Has your opinion of the LDS church

[why me]

you have piqued my curiosity here.    Do you really feel the PR exposure the internet provides to the church, has a positive effect?

How would we ever measure that? We have a very highly educated group on this message board....we don't tend to sit around and wait for people to spoonfeed us information. Nor would we rely on a message board for information...it can get you started, it can give you quick answers from unknown sources...but anyone who has done any academic work is very careful of what they take off the internet. It isn't even a stable source. I use the internet much like I would use the abstracts in a college computer system.

I think the church was caught by surprise with the explosion of hate sites. I don't think it will take them long to catch up....if they are even concerned. I know that FAIR is a burr under the antis' saddle simply because we are mentioned so much. It surprised me how FAIR took off. I suppose RFM is the other side of the coin...but to exist they have to maintain a bubble in which no one is allowed contact with the outside. So how would you compare? You don't have access to Church, FAIR or FARMS success stories anymore than RFMers have contact with anyone who could pop their balloon.

The "PR success" the church has is in real life. I am seeing more positive or at least neutral articles. Mormons are prominent in government (we are over represented, actually). Mormons are kind of all over in high places...business and otherwise. We are becoming less and less scary. Although it is still politically correct to attack most religion....those who do it cower when called on it. That is going to happen more and more. The internet is still new...I think we have a lot more to see.

It is not very surprising that fair has taken off. This site is so needed in the lds community. In fact, I don't know where some of us would be without it.

As I have said it has helped me greatly and I am sure that this site get more well-known, it will help others. I also think that the church was caught off guards by the amount of hatred out there and yes, they will catch up and adapt to the internet and the hatred that somes sites contain.

You are right, RFM posters seem to be in a bubble. It is amazing just how many live their criticisms when they post. And heaven forbid if a poster challenges their whole primise about the church...that person will be encircled by wolves with wolves' teeth in full view.

Mormons have certainly made gains in public life but if Mitt runs for the presidency I believe that the antis will be very active in attempting to destroy his campaign.

[maxrep12]

As I have said it has helped me greatly and I am sure that this site get more well-known, it will help others. I also think that the church was caught off guards by the amount of hatred out there and yes, they will catch up and adapt to the internet and the hatred that somes sites contain.

The fact that the internet has been around for many years combined with the fact that the lds church has a modern day prophet, may cause some to wonder how it could be caught "Off Guard".

The implications to members tesimonies that the internet provides seem substantial. Some may view this impact as a more urgent issue than ear piercings.

My opinion is that the exposure the church receives on the world wide web, as a whole, is devastating, and will continue in that direction even if the church gets directly involved as FAIR is. Direct involvement may be a lees effective approach as well.

[Moksha]

with all due respect, i never got the impression that she was being complimentary when attaching "anti-mormon" to someone.

I don't imagine that she was being complimentary. I don't think that anti-Mormon is much of a compliment, either.

I think it is an inaccurate label when Mormons begin attaching it to fellow Mormons they don't agree with. It is somewhat akin to the term anti-Semite: Chances are it is applied indiscriminately and many times inaccurately.

[kolobian]

I hope people caught the interesting things on this thread:

1. The offense/defense dichotomy in arguments. An argument in favor of a proposition is not the same as an argument about why an argument against it should be rejected. I think we could get a much better grip on what is important and what is a non-starter if we could keep this clear in our minds.

2. Someone made the point that the interesting thing that the poll shows is that very few people change their minds. Sometimes people have threads on the order of "what would it take" to be persuaded that one is mistaken; maybe we play that particular game into the ground, but its good to keep an eye on what counts as falsfiying or confirming evidence for us. Its difficult to make any inferences from what the poll finds (we might expect that changing sides would be a rare event even in a world in which everyone was completely open to every new argument), but my guess is that what it shows is that regardless of what side we are on, we would be well advised to let the virtue of humility guide the give and take that we engage in. Maybe I overstate that just a little because much of the discussion here is in fields in which I increasingly find I am simply not competant to speak, but what I find engaging about the project is that one must ultimately arriave at a yes or no answer to a question with dimesions in more fields than one could possible no well.

