Grant Palmer

[why me]

To no end? I don't think so. The criticism of Daniel, in some cases, ends where the praise begins, and there is praise, contrary to your generalization.

Does it make any difference that there is some praise also? I don't think so. It is the trash that people remember and not the praise, especially if the trash outnumbers the praise. Who wants to be trashed and praised in a thread? Not many. Praise yes...but trashed or trash mixed with praise, no thank you.

And that was the problem with starting such a thread.

[Hyrum Page]

Does it make any difference that there is some praise also? I don't think so. It is the trash that people remember and not the praise, especially if the trash outnumbers the praise. Who wants to be trashed and praised in a thread? Not many. Praise yes...but trashed or trash mixed with praise, no thank you.

And that was the problem with starting such a thread.

Let me be clear. I don't think it was a good idea for Chris to start such a thread, especially one expressed in the tone that it was. At the same time, I think he had good reasons to be upset about the suggestion of some past wrongdoing on Grant's part. I agree he overreacted, and I think he has apologized adequately for doing so.

There clearly are people on MDB, and not just one or two of them, who engage in gratuitous insults and smearing of Daniel. I would not deny it. At the same time, all criticism is not gratuitous, insulting, or a smear. Some criticism is arguably justified. I can both criticize and praise the same person without hypocrisy. It really is possible.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can both criticize and praise the same person without hypocrisy. It really is possible.

You'll still likely get called out for it though.

[Hyrum Page]

You'll still likely get called out for it though.

I am happy to respond. My motivations are not sullied by a desire to "trash" Mormon apologetics. I am convicted of the salutary effect that fair treatment of even the worst anti-Mormons will only benefit the NMI, FARMS, FAIR, SHIELDS, and MA&D. You may not agree on the precise definitions I place on terms like "fair treatment," but I sincerely believe in what I am trying to do.

[David Bokovoy]

Let me be clear. I don't think it was a good idea for Chris to start such a thread, especially one expressed in the tone that it was. At the same time, I think he had good reasons to be upset about the suggestion of some past wrongdoing on Grant's part. I agree he overreacted, and I think he has apologized adequately for doing so.

There clearly are people on MDB, and not just one or two of them, who engage in gratuitous insults and smearing of Daniel. I would not deny it. At the same time, all criticism is not gratuitous, insulting, or a smear. Some criticism is arguably justified. I can both criticize and praise the same person without hypocrisy. It really is possible.

Indeed, some criticism is justified, including disingenuous acts committed by public figures. When Grant Palmer published his interpretation of LDS history as an "insider," Palmer became a public figure, whose views and actions according to many Latter-day Saints, maligned the Church.

Why in the world do you have a right to criticize people, including Daniel Peterson, for acts you interpret as morally questionable, and yet Daniel does not?!! I honestly believe that it simply comes down to the fact that in some people's minds, when believers point out moral issues, they're bigots, but when non-believers do the the exact same thing, they're holy crusaders! All of the irrational moral indignation publicly criticizing Daniel for publicly criticizing Grant!! When you and your fellow MD posters perform the task, the clan sings your praises, when Daniel does the same thing to a public figure, he is a scoundrel, a rogue, a villain!

I'm sorry but this seriously makes me sick!

[Scott Lloyd]

Indeed, some criticism is justified, including disingenuous acts committed by public figures. When Grant Palmer published his interpretation of LDS history as an "insider," Palmer became a public figure, whose views and actions according to many Latter-day Saints, maligned the Church.

Why in the world do you have a right to criticize people, including Daniel Peterson, for acts you interpret as morally questionable, and yet Daniel does not?!! I honestly believe that it simply comes down to the fact that in some people's minds, when believers point out moral issues, they're bigots, but when non-believers do the the exact same thing, they're holy crusaders! All of the irrational moral indignation publicly criticizing Daniel for publicly criticizing Grant!! When you and your fellow MD posters perform the task, the clan sings your praises, when Daniel does the same thing to a public figure, he is a scoundrel, a rogue, a villain!

I'm sorry but this seriously makes me sick!

I have to smile in agreement with this, having just run across a post over there where my name came up out of nowhere and one of the worthies there called me "a horror of a human being."

(And this time, it wasn't Scratch.)

[Hyrum Page]

Indeed, some criticism is justified, including disingenuous acts committed by public figures. When Grant Palmer published his interpretation of LDS history as an "insider," Palmer became a public figure, whose views and actions according to many Latter-day Saints, maligned the Church.

