Grant Palmer Supporters Unite!

[mormon fool]

Please satisfy my A.D.D. Who is Grant Palmer and what is this thread about....i dont really feel like reading 10 pages.

OK here is the Grant Palmer Thread for Dummies. BAMMER started this thread with high praise for Grant Palmer's book on LDS origins and non-judgemental condemnation for negative reviewers of it. Grant Palmer was a career CES employee who waited until retirement to come out with his book. One poster recommended Richard Bushman as a more credible scholar in dealing with the same subject matter. At which point another poster attempted to undermine Bushman's credibility with unpublished and very old (out-dated) private correspondence. Failing to establish points through evidence and superior reasoning, the critics as of late have amplified ad hominem style attacks. Currently the thread is discussing a polemical, error-filled "reply", by Palmer's publisher's publicist to the FARMS reviews.

[Daniel Peterson]

the fact that FARMS' DNA/Lamanite musings aren't accepted by non-LDS scientists.

Where, Mr. Shades, has this "fact" been established?

it's when they venture off the deep end into lobotomopologetics that Priddis' observations apply.

And where has that "fact" been established?

You seem to accept Mr. Priddis's suggestion that the work of FARMS is dismissed by reputable "scientists" and scholars. On what basis do you accept it, other than your partisan preference? Do you have any real evidence of the reasonably widespread consensus that Mr. Priddis appears to be suggesting? I don't need anything as rigorously objective and well documented as your pioneering work on Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons, of course, but at least a few bits of evidence and perhaps one or two statistics from scientific surveys would be helpful.

[aznative]

Palmer is a disaffected ex-mormon who thinks he has some kinda 'inside view' on mrmonism. Yet comes up with nothing new, regurgitates some of the Tanners crap. He's just a bitter man who thinks that he can make himself look good by running to the EV/BACs like a lapdog, when he is more like a rat scurrying away from the light.

[Drevan]

Please satisfy my A.D.D. Who is Grant Palmer and what is this thread about....i dont really feel like reading 10 pages.

OK here is the Grant Palmer Thread for Dummies. BAMMER started this thread with high praise for Grant Palmer's book on LDS origins and non-judgemental condemnation for negative reviewers of it. Grant Palmer was a career CES employee who waited until retirement to come out with his book. One poster recommended Richard Bushman as a more credible scholar in dealing with the same subject matter. At which point another poster attempted to undermine Bushman's credibility with unpublished and very old (out-dated) private correspondence. Failing to establish points through evidence and superior reasoning, the critics as of late have amplified ad hominem style attacks. Currently the thread is discussing a polemical, error-filled "reply", by Palmer's publisher's publicist to the FARMS reviews.

Thank you that helps a little bit, but what was the book about? Was it pro or negative of the church? Why did he wait till retirement? worried about backlash or excumminicaiton?

[aznative]

ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI ANTI..........get it Drevan man?

Peace and love bro

[Guest Lux]

Dr. Shades,

I expect you to tear me up on this (I am no scholar), but I must give my .02 . . .

If we are to believe (and I do) that the Lord changed the color of one's skin, as it clearly states in the BOM, then would the DNA (after the change) be the exact same DNA that existed before the change? I don't think so. DNA makes one who he/she is. Skin color is something found in DNA, right?

Oh, and some may claim that this supports the HGT - I'm not getting into that and that's another subject. I think my point works either way - LGT or HGT.

Until . . .

Lux

[mormon fool]

Thank you that helps a little bit, but what was the book about? Was it pro or negative of the church? Why did he wait till retirement? worried about backlash or excumminicaiton?

The book comes out against some fundamental truth claims of the church. Palmer doesn't believe in the histority of the Book of Mormon. Instead he finds paralells with a quaint story "The Golden Pot" and argues that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon from it. Palmer also tries to cast doubt on some of the foundational events of the church like the First Vision and receiving the priesthood. While doing so he neglects to interact much with faithful LDS scholarship which has dealt with all the major issues he raises.

We can only speculate why Palmer waited until retirement, but perhaps he feared losing his job and pension if he had gone public with his views earlier.

[Drevan]

I dunno if skin color is effected by DNA or not...maybe we should ask Michael Jackson....