So, eh, merry Christmas!

[why me]

As I have said it has helped me greatly and I am sure that this site get more well-known, it will help others. I also think that the church was caught off guards by the amount of hatred out there and yes, they will catch up and adapt to the internet and the hatred that somes sites contain.

The fact that the internet has been around for many years combined with the fact that the lds church has a modern day prophet, may cause some to wonder how it could be caught "Off Guard".

The implications to members tesimonies that the internet provides seem substantial. Some may view this impact as a more urgent issue than ear piercings.

My opinion is that the exposure the church receives on the world wide web, as a whole, is devastating, and will continue in that direction even if the church gets directly involved as FAIR is. Direct involvement may be a lees effective approach as well.

I am not sure that you are correct here. I think that if there is more openness about church history in sunday school and in other areas of church life...the church and its members will be better off spiritually from the critics' attacks.

But on the other hand, religion itself is under attack. I have this feeling that faith in god is not very popular anymore and certainly (in my opinion) that of living a god-like life is not very popular. But this is only a feeling.

I believe that there will be many challenges in the balance of power on the internet. There are many independent lds member blogs such as mormanity and others which defend the chruch and provide useful information for members who are on the internet. Fair is a major contributor in defending the church thanks to some of the posters who post. Hopefully they will not leave the forum.

[maxrep12]

I am not sure that you are correct here. I think that if there is more openness about church history in sunday school and in other areas of church life...the church and its members will be better off spiritually from the critics' attacks.

I feel that I am correct here, precisely because the openess you refer to has not yet been made a staple of the lds experience. That may change down the road. If it is already too late an hour to implement such a practice is anyones guess?

I do agree with your other remarks about this not being an age of religion or God.

[why me]

I am not sure that you are correct here. I think that if there is more openness about church history in sunday school and in other areas of church life...the church and its members will be better off spiritually from the critics' attacks.

I feel that I am correct here, precisely because the openess you refer to has not yet been made a staple of the lds experience. That may change down the road. If it is already too late an hour to implement such a practice is anyones guess?

I do agree with your other remarks about this not being an age of religion or God.

Maybe that is true. However it is up to the members to bring up questions in their classes and in their lessons.

It all starts with the teacher I suppose. Like karl Marx said: we need to educate the educator.

As people become more informed (for example from books such as Bushman's) more questions will come up and more interesting topics for discussion will appear.

In the current priesthood manual for next year there is a piece ( a paragraph or so) about polygamy...the teacher can pass over it or tackle it in an interesting and spiritual way.

But yes, I hope that complicated questions can be asked and interpretations can be taught and discussed.

[maxrep12]

Maybe that is true. However it is up to the members to bring up questions in their classes and in their lessons.

In the current priesthood manual for next year there is a piece ( a paragraph or so) about polygamy...the teacher can pass over it or tackle it in an interesting and spiritual way.

Is it up to the class members to re-direct the focus of a lesson? Also, it has been my understsanding that the subject matter on polygamy is to be broached only in the event that someone asks about it?

If the course material is not substantially different from the past curiculum, is there any hope for change?

[Teancum]

Wow.

31% had doubts and the doubts have now increaed. Is this board and even FAIR helping or hurting questioning LDS?

In fact 35% have been hindered further, 5% more have received no help at all. Only 25% have had an increase in testimony.

Of course the shows what FAIR is doing only for those who post here. Maybe the other FAIR info is helping others more.

Teancum

[Teancum]

I am not sure that you are correct here. I think that if there is more openness about church history in sunday school and in other areas of church life...the church and its members will be better off spiritually from the critics' attacks.

I feel that I am correct here, precisely because the openess you refer to has not yet been made a staple of the lds experience. That may change down the road. If it is already too late an hour to implement such a practice is anyones guess?

I do agree with your other remarks about this not being an age of religion or God.

Maybe that is true. However it is up to the members to bring up questions in their classes and in their lessons.

It all starts with the teacher I suppose. Like karl Marx said: we need to educate the educator.

As people become more informed (for example from books such as Bushman's) more questions will come up and more interesting topics for discussion will appear.