What you are saying might be characterized as the ethos of a tabloid journalist. A defender of such writing might say, "It is OK to reveal details about Brittany Spears' alleged personal sex life at 13 because she is a "public figure."" Sorry, but that makes me sick.

Why in the world do you have a right to criticize people, including Daniel Peterson, for acts you interpret as morally questionable, and yet Daniel does not?!! I honestly believe that it simply comes down to the fact that in some people's minds, when believers point out moral issues, they're bigots, but when non-believers do the the exact same thing, they're holy crusaders! All of the irrational moral indignation publicly criticizing Daniel for publicly criticizing Grant!! When you and your fellow MD posters perform the task, the clan sings your praises, when Daniel does the same thing to a public figure, he is a scoundrel, a rogue, a villain!

I think I fielded this question adequately over at MDB, but I am happy to do so here as well. Grant Palmer is not currently involved in this or any other discussion of Mormonism on MA&D or MDB. Alleged behavior of his, which supposedly occurred many years ago, is not pertinent to a discussion of his published comments about Mormonism on these boards today. If someone questions his printed arguments or the nature of his book, then I am more than happy to see you or anyone else strenuously criticize the written product. I regard the public discussion of allegations against his behavior and character from actions that supposedly occurred years ago as unacceptable... regardless of their alleged truth or basis in fact.

Now, I am participating in an ongoing discussion with you, Daniel, Will, and others. The way we conduct ourselves in our treatment of others in the discussion is entirely up for criticism. If you secretly poisoned your grandmother and that has no bearing on your arguments here, then it is none of my business. If you were to catch me raising hints about "that thing" I have it on good authority that you did when you stayed at your grandmother's house long ago, then I would hope all of you would pounce on me immediately for being totally out of bounds. What on earth would that have to do with your historical arguments or literary theories? Do murderers demonstrably have substantively different interpretations and arguments from non-murderers?

Is every apologist a paragon of virtue? Is every critic a demon? If the strength or validity of an argument has little to do with one's soul, then why is it necessary to raise allegations regarding past misdeeds? Is the truth contingent upon Grant's purity of soul? Is it contingent upon yours? I do think that the conduct of an argument does affect the quality of the argument, but things that happen independent of the argument generally do not.

Finally, to harp on the alleged past actions of a fellow member of the Church, when you are not privy to his stage in the repentance process is arguably reprehensible.

[Olavarria]

[David Bokovoy]

What you are saying might be characterized as the ethos of a tabloid journalist.

Only if one wished to intentionally mischaracterize what I am saying.

A defender of such writing might say, "It is OK to reveal details about Brittany Spears' alleged personal sex life at 13 because she is a "public figure."" Sorry, but that makes me sick.

You are so far of the mark! You are so guilty of forging the fallacy of the false dilemma with this statement, I can hardly believe it! To even draw a black and white analogy between a tabloid reporter revealing personal information about the sex life of a 13 old girl in connection with a pubic criticism of the way Grant Palmer for many years, intentionally deceived the Church who employed him and of which Palmer represented himself publicly as being a special

[Daniel Peterson]

What you are saying might be characterized as the ethos of a tabloid journalist. A defender of such writing might say, "It is OK to reveal details about Brittany Spears' alleged personal sex life at 13 because she is a "public figure."" Sorry, but that makes me sick.

Not a very apt comparison. To discuss the circumstances accompanying the genesis and writing of a book is to do intellectual history.

Grant Palmer is not currently involved in this or any other discussion of Mormonism on MA&D or MDB. Alleged behavior of his, which supposedly occurred many years ago, is not pertinent to a discussion of his published comments about Mormonism on these boards today.

The question posed on this thread -- I neither launched the thread nor posed the question -- concerned Grant Palmer's relationship to CES and his pension, not his published comments about Mormonism.

I regard the public discussion of allegations against his behavior and character from actions that supposedly occurred years ago as unacceptable... regardless of their alleged truth or basis in fact.

Do you oppose the writing of biographies?

Do you reject any and all discussion of the character and behavior of Joseph Smith?

Is every apologist a paragon of virtue?

In my experience, Yes. Certainly I am.

Is every critic a demon?

There might be exceptions, but I haven't met one yet.

If the strength or validity of an argument has little to do with one's soul, then why is it necessary to raise allegations regarding past misdeeds?