Only in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white man

[Drevan]

Thank you that helps a little bit, but what was the book about? Was it pro or negative of the church? Why did he wait till retirement? worried about backlash or excumminicaiton?

The book comes out against some fundamental truth claims of the church. Palmer doesn't believe in the histority of the Book of Mormon. Instead he finds paralells with a quaint story "The Golden Pot" and argues that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon from it. Palmer also tries to cast doubt on some of the foundation stories of the church like the First Vision and receiving the priesthood. While doing so he neglects to interact much with faithful LDS scholarship which has dealt with all the major issues he raises.

We can only speculate why Palmer waited until retirement, but perhaps he feared losing his job and pension if he had gone public with his views earlier.

That alone proves he only wanted money. He just waited till the end so he could collect a check, then joined Satan's team to spread more lies and deceit....very sad.

[Bill Hamblin]

it's when they venture off the deep end into lobotomopologetics that Priddis' observations apply.

I remember reading a science fiction story years ago. Can't remember the title or author. Anyway, the story was about the writing of the perfect song. It was a tune that was so harmonious to the human mind that when you heard it once it got stuck in your brain and you couldn't get it out. Over and over and over, the tune would repeat in each brain until everyone in the entire world went mad, and could think no thought but the song. The human race died singing the perfect song because no one could think of anything else.

I hadn't thought of that story for twenty years until Shades popped up here, singing his ageless song, like the Ancient Mariner, to anyone who will listen. Over and over and over, Shades' mind is monomaniacally stuck on one tune. And the really sad thing is, unlike the song in the science fiction story I read, Shades' one note samba isn't even a very good song.

[Dr. Shades]

Daniel Peterson writes:

Where, Mr. Shades, has this "fact" been established?

I thought it was an accepted truism that not a single non-LDS scientist has accepted FARMS contention that, among other things, the utter lack of Semitic DNA in all tested Native Americans doesn't represent a real problem for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

You seem to accept Mr. Priddis's suggestion that the work of FARMS is dismissed by reputable "scientists" and scholars.

Make no mistake: It's only the lobotomopologetics that are dismissed, not FARMS' legitimate work at ISPART and such.

On what basis do you accept it, other than your partisan preference? Do you have any real evidence of the reasonably widespread consensus that Mr. Priddis appears to be suggesting? I don't need anything as rigorously objective and well documented as your pioneering work on Internet Mormons and Chapel Mormons, of course, but at least a few bits of evidence and perhaps one or two statistics from scientific surveys would be helpful.

Well, are there any non-LDS scientists who buy into FARMS' DNA/Lamanite assertions?

Bill "Metcalfe is Butthead" Hamblin writes:

I remember reading a science fiction story years ago. . . Anyway, the story was about the writing of the perfect song.

Thank you for comparing my epiphany to "the perfect song." I appreciate it!

And the really sad thing is, unlike the song in the science fiction story I read, Shades' one note samba isn't even a very good song.

"Isn't even a very good song?" Egad! If not, then what other "song" out there more accurately and succinctly encapsulates the ever-widening gulf between the Mormonism of the prophets and the Mormonism of the apologists? Can you think of one? (I trow not.)

[mormon fool]

"Isn't even a very good song?" Egad! If not, then what other "song" out there more accurately and succinctly encapsulates the ever-widening gulf between the Mormonism of the prophets and the Mormonism of the apologists? Can you think of one? (I trow not.)

Trow again!

I think "We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet" is the song we are looking for. It is a song beloved by prophets and apologists alike.

[Dr. Shades]

Huh? You actually think the song "We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet" is indicative of the gulf?

You need to go back and read the lyrics, man.

[mormon fool]

Huh? You actually think the song "We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet" is indicative of the gulf?

You need to go back and read the lyrics, man.

Or the lack of one.

[Dr. Shades]

I was asking if he knew any other "song"/epiphany/explanation/whatever that encapsulated the gulf. Thanks for giving us an example of what I wasn't looking for, but I'd still like to see an example of what I am looking for.

[mormon fool]

I was asking if he knew any other "song"/epiphany/explanation/whatever that encapsulated the gulf. Thanks for giving us an example of what I wasn't looking for, but I'd still like to see an example of what I am looking for.

My bad, I thought your original request called for accuracy. But now that you have clarified, I will concede your "song" is best suited for your purposes.