In the current priesthood manual for next year there is a piece ( a paragraph or so) about polygamy...the teacher can pass over it or tackle it in an interesting and spiritual way.

But yes, I hope that complicated questions can be asked and interpretations can be taught and discussed.

Gee. Try asking why Joseph married other mens wives and 16 year girls and hid it from Emma for two years or so.

Try asking what Brigham really mean by Adam/God.

Try asking why the revelations in the D&C were changed and acounts of priesthood revelations and visions were added in that revision.

Try asking anything contraversial and see what reaction one gets.

Many are still clueless about this stuff. I mean our GD teacher just this past year when talking bout the WoW, Jesus drinking wine, LDS using wine in the sacrament an JS driniking wine said it was grape juice!!! ANd nobody disputed her.

It is not the repsonibilty of a class member to direct th discussion. THe church manuals should do this. And they do. THey remain silent about any issue that is not the white washed history that we all grew up on.

And that is still the direction the church is going.

Teancum

[sunstoned]

Gee. Try asking why Joseph married other mens wives and 16 year girls and hid it from Emma for two years or so.

Try asking what Brigham really mean by Adam/God.

Try asking why the revelations in the D&C were changed and acounts of priesthood revelations and visions were added in that revision.

Try asking anything contraversial and see what reaction one gets.

Many are still clueless about this stuff. I mean our GD teacher just this past year when talking bout the WoW, Jesus drinking wine, LDS using wine in the sacrament an JS driniking wine said it was grape juice!!! ANd nobody disputed her.

It is not the repsonibilty of a class member to direct th discussion. THe church manuals should do this. And they do. THey remain silent about any issue that is not the white washed history that we all grew up on.

And that is still the direction the church is going.

Teancum

I believe it would take a major paradigm shift in the church to allow honest discussion of the topics you list. In spite of statements from church leaders past and present that they welcome honest scrutiny, the fact is that the church as a whole discourages any discussion or study outside of correlated materials. Case in point is the treatment of authors like Grant Palmer.

This view can be easily tested by anyone who disagrees. Bring up for discussion one of the topics listed here in GD or Priesthood class and see what happens.

[GDTeacher]

Gee. Try asking why Joseph married other mens wives and 16 year girls and hid it from Emma for two years or so.

Try asking what Brigham really mean by Adam/God.

Try asking why the revelations in the D&C were changed and acounts of priesthood revelations and visions were added in that revision.

Try asking anything contraversial and see what reaction one gets.

Many are still clueless about this stuff. I mean our GD teacher just this past year when talking bout the WoW, Jesus drinking wine, LDS using wine in the sacrament an JS driniking wine said it was grape juice!!! ANd nobody disputed her.

It is not the repsonibilty of a class member to direct th discussion. THe church manuals should do this. And they do. THey remain silent about any issue that is not the white washed history that we all grew up on.

And that is still the direction the church is going.

Teancum

I believe it would take a major paradigm shift in the church to allow honest discussion of the topics you list. In spite of statements from church leaders past and present that they welcome honest scrutiny, the fact is that the church as a whole discourages any discussion or study outside of correlated materials. Case in point is the treatment of authors like Grant Palmer.

This view can be easily tested by anyone who disagrees. Bring up for discussion one of the topics listed here in GD or Priesthood class and see what happens.

As a teacher I have brought up some of these and similar topics. The extent to which one is allowed to discuss them is largely a local phenomenon. Dan Peterson has talked about bringing up similar topics and having received no negative feedback. I have found that there is a hazily defined line over which I was not allowed to cross without being publicly censured by member of the bishopric. My favorite public censure was on the general topic of polygamy, of the Abrahamic sort.

There seems to be an organized PR-like effort to start opening things up a little. In industry I am familiar with working with a PR calendar where events, articles, testimonials, information, advertisements, are all coordinated. This last Fall, I was witnessing what struck me as an execution of a well-planned PR calendar with bits of information about JS's normally obscured history coming forth. I'm not sure whether or not Bushman's book was part of the calendar, but if it wasn't, it was mightly coincidental. The Newsweek articles were likely coordinated over the past two years, including the interview of President Hinckley by the young LDS journalist (whose name escapes me right at the moment). The followup interview with that journalist in the Des News, the between conference programming that included references to treasure hunting, etc., etc. all seem to be part of a coordinated program. It appears that the church may be moving towards more openness, but likely well-attenuated versions of events. To get to the real information, one will likely have to dig, deeply, like we do today in less commonly available materials and sources.