The question wasn't about the strength or validity of any argument.

Finally, to harp on the alleged past actions of a fellow member of the Church, when you are not privy to his stage in the repentance process is arguably reprehensible.

If my little two- or three-line answer to a question is to be described as "harping," I see no reason why it can't, with almost equal accuracy, be described as "playing backgammon" or "performing somersaults."

[Bill Hamblin]

There was once a passionate Democrat, who loved the Democratic party so much he decided to go work for the DNC. For a while all was well. However, eventually the Democrat came to believe the Republican party was better for the US. But, rather than approaching his employers at the DNC, and telling them he didn't believe the Democratic platform any more, and therefore felt it was inappropriate for him to work for the DNC any more, he kept his job at the DNC--after all, he had a mortgage and a family to support. However, at night he would secretly write anonymous pro-Republican blogs. Time passed, and the DNC eventually found out what was going on. They approached the former Democrat, and discussed the situation. It was agreed that they would let the former Democrat keep his job a few more years until he could collect his pension--he had done good service in the past. But in return, the DNC asked him to stop writing pro-Republican articles and books. He readily agreed. However, at night, in secret, he kept working on a pro-Republican book. Then, after he retired with his pension from the DNC secure, he published his pro-Republican book under the title: "A Democratic Insider's view of the DNC."

Could a fair-minded person reasonably call such behavior "disingenuous"?

And now back to the regularly scheduled character assassination of DCP.

[Bill Hamblin]

Indeed, some criticism is justified, including disingenuous acts committed by public figures. When Grant Palmer published his interpretation of LDS history as an "insider," Palmer became a public figure, whose views and actions according to many Latter-day Saints, maligned the Church.

Why in the world do you have a right to criticize people, including Daniel Peterson, for acts you interpret as morally questionable, and yet Daniel does not?!! I honestly believe that it simply comes down to the fact that in some people's minds, when believers point out moral issues, they're bigots, but when non-believers do the the exact same thing, they're holy crusaders! All of the irrational moral indignation publicly criticizing Daniel for publicly criticizing Grant!! When you and your fellow MD posters perform the task, the clan sings your praises, when Daniel does the same thing to a public figure, he is a scoundrel, a rogue, a villain!

I'm sorry but this seriously makes me sick!

David, you just don't get it! They're right, and we're wrong. That makes all the difference.

[Hyrum Page]

Only if one wished to intentionally mischaracterize what I am saying.

Obviously, I disagree.

You are so far of the mark! You are so guilty of forging the fallacy of the false dilemma with this statement, I can hardly believe it! To even draw a black and white analogy between a tabloid reporter revealing personal information about the sex life of a 13 old girl in connection with a pubic criticism of the way Grant Palmer for many years, intentionally deceived the Church who employed him and of which Palmer represented himself publicly as being a special

[Hyrum Page]

David, you just don't get it! They're right, and we're wrong. That makes all the difference.

Anyone who has the slightest clue who I am and how I generally act knows that this is completely unfair.

[Hyrum Page]

And now back to the regularly scheduled character assassination of DCP.

Bull puckey. Try learning the difference between a disagreement and a character assassination.

[dblagent007]

There was once a passionate Democrat, who loved the Democratic party so much he decided to go work for the DNC. For a while all was well. However, eventually the Democrat came to believe the Republican party was better for the US. But, rather than approaching his employers at the DNC, and telling them he didn't believe the Democratic platform any more, and therefore felt it was inappropriate for him to work for the DNC any more, he kept his job at the DNC--after all, he had a mortgage and a family to support. However, at night he would secretly write anonymous pro-Republican blogs. Time passed, and the DNC eventually found out what was going on. They approached the former Democrat, and discussed the situation. It was agreed that they would let the former Democrat keep his job a few more years until he could collect his pension--he had done good service in the past. But in return, the DNC asked him to stop writing pro-Republican articles and books. He readily agreed. However, at night, in secret, he kept working on a pro-Republican book. Then, after he retired with his pension from the DNC secure, he published his pro-Republican book under the title: "A Democratic Insider's view of the DNC."

Could a fair-minded person reasonably call such behavior "disingenuous"?

And now back to the regularly scheduled character assassination of DCP.

So was this person told not to write anything pro-Republican in his free time (even in his journal?) while he still worked for the DNC or was he told not to publish any more pro-Republican articles while he worked for the DNC?