[Bill Hamblin]

Speaking of science fiction:

ever-widening gulf between the Mormonism of the prophets and the Mormonism of the apologists

Monomania? I rest my case.

[Bill Hamblin]

Shades:

ever-widening gulf between the Mormonism of the prophets and the Mormonism of the apologists

Shades is right; I've got to break down and admit it. I'm shocked, shocked at the ever-widening gulf between the apologists and the prophets.

The prophets, you see, no longer believe in God.

They reject the Sonship of Jesus Christ; no resurrection or atonement according to the prophets.

The prophets have finally accepted that Joseph Smith was a delusional fraud.

The prophets admit that the Church is a merely human insistitution, designed solely for oppressing the weak-minded and getting their money.

The Book of Mormon, of course, is mere fiction according to the prophets. There were no Nephites, and no New World Christophany.

The D&C are merely the delusional ravings of a madman; I think I heard the prophets say that last conference.

Continuing revelation, well that's just emotionalism masquerading as the Holy Spirit.

The prophets have been saying these things for years, no?

While I, poor unfortunately morpologist that I am, must reject the prophets. I still believe that there is a God, that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph was a true prophet, that the BOM is authentic history, that there really were Nephites and a Christophany occurred in the New World, that the Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, that the D&C is true revelation, that authentic Priesthood authority is on the earth, that the Holy Ghost will enlighten the minds of those who seek him with real intent, that the Temple provides mystical insights into the Plan of salvation. What are we ever to do with those pesky prophets who now reject all these things?

Is this the type of Gulf you're thinking about Shades? (You are referring to the "prophets" of the RLDS/Community of Christ, right. I must be charitable and assume that you can't be so abysmally uninformed as to think that there is a grand gulf between me and the LDS prophets on these matters, can you?)

Or could the real gulf be between Shades' fantasy and reality?

[Dr. Shades]

Bill Hamblin writes:

(. . . I must be charitable and assume that you can't be so abysmally uninformed as to think that there is a grand gulf between me and the LDS prophets on these matters, can you?)

Of course you and your prophets share many similar beliefs. But so do the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists; yet Joseph still felt the need to go pray "which of all of them was correct, and which I should join." Now why would Joseph assume there was a gulf between the beliefs of these Chrisitians, since there were so many points of commonality?

Or could the real gulf be between Shades' fantasy and reality?

Perhaps it is. Maybe you could clear up some confusion by giving us "the straight dope" on these issues:

• Joseph Smith said that he received a vision of Zelph, the white Lamanite, who was buried in Illinois. FARMS says that Joseph received no such vision. When faced with such contradictions, who is right? The prophets, or the apologists?
  
• Do the terms "Lamanites" and "Native Americans" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms are interchangeable?
  
• Was Noah's flood a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion or by sprinkling?
  
• When Lehi landed in the New World, was it already filled with Asiatic inhabitants?
  
• When discussing the latest prophetic counsel, such as "the woman's place is in the home," is it no sin to say, "it was only his opinion?"
  
• Is there only one Hill Cumorah, or are there are two Hill Cumorahs?
  
• Is LDS doctrine found only between the covers of the four Standard Works, or can it be found elsewhere, such as in Institute Manuals, etc.?
  
• Should the prophets' words be "filtered" through both their likely cultural influences and their limited spheres of knowledge, or should a prophet's words be taken at face value?
  
• Do the scriptures trump the living prophets, or do the living prophets trump the scriptures?
  

Thanks in advance.

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course you and your prophets share many similar beliefs.

It really doesn't get any better than this.

Unfortunately.

Maybe you could clear up some confusion by giving us "the straight dope" on these issues:

And then he proceeds to recite (via the magic of cut-and-paste) the same rote litany that he's been chanting for months now, the same tired, mind-numbing mantra that has been received with such widespread disagreement and rejection. The venerable magical formula hasn't changed. It's still compounded of the same elements: One part distortion, one part false dilemma, two parts monomania, shaken, not stirred.

As the saying goes, a person may dwell so long upon a thought that it takes him prisoner.

Free Mr. Shades!

[Guest Just Curious]

And then he proceeds to recite (via the magic of cut-and-paste) the same rote litany that he's been chanting for months now, the same tired, mind-numbing mantra that has been received with such widespread disagreement and rejection. The venerable magical formula hasn't changed. It's still compounded of the same elements: One part distortion, one part false dilemma, two parts monomania, shaken, not stirred.