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe it would take a major paradigm shift in the church to allow honest discussion of the topics you list.  In spite of statements from church leaders past and present that they welcome honest scrutiny, the fact is that the church as a whole discourages any discussion or study outside of correlated materials.  Case in point is the treatment of authors like Grant Palmer. 

The roughly 45 minutes that are devoted weekly to Sunday school lessons, and the 40 minutes or so that are set aside for lessons in Relief Society and priesthood quorums, are part of a set of meetings that are primarily focused on worship, edification, and exhortation, not designed as graduate seminars in theology and doctrine. It is unrealistic to expect them to be otherwise, and, although some of us would no doubt prefer more meat, it would almost certainly be unwise and unhelpful to the overwhelming majority of the members to attempt to transform them into ongoing sessions of the Mormon History Association or of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (let alone of Sunstone).

Members are, however, entirely free to read whatever they want, and there are plenty of venues for reading and publication on a very wide range of historical and theological topics.

Grant Palmer wasn't disciplined for "discussing or studying outside of correlated materials," nor for practicing "honest scrutiny." He drew attention from his leaders because his book (which was, incidentally, written covertly over many years while he drew a salary as a teacher in the Church Education System) was a direct, no-holds-barred attack on many of the distinctively fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I call attention to the responses to Mr. Palmer's book -- by Mark Ashurst-McGee, Steven Harper, James Allen, the staff of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, Davis Bitton, and Louis Midgley -- that appeared in FARMS Review 15/2 (2003) and 16/1 (2004). They're all up on the FARMS web site:

http://farms.byu.edu/index.php

Finally, I doubt very much that there is any coordinated PR campaign to "open things up." And I'm quite certain that Richard Bushman's book, which many of us have anticipated since his 1984 University of Illinois Press book Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism and which was always slated to appear around the time of the Prophet's bicentennial, was not hatched as part of a clever plan at Church HQ.

[Teancum]

I believe it would take a major paradigm shift in the church to allow honest discussion of the topics you list.

[Daniel Peterson]

The problem however, IMO, is that the more difficult subjects are simply avoided and generally the teachers and students have no knowledge of them.

That tends to be true.

Do you really think that the pedestrian curriculum of the church is the best way to teach in church?  If yes why?  If no do you have any ideas on how the church could present some of this in its teaching manuals.

As I've said several times elsewhere, I'm not a big fan of many of the Church manuals. They could be considerably better, I think, but I'm not sure that adding discussions of Adam-God, the origins of plural marriage, and things like that would improve them. The Sunday School and other classes of the Church will always be aimed at the broad mass of members, most of whom are not intellectuals or academics and many of whom will either be relatively recent converts or even, on occasion, somewhat marginal. I don't advocate hiding difficult issues, but I also wouldn't advocate devoting very limited church-class time to concentrating on them. The membership is too poorly grounded in too many basic areas to permit that, even if it were wise (which I very, very much doubt).

Surely there is something in between "worship, edification, and exhortation, not designed as graduate seminars in theology and doctrine."

When I teach classes at church, I try to give them serious intellectual content. But I also remember that they are part of Sunday services, and I try to treat them that way.

[juliann]

I would be fearful to bring up difficult question for a number of reasons. Riducle, complaint from a leader, revealing somehting that may hurt another. I have ound that often many members a re shocked when they find some of the more difficult issues and the results are that they often go down the wine and grape juice path.

I have found a direct relationship with trust and what you can say. If you are trusted you can say about anything because your motivation is not in question. Whether you should or want to is another story.

[GDTeacher]

Finally, I doubt very much that there is any coordinated PR campaign to "open things up."  And I'm quite certain that Richard Bushman's book, which many of us have anticipated since his 1984 University of Illinois Press book Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism and which was always slated to appear around the time of the Prophet's bicentennial, was not hatched as part of a clever plan at Church HQ.