Edit to add: I think I can see the misunderstanding on both sides. Palmer's CES bosses called him in and told him to stop publishing objectionable material while he was employed by the Church. Palmer committed not to do it again. However, he probably felt that he could work on a book in his free time that he would publish after he left CES since that would not violate his commitment.

The CES administrators thought that by telling Palmer to stop publishing objectionable material that it would be understood that this mandate applied forever.

[Hyrum Page]

To discuss the circumstances accompanying the genesis and writing of a book is to do intellectual history.

Pardon me if I disagree with the suggestion that you were engaging in intellectual history when you responded to that post. You were telling us why you don't like Grant Palmer.

The question posed on this thread -- I neither launched the thread nor posed the question -- concerned Grant Palmer's relationship to CES and his pension, not his published comments about Mormonism.

Here, actually, is the OP, which does not even mention CES or his pension. That was USU78's snarky contribution to the thread.

Anyone know Grant Palmer's status? I have not heard much about him lately. I am wondering if he is working on any new projects.

If my little two- or three-line answer to a question is to be described as "harping," I see no reason why it can't, with almost equal accuracy, be described as "playing backgammon" or "performing somersaults."

Whatever you choose to call it, I think it stinks.

[Bill Hamblin]

Anyone who has the slightest clue who I am and how I generally act knows that this is completely unfair.

It must be truly wonderful to be forever perched, Olympian-like, upon the moral high ground.

[Hyrum Page]

So was this person told not to write anything pro-Republican in his free time (even in his journal?) while he still worked for the DNC or was he told not to publish any more pro-Republican articles while he worked for the DNC?

In my opinion, Hamblin has provided us with ample argument against the very point he apparently wanted to make. If the DNC guy stopped publicly spreading his Republican writing, and continued to write about it without publishing it, then I would say he is fine. Bokovoy already made a much better argument elsewhere. Hamblin can go read it if he wants to see what the effective argument looks like.

[Hyrum Page]

It must be truly wonderful to be forever perched, Olympian-like, upon the moral high ground.

In other words, you've got nothing. I never claimed that I was forever perched on the high moral ground. I challenged your grossly inaccurate characterization of me and my MO. Big difference.

[Bill Hamblin]

In other words, you've got nothing. I never claimed that I was forever perched on the high moral ground. I challenged your grossly inaccurate characterization of me and my MO. Big difference.

I dare say I never mentioned you. I was actually thinking about the Malevolent Stalker over on the Board-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named. But you'll do in a pinch.

The wicked flee when no man persueth.

Alas, I'm through. Adieu, adieu!

[SilverKnight]

Anyone who has the slightest clue who I am and how I generally act knows that this is completely unfair.

Actually, thanks for the offer.

I've wondered before if you weren't a critic of some renown.

You seem to be at least a brigadier general in this ongoing war between apologists and critics.

So,

Who are you?

[Scott Lloyd]

Pardon me if I disagree with the suggestion that you were engaging in intellectual history when you responded to that post. You were telling us why you don't like Grant Palmer.

You have arbitrarily decreed that the background of a book purported to be "an insider's view of Mormonism" has no bearing on a discussion of the book. That is your opinion, but stemming from that opinion, it appears you would silence anyone regarding that background.

Are not readers and prospective readers of the book entitled to know the background and thus make their own determination regarding its relevance?

[Hyrum Page]

I think I can see the misunderstanding on both sides. Palmer's CES bosses called him in and told him to stop publishing objectionable material while he was employed by the Church. Palmer committed not to do it again. However, he probably felt that he could work on a book in his free time that he would publish after he left CES since that would not violate his commitment.

The CES administrators thought that by telling Palmer to stop publishing objectionable material that it would be understood that this mandate applied forever.

Yes, this is the kind of nuance that is generally missing when vague references to the misdeeds of others are bandied about. I am sure I can see both sides too, and I would have been perfectly willing to discuss both sides if the intent had been to engage in such a discussion in the first place.

[Bill Hamblin]

You have arbitrarily decreed that the background of a book purported to be "an insider's view of Mormonism" has no bearing on a discussion of the book. That is your opinion, but stemming from that opinion, it appears you would silence anyone regarding that background.

Are not readers of the book entitled to know the background and thus make their own determination regarding its relevance?

Actually, in intellectual history--like all forms of history--context is everything.