Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
why me

The Latest From Grant Palmer

Recommended Posts

I guess John Dehlin has confirmed this is authentic (he spoke to Palmer himself).

I can't believe Palmer would write this and make it public without the permission from the seventy and mission president. Until names are given, I have doubts regarding the accuracy of the information. But, is Palmer making this up or just repeating what he's been told?

Share this post


Link to post

I really have to do some work, but driving to work today, I thought about some of the GA's. It used to be a lot easier to know some of these guys and be around them. As a result, I have had some opportunities to interact with them -- some at a pretty close level. (I don't think he would remember but I've been corrected by Boyd K Packer once or twice). I even had one opportunity to live in a large European chalet with one of the apostles for a week. There is absolutely no way he was not 100% a disciple of Christ and servant of God. And I reflected back on that -- and back on others through the years:

Did George Albert Smith really have such doubts? The man stressed himself into mental illness over his apostolic duties. Is that because they didn't pay him enough?

Did LeGrand Richards, that wonderful man, did he leave the hospital -- where he was expected to die -- and sit in his chair with oxygen tanks to hear about -- his imminent departure discussed in conference -- did he do that to collect a paycheck?

Did President Kimball -- so weak he was barely able to wave to people -- go to General Conference because he just had to keep the fraud going? That was upper most in his mind?

Did Bruce R. McConkie -- so relying on faith and priesthood blessings that he would get up and dress in a full suit and tie each day and then lay down on top of his bed waiting for the Lord to heal him -- did he do that because he was bought and paid for? Did he get up off his deathbed to give his great testimony because he was worried that someone might find out he didn't believe and stop paying tithing?

Did Russell M. Nelson -- a world famous and already wealthy heart surgeon, just have no more job opportunities once he learned that the Church was false?

Does anyone think Neil Maxwell was faking?

Is Boyd K Packer -- practically unable to breathe -- is he coming to conference and giving what may be his final testimony because he's troubled that they are going to roust him out of his home and hospital bed if he does not toe the line to his death?

Here is what motivated me to post this. As I was driving to work and thinking of the relative ease I have in my life, I was not quite, but almost moved to tears to remember the lives of these men who utterly wear themselves out for the Gospel and for our sakes -- and to think how ungrateful it is to so abuse them.

It is really unfair. Really mean. I don't like it on a personal level. So Repugnant.

Either Grant Palmer or some small cult of GA/Mission Presidents -- or both -- have earned my disgust. I would not put it past Grant Palmer to lie. But.. on the chance that If there really are some Church officials involved -- here's my comment to you if any of you read this: You are sniveling spineless cowards. Man up. Get out.

Ughhh.. Worms.

(OK... I probably broke some rule. I will await my banishment. I hope you won't throw me off the whole board).

(Edited to recognize Duncan's work and the much more likely chance that Palmer is lying. So glad Duncan did that. It will get around and Palmer will have egg on his face and will change his story timeline -- that will be how you know he is lying).

Edited by CASteinman

Share this post


Link to post

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . . . .

Share this post


Link to post

@CASteinman: I like that. If there is any truth to the "philosopher priest-kings" mentality of the Twelve, it would be only because an even higher vision of futurity is opened to them, and they see that the necessity of not cutting down the tree of the Church prevents them from being fully candid with the world, and specifically with the members. If the literal historicity of the BoM is not true; if the establishment and priesthood authority assertions of the Church are not exclusively true, in other words, if the "faith promoting history" of Packer et al. is not literally true and they know it, then it does not follow that what they do believe is "Satan's work". That is not the only option to believe in, in what is going with the Twelve, FP and the rest of the GA's. As you point out clearly, these men believe and "waste and wear out their lives" promoting the most direct path toward belief open to the Church and the rest of the world. Dogmatically organized religion has always been necessary or else we would not continually have it in our cultures and civilizations. But that may not always be true. We are, I believe, expected to outgrow the need for organized leadership telling us "how it is". If every individual knew within himself what the truth Is, the GA's would basically be superfluous, as would the organization of the Church, because individuals everywhere would be doing "God's work" 24/7, making any organization to "teach the truth" unnecessary. With each individual in reality a "prophet(ess)", no one would require oracles to dispense the word of God. And of course, what I am describing is heaven. At some step along that way, the Church and its leadership will be redundant. But I don't suppose we are anywhere near that point yet, so the GA's, even knowing (hypothetically) that the "faith promoting history" is not remotely the exclusive truth, remain the guardians of the organization and the paradigm it preaches, because of the increasing good that it is doing for the world....

Edited by Questing Beast

Share this post


Link to post

I guess John Dehlin has confirmed this is authentic (he spoke to Palmer himself).

Sure he did. It's probably Dehlin's GA, right? :)

Edited by rongo

Share this post


Link to post

Sure he did. It's probably Dehlin's GAm, right? :)

Funny.