The church has been very active with its PR efforts. I would expect that the church has used a PR calendar very effectively for probably the last two decades, maybe even more. My intention in bringing forth this suggestion was not intended to be negative, just realistic. The coincidence of these things coming together all at the same time just seems too great. I acknowledge your view, and I acknowledge the speculation in my view, but the circumstantial evidence seems to be pretty strong. To use the word "clever" connotes a negativity that was not intended in my post. Apologies is the post came across in a fashion that the use of PR implied any negativity. President Hinckley has been involved in the church PR for years and has done a wonderful job in my estimation.

[Boy Named Sue]

I call attention to the responses to Mr. Palmer's book -- by Mark Ashurst-McGee, Steven Harper, James Allen, the staff of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, Davis Bitton, and Louis Midgley -- that appeared in FARMS Review 15/2 (2003) and 16/1 (2004). They're all up on the FARMS web site:

http://farms.byu.edu/index.php

Finally, I doubt very much that there is any coordinated PR campaign to "open things up." And I'm quite certain that Richard Bushman's book, which many of us have anticipated since his 1984 University of Illinois Press book Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism and which was always slated to appear around the time of the Prophet's bicentennial, was not hatched as part of a clever plan at Church HQ.

dr. peterson, when can we expect a farms review of rough stone rolling?

i dont suppose the argumentum ad hominem will be employed on a good faithful dude like bushman eh? thats a bit of a shame as i think a good ol fashioned attack might be just what the fairboards need to set some new records.

[Baptized1962]

 

He drew attention from his leaders because his book (which was, incidentally, written covertly over many years while he drew a salary as a teacher in the Church Education System) was a direct, no-holds-barred attack on many of the distinctively fundamental doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Emphasis added)

Dan,

Although most posters would be chastized for continuing to wander around off-topic on this post, it's refreshing to see that you are not.

The FARMS reviews of Palmer's works did exactly what you did, incidentally, in your comments about the work: first, engage in character assassination...then proceed to provide your defense. Very FARMS-ish of you.

Your comments about his working for CES and "covertly" writing the book shows that you can see into the soul of this man, just like Mark Ashurst-McGee. You can see into the very thoughts and intentions of his heart. You don't grant him any consideration for his accumulation of these questions as valid components of his legitimate research while a CES employee. That perhaps the connections of his facts and the conclusions he drew were genuinely an attempt to balance what he found in his research against what he had assumed he knew from church teachings.

Mark Ashurst-McGee challenged Palmer's "insider status" by first asking

"To what group is Palmer an 'insider,' and why does that perspective matter?"

and then goes on to conclude that

"The title apparently refers to his career as an instructor in the CES." and then continue, "Essentially, it is a piece of disingenuous advertising." (A One-sided View of Mormon Origins Review of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer, Reviewed By: Mark Ashurst-McGee, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003. Pp. 309

[Closet_Mormon]

My opinion of the church began to change after I began studying books and other online sources, this being one of them.

More than anything I began to realize that the church is whitewashing its history more than anything, if it had nothing to hide then it wouldn't need whitewashing. So obviously there are problems that the average lay Mormon doesn't know about.

I prefer the truth no matter how ugly it is, I don't need to live a lie, especially someone else's lie.

What I really wonder is how deep does the rabbit hole go?

I mean, there are certain things about our Mormon history that raise a few eyebrows, but what is the "real" truth? I can brush aside certain bumps so to speak, I mean no one or no organization is entirely without their flaws and weaknesses, but there are some issues that are hard to ignore.

For example was the Book of Abraham just a concoction of JS's mind, or did it really come from the scrolls as he claimed? The evidence is not very supportive at least at this point. And if it is not one is claimed then what does this say about JS's character and the other documents that he translated. You get my point here, one thing tends to build on another.

The history of the church though and the current church organization can be unlinked in my opinion. So my doubts regarding church history does not necessarily translate into doubts about the church, both must stand on their own merits in my opinion.

[Daniel Peterson]

Although most posters would be chastized for continuing to wander around off-topic on this post, it's refreshing to see that you are not.