As the saying goes, a person may dwell so long upon a thought that it takes him prisoner.

Perhaps you could address Dr. Shades issues in a manner that would put them to rest once and for all, unbiased of course...then you would set the prisoner free...

[Bill Hamblin]

Joseph Smith said that he received a vision of Zelph, the white Lamanite, who was buried in Illinois. FARMS says that Joseph received no such vision. When faced with such contradictions, who is right? The prophets, or the apologists?

Do the terms "Lamanites" and "Native Americans" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms are interchangeable?

Was Noah's flood a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion or by sprinkling?

When Lehi landed in the New World, was it already filled with Asiatic inhabitants?

When discussing the latest prophetic counsel, such as "the woman's place is in the home," is it no sin to say, "it was only his opinion?"

Is there only one Hill Cumorah, or are there are two Hill Cumorahs?

Is LDS doctrine found only between the covers of the four Standard Works, or can it be found elsewhere, such as in Institute Manuals, etc.?

Should the prophets' words be "filtered" through both their likely cultural influences and their limited spheres of knowledge, or should a prophet's words be taken at face value?

Do the scriptures trump the living prophets, or do the living prophets trump the scriptures?

ZZZZZ zzzzz

[Benjamin McGuire]

Hello Bill.

Just so as its clear, several of these questions are easily answerable.

with such contradictions, who is right? The prophets, or the apologists?:

Without being presented with the gamut of interpretations available from "The prophets" and "the apologists", the answer to this one must be undefined. I presume however, that the groups are not uniform in their opinions, and being that there would be overlap between the two groups, as well as substantial differences, such a question cannot be answered.

Do the terms "Lamanites" and "Native Americans" refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups, or are the terms are interchangeable?:

The answer is yes.

Was Noah's flood a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion or by sprinkling?:

Again, the answer is yes.

When Lehi landed in the New World, was it already filled with Asiatic inhabitants?:

This one, of course, is no. There may well have been a native pre-existing population, but to call them Asiatics, would be problematic.

When discussing the latest prophetic counsel, such as "the woman's place is in the home," is it no sin to say, "it was only his opinion?"

Yes.

Is there only one Hill Cumorah, or are there are two Hill Cumorahs?

This one of course is undefined. Without being more specific. The question automatically precludes a third Hill Cumorah, or a fourth Hill Cumorah, and so on. In fact, the question is sufficiently ambiguous to prevent any kind of coherent response whatsoever. After all, exactly what is meant by Cumorah? Do we mean the Hill Cumorah, the resting place of the Nephite archives? Do we mean the Hill Cumorah, the site of the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites? Do we mean the Hill Cumorah, the location where (presumably) Moroni buried the gold plates? Are you referring to the establishment at 4516 Phelps Road in Independence, Missouri? In each case, there is only one such Cumorah. Now, whether or not these individual Cumorahs represent one or more locations is open to speculation. Although, in some cases, after comparison, we can identify Hill Cumorahs that have distinct and identifiable exclusivity.

Is LDS doctrine found only between the covers of the four Standard Works, or can it be found elsewhere, such as in Institute Manuals, etc.?:

The answer to this question is clearly yes.

Should the prophets' words be "filtered" through both their likely cultural influences and their limited spheres of knowledge, or should a prophet's words be taken at face value?:

Again, the answer to this question is yes.

Do the scriptures trump the living prophets, or do the living prophets trump the scriptures?

Once more, the answer to this question is yes.

Ben

[A Random Catholic]

If it's so obviously a stupid question that's been sufficiently answered, why not just save a link to the response that puts it to bed and paste it as a reply when Shades posts the dichotomy? Serious question, btw...

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think in part because such a response gives credence to the notion that there is in fact a gulf between "the apologists" and "the prophets". This is more of Dr. Shades internet vs chapel mormon nonsense that he has been spewing for years, he has asked these questions before - it isn't that others have asked and been answered, and we simply need to point him to the answers, he himself has asked these questions. They are his list of issues which he thinks is decisive in his arguments. These are his Pharisaic tests (like the questions posed to trap Jesus in the New Testament).

Why cater to him?

Ben