I guess others have also confirmed this was written by Palmer and that he gave permission to make it public. Too bad he didn't back it up with names of the 70 and the mission president if he wants to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post

Grant Palmer wrote:

We have at this writing met three times. We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and again February 14, 2013 at my house. On March 26, 2013 we convened at the GAs house. Upon entering my home for the first meeting the GA said, “We are here to learn.” I recognized him. He has been a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for a number of years. He has served in several high profile assignments during this period. The following are the more important statements made by the GA during our first three meetings. We now meet monthly.

He said that each new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is given one million dollars to take care of any financial obligations they have. This money gift allows them to fully focus on the ministry. He said that the overriding consideration of who is chosen is whether they are “church broke,” meaning, will they do whatever they are told. He said the senior six apostles make the agenda and do most of the talking. The junior six are told to observe, listen and learn and really only comment if they are asked. He said that it takes about two to three years before the new apostle discovers that the church is not true. He said it took Dieter F. Uchtdorf a little longer because he was an outsider. He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church. When the Mission President voiced skepticism and named ___ as one who surely did believe, The GA said: “No, he doesn’t.” The one million dollar gift, plus their totally obedient attitude makes it easy for them to go along when they find out the church is not true. For these reasons and others, he doesn’t expect any apostle to ever expose the truth about the foundational claims.

http://journeyofloya...m/2013/04/06/6/

This is just a part of what he is now claiming. The writing seems to have been verified as being from Grant Palmer. If so, I found his take on it quite unbelievable. I think that he needs to name names if he is posting such 'information'.

That whole thing just sounds ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

I have felt for a while now that open apostates should not have resignations accepted. They should be excommunicated.

That would be against the law.

Share this post


Link to post

That would be against the law.

What law would that be? Surely not the First Amendment which guarantees the Church the right to govern itself according to its own rules and policies.

Share this post


Link to post

The church is true! The church is true! The church is true!

At the same time I could see it not being true yet them remaining true. Even if it is not true, which it is, this is a great cause. This is a movement started by Joseph Smith Jr. to change the world.

As far as the post, it sounds like complete garbage. The GA's are mostly all millionaires to begin with. Frugal men(mormon standard) and good careers makes them easily millionaires.

Share this post


Link to post

The church wouldn't be able to for legal reasons. They could symbolically excommunicate them later, but if someone writes directly to the COB requesting name removal it has to be done with immediate effect.

If someone could cite an actual law that supports these claims that the Church cannot legally opt to excommunicate rather than simply remove names administratively pursuant to a "resignation"letter, I love to see it.

Share this post


Link to post

What law would that be? Surely not the First Amendment which guarantees the Church the right to govern itself according to its own rules and policies.

Mark, it is not against the law for them to excommunicate. It is against the law for the church not to release a person from membership if they request. Once the church receives the email or letter, the church has no control over the person anymore. If they hold proceedings for excommunication they could be sued.

Share this post


Link to post

Mark, it is not against the law for them to excommunicate. It is against the law for the church not to release a person from membership if they request. Once the church receives the email or letter, the church has no control over the person anymore. If they hold proceedings for excommunication they could be sued.

The answer to the question, Can I sue? is always yes. Anybody can sue for anything. The relevant question is, how likely is it that I could win a lawsuit?

I would like to see some legal precedent from any published opinion that has binding (or even persuasive) authority over any other court that holds that the Church cannot excommunicate someone who has requested resignation.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to familiar with federal laws, or if there is a law or statue regarding the issue. I can tell you it would probably fall under freedom of religion. Once I request to be removed from a religion a church can not infringe upon my rights.

Just looked it up looks like it is n the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Article 18 . It is probably based off that also.

Share this post


Link to post

United Nations Commission on Human Rights

The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views [...] Article 18.2[5] bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert.[6]

---

Besides, what would be the benefit to excommunicate somebody who resigns? Spite? hatred? disappointment? The person will not care one way or the other. Just let them walk and not harm the image of the church.

Share this post


Link to post

Grant Palmer wrote:

We have at this writing met three times. We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and again February 14, 2013 at my house. On March 26, 2013 we convened at the GAs house. Upon entering my home for the first meeting the GA said, “We are here to learn.” I recognized him. He has been a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for a number of years. He has served in several high profile assignments during this period. The following are the more important statements made by the GA during our first three meetings. We now meet monthly.

He said that each new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is given one million dollars to take care of any financial obligations they have. This money gift allows them to fully focus on the ministry. He said that the overriding consideration of who is chosen is whether they are “church broke,” meaning, will they do whatever they are told. He said the senior six apostles make the agenda and do most of the talking. The junior six are told to observe, listen and learn and really only comment if they are asked. He said that it takes about two to three years before the new apostle discovers that the church is not true. He said it took Dieter F. Uchtdorf a little longer because he was an outsider. He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church. When the Mission President voiced skepticism and named ___ as one who surely did believe, The GA said: “No, he doesn’t.” The one million dollar gift, plus their totally obedient attitude makes it easy for them to go along when they find out the church is not true. For these reasons and others, he doesn’t expect any apostle to ever expose the truth about the foundational claims.

http://journeyofloya...m/2013/04/06/6/

This is just a part of what he is now claiming. The writing seems to have been verified as being from Grant Palmer. If so, I found his take on it quite unbelievable. I think that he needs to name names if he is posting such 'information'.