If you feel that I've committed a reportable offense, report me.

The FARMS reviews of Palmer's works did exactly what you did, incidentally, in your comments about the work: first, engage in character assassination...then proceed to provide your defense.  Very FARMS-ish of you.

You fail to note that the FARMS reviews of Palmer's work criticized it extensively on substantive historical grounds. Did you forget?

As far as "character-assassination" goes, I will admit that I find it despicable that he wrote the first drafts of his book while drawing a salary from the Church Education System, and that he was sneaky about it.

Your comments about his working for CES and "covertly" writing the book shows that you can see into the soul of this man, just like Mark Ashurst-McGee. You can see into the very thoughts and intentions of his heart. You don't grant him any consideration for his accumulation of these questions as valid components of his legitimate research while a CES employee.  That perhaps the connections of his facts and the conclusions he drew were genuinely an attempt to balance what he found in his research against what he had assumed he knew from church teachings.

My comments merely reflect the fact that I know a great deal about the story -- more than I have said or will say.

I don't care particularly, in this regard, whether he was sincere or not. Even if sincere, he should not have continued to accept a salary from the Church for teaching the Church's young people while he was working on an anti-Mormon book. And his first drafts were far, far more nasty and far more overtly anti-Mormon than is the highly sanitized and heavily edited final product. I know. I've got copies of them.

Mark Ashurst-McGee challenged Palmer's "insider status" by first asking

"To what group is Palmer an 'insider,' and why does that perspective matter?"

and then goes on to conclude that

"The title apparently refers to his career as an instructor in the CES." and then continue, "Essentially, it is a piece of disingenuous advertising." (A One-sided View of Mormon Origins Review of An Insider's View of Mormon Origins by Grant H. Palmer, Reviewed By: Mark Ashurst-McGee, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2003. Pp. 309

[Boy Named Sue]

As far as "character-assassination" goes, I will admit that I find it despicable that he wrote the first drafts of his book while drawing a salary from the Church Education System, and that he was sneaky about it.

Come on. You can't seriously maintain that it was an act of sublime integrity to be working steadily but quietly away for 15-20 years at a manuscript repudiating and assaulting the fundamental beliefs of his employer, his superiors, and his students -- beliefs that he was expected to uphold as a condition of his employment. Had I been in that position, rejecting the basic beliefs of the Church, I would have resigned from the Church Education System.

i am glad you are posting. keep it up.

i do agree with 1962 on this one though. i thought the punches at palmer were not necessary coming from farms. i see your point of view that as a coworker you find he acted without integrity. but i still think that farms had no place in making that call. if the church had an issue with it, let the church fight that battle. but farms is nothing but a subsidiary of a common employer and went way out of line to attack palmer for this.

what other employees of the church has farms rebuked? i think it was the content of the book that raised ire, not the time of day and period of his compilation.

so you have a multiple and altered transcripts? forgive me for seeing great irony here. you find the original version of his story more damning and revealing of mr. palmer? that is interesting. reminds me of another story that has had multiple revisions and changes to the original.

[Daniel Peterson]

i thought the punches at palmer were not necessary coming from farms. i see your point of view that as a coworker you find he acted without integrity. but i still think that farms had no place in making that call. if the church had an issue with it, let the church fight that battle. but farms is nothing but a subsidiary of a common employer and went way out of line to attack palmer for this.

what other employees of the church has farms rebuked? i think it was the content of the book that raised ire, not the time of day and period of his compilation.

Nothing in a book review is "necessary." And no, had Palmer not written a book, we would not have published reviews of it.

But I think it quite obviously lacking in principle to work for a church in which you do not believe, teaching history and doctrine in which you do not believe, while secretly working on a book attacking that history and doctrine that you distribute clandestinely under a pseudonym but will openly publish under your true name only when you are safely retired and drawing a secure pension. Perhaps it's just perverse of me to consider that unethical treachery. Perhaps employees of the Church ought to be free to work, without repercussion, against the Church while accepting salaries from donations given to the Church by people seeking to advance the cause of the Church.

so you have a multiple and altered transcripts?

