't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Anyone have the complete quote from the Palmyra Register?

I don't have the complete quote but it can be reconstructed somewhat from two reviews of Palmer's awful book by Bitton(see footnote 6 and surrounding text) and Harper (56). Also Bushman reviewed Marquardt and Walters in 1994 and also discusses it here in FR 6/2 see footnote 3 and surrounding text.

Share this post


Link to post
I just want to take the opportunity and space to publicly thank Brother Grant Palmer for writing one of the best books EVER written about Mormonism. The book (An Insider's View of Mormon Origins) should be read by every Latter-day Saint. He is an honest, straight-forward man who loves the Lord and the Church. FARMS and people like Daniel Peterson (who called the book "awful") are, in my opinion, professional deceivers in the employ of the Great Deceptor.

Keep going, Grant.

IJA,

BAMMER

Grant Palmer ought to be ashamed of his subterfuge and waiting until his retiremen check was secure to write his "expose>"

bamner I am amazed that a good Christian would have accolades for such a liar.

Teancum.

Share this post


Link to post
i don't know if it just that he has been a member and in the culture for so long that he doesn't want to give all of that up, or if he sees a lot of positive things in the church and doesn't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." any thoughts?

More like throw the baby out and keep the bathwater. :P

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not saying that the revival didn't happen, I'm just asking if there is any more reliable evidence than just a single newspaper article.

Arguments like these always remind me of the Monty Python sketch "News for Parrots", which involves an anchorman reading stories like "No parrots were involved in a fire in downtown London today. The minister of housing went on record as stating he was "glad that no parrots were involved."

It's almost like folks who advance this particular criticism believe that the church buried all the Palmyra Reflector stories named "No revivals happened this year", or "Area voted least likely to be named 'burned over district'". Obviously, the lack of sources referring to it one way or the other just isn't natural, and on this point hangs all the truth claims of Joseph Smith and the restored church.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...