Gosh darn it. I want a tithing refund now.

Share this post


Link to post

For what little it's worth:

I've met and interacted with all of the Twelve and the First Presidency -- with some, of course, more than others. (I chatted with one of them on Saturday between conference sessions.) I've been in the homes of two of them (most recently, on Saturday). I served on a committee chaired by then-Elder Uchtdorf; I knew Elder Maxwell fairly well. I've spoken on programs on both American coasts and in England with Elders Maxwell and Holland. I've known Elder Holland since well before he was even a Seventy. I don't want to exaggerate: I don't pal around with them every Saturday, but at least two of them call me by my first name. (Elder Maxwell always did.) I've spent some time, at least, with Elder Maxwell's widow and one of the most senior current apostles' wives, and I know several apostles' children pretty well.

I'm not saying this to boast.

I'm just saying that, if these men are/were unbelievers, I'm a leprechaun. In their private conversations and in their families as in their public statements, they come across as utterly sincere and completely faithful.

.

Edited by Daniel Peterson

Share this post


Link to post

The post is hogwash. It reminds me of being outside General Conference in, IIRC, 2005, and some lady going around saying she had been the victim of ritual sexual abuse on the secret altars of the temple. Her claim was that the Q12 engaged in the abuse, and it had been going on for years. The street preachers and other critics there that day listened, astonished, and ate it up.

Considering their ages, this would indeed be interesting to behold.

Share this post


Link to post

For what little it's worth:

I've met and interacted with all of the Twelve and the First Presidency -- with some, of course, more than others. (I chatted with one of them on Saturday between conference sessions.) I've been in the homes of two of them (most recently, on Saturday). I served on a committee chaired by then-Elder Uchtdorf; I knew Elder Maxwell fairly well. I've spoken on programs on both American coasts and in England with Elders Maxwell and Holland. I've known Elder Holland since well before he was even a Seventy. I don't want to exaggerate: I don't pal around with them every Saturday, but at least two of them call me by my first name. (Elder Maxwell always did.) I've spent some time, at least, with Elder Maxwell's widow and one of the most senior current apostles's wives, and I know several apostles' children pretty well.

I'm not saying this to boast.

I'm just saying that, if these men are/were unbelievers, I'm a leprechaun. In their private conversations and in their families as in their public statements, they come across as utterly sincere and completely faithful.

.

Since you're a leprechaun, is your payout in your pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Or is that a double rainbow?

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like Ed Decker has a successor. The story sounds a lot like a variant of one of John L. Smith's fictional stories.

Share this post


Link to post

Cite the law please.

That would be the first amendment.

In Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated:

The First Amendment of the United States [775 P.2d 777] Constitution was designed to preserve freedom of worship by prohibiting the establishment or endorsement of any official religion. One of the fundamental purposes of the First Amendment is to protect the people's right to worship as they choose. Implicit in the right to choose freely one's own form of worship is the right of unhindered and unimpeded withdrawal from the chosen form of worship.

Also:

WHEN PARISHIONER WITHDREW HER MEMBERSHIP FROM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THEREBY WITHDREW HER CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH SHE HAD IMPLICITLY AGREED TO SUBMIT TO ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION, THOSE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS THEREAFTER TAKEN BY THE ELDERS AGAINST PARISHIONER, WHICH ACTIVELY INVOLVED HER IN THE CHURCH'S WILL AND COMMAND, WERE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT [775 P.2d 778] PROTECTION AND WERE THE PROPER SUBJECT OF STATE REGULATION.

From here:

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/01/marian-guinn-vs-church-of-christ.html

Share this post


Link to post

...

I have felt for a while now that open apostates should not have resignations accepted. They should be excommunicated.

That was what he wanted. That's why they didn't give it to him. They instead did something a little more creative than giving him what he wanted. They addressed one of his gospel hobbies (partaking of the Sacrament) by cutting him off from it while still maintaining his membership in the Church. After some time of dealing with the loss, he helped himself out of the Church without giving the Church the negative publicity he had hoped that his excommunication would bring. :vader:

Share this post


Link to post

When I was considering resignation a few years ago, I met with my bishop and stake president on several occasions. On one occasion, I met with the stake presidency all together. The 2nd Counselor, a man I had grown up knowing, and I never really got along too well because, to him, my beliefs were too radical and divergent. He often had the attitude of believe and obey when we would discuss issues. Any way, I had made the decision to resign and I informed both the bishop and the stake president. Now, this is a rumor I had heard but I'm not sure the 2nd Counselor would be stupid enough to try this crap but I was told that he had proposed excommunication to the stake president. My resignation was received and we parted ways on good terms.

If a member of the church is choosing to resign then the church should honor that choice without taking the low road and excommunicating someone instead. That would just be ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

What would have happened if he went to church and took the Sacrament anyway? Nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...