I have early drafts of what would eventually, after his retirement, be published as his book. They were distributed under a pseudonym ("Paul Pry, Jr.") during the period that he was still actively employed by the Church.

forgive me for seeing great irony here. you find the original version of his story more damning and revealing of mr. palmer? that is interesting. reminds me of another story that has had multiple revisions and changes to the original.

I'm not talking about his "story." And I fail to see the parallel that you find so ironic.

[Baptized1962]

If you feel that I've committed a reportable offense, report me.

Oh PUH-leeze! (But it was pretty funny.)

You fail to note that the FARMS reviews of Palmer's work criticized it extensively on substantive historical grounds. Did you forget?

edited by moderator

...first, engage in character assassination...then proceed to provide your defense.

So...no...I didn't. The point was that whatever you may think of his insider status, nit-picking the definition of "insider" smacks of every defense we've heard for the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the translation that was provided. Call anyone who challenges an unsubstantiated claim as "anti-Mormon" but inquiring minds want to know how it was done and determine for themselves whether the claims are "translation" or -- something else.

The historical questions raised by documented "insider" accounts is valuable, whether you think they are material or not. Joseph's failures in the translation process and Palmer's exposure of the questionable nature of the claims both raise some pretty reasonable doubts that should be explored. By showing the conflict between what the average person would understand a translation to be and what insiders to the actual act of translation noticed, he placed valuable information at the fingertips of people who won't hear this during the missionary discussions.

As far as "character-assassination" goes, I will admit that I find it despicable that he wrote the first drafts of his book while drawing a salary from the Church Education System, and that he was sneaky about it.

Looking for truth, telling what you've found and then providing your conclusions, if I might translate your real intent Dan, is very sneaky. Most of us concealed our discoveries from our Sacrament meeting talks, from our bishopric meetings and from our temple recommend interviews. I'm sure you think we were insincere when we sought out the truth and that we relied too heavily on anti-Mormon sources. But Joseph's claims to having and translating gold plates, yet never producing them for public scrutiny, might be a fact worth knowing, whether you claim it's old news or not. That the plates could not be viewed without permission from God and yet he had to keep hiding them might be worthy of consideration. That the use of stones and other artifacts to aid Joseph in the translation and their similar use by those involved in cult magic might help enlighten people about what was going on.

He laid those side-by-side, as an insider, drawing a CES salary.

Only anti-Mormon because it's embarrassing not because it's not true.

I don't care particularly, in this regard, whether he was sincere or not. Even if sincere, he should not have continued to accept a salary from the Church for teaching the Church's young people while he was working on an anti-Mormon book...Then his "insider" status is trivial, and not worth mentioning.

How about if we let the public determine its triviality?

If he were one of the corrupt priests castigated by Joseph, he might have an axe to grind. In this case, he is a member of the Church and his insider status, in that context, may be relevant to both member and non-member, your personal opinions notwithstanding.

And I think you're engaging in damage control.

How funny. Do you really think that I need to engage in "damage control?" I doubt we anti-Mormons need to do that; I think the damage has been done.

Palmer has been touted -- I agree that it's "disingenuous advertising" -- as a prominent Mormon historian with "insider" knowledge, while the fact is that he is a retired seminary teacher who was virtually unknown among serious professional historians of Mormonism, who had never presented a paper at an academic conference nor published anything at all prior to his book, and whose claim that he represents their judgments and opinions has been rejected by several of the most prominent and well published living Mormon historians.

Have you been as candid about Joseph's work? Have you pointed out that he never translated and then presented his work at "an academic conference nor published anything at all prior to his book..."?

Why is it always half a story, Dan? Why is it always holding up anti-Mormon works to a higher standard than the claims of Mormonism? Because of faith?

The farm boy produced nothing too spectacular when real scrutiny has been done. Well, except for the entourage of apologists. That's pretty impressive.

[charity]

I find it significant that those involved in the dialogue with Dr. Peterson do not see an ethical lapse in drawing a salary from the organization you are working to undermine. Reminds me of a person I know who has professed, privately, to being an atheist, who is drawing a salary as a youth pastor for a local evangelical church.