Grant Palmer

[Confidential Informant]

I've actually come to the conclusion that many critics enjoys this particular topic because it distracts from having to deal with the actual content of Palmer's book which is appallingly abysmal. He has no discerable methodology, his conclusions are really quite silly, and his understanding of his material questionable.

I'd hate to have to defend that steaming pile also.

C.I.

[Hyrum Page]

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!

Don't let the door bump your rump on the way out.

Scratch was not participating in this discussion. I was.

Have fun fleeing. I don't know how wicked you are, but fly, fly, fly.

[Hyrum Page]

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?

Arbitrarily decreed? No. I have made an argument that referring to a person's character in lieu of critiquing the content of his book is an unproductive strategy that does not reflect well on those who engage in it.

If you prefer to look bad, be my guest. I was only trying to help.

[Hyrum Page]

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

And when you are engaging in "intellectual history" instead of gossip, then by all means give it a thorough exploration.

"Dr. Primpuffy, having recently debauched his grad student, turned his pen to the naval escapades of Alcibiades in the Adriatic...."

[Bill Hamblin]

Don't let the door bump your rump on the way out.

Scratch was not participating in this discussion. I was.

Mind-reading abilities and the moral high ground? An invincible combination.

[Hyrum Page]

Who are you?

My name is Trevor. I post on MDB all the time. I am known for defending Daniel against smearing by the Malevolent Stalker among other things. I try to be consistent and fair in my discussions with believers and non-believers alike. Sometimes I slip up, but I apologize and try to make amends.

[Hyrum Page]

Mind-reading abilities and the moral high ground? An invincible combination.

You would know, wouldn't you?

[dblagent007]

I've actually come to the conclusion that many critics enjoys this particular topic because it distracts from having to deal with the actual content of Palmer's book which is appallingly abysmal. He has no discerable methodology, his conclusions are really quite silly, and his understanding of his material questionable.

I'd hate to have to defend that steaming pile also.

C.I.

Are you really serious? Who raised the issue in this discussion? Who initially made this an issue back in the beginning?

[Hyrum Page]

I'd hate to have to defend that steaming pile also.

Because we all know that it is better to waste your time on the misadventures of Grant Palmer in the CES than talk about his deplorable book. Oh, wait a sec... you were doing both! Congratulations. You can have your cake and eat it too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Arbitrarily decreed? No. I have made an argument that referring to a person's character in lieu of critiquing the content of his book is an unproductive strategy that does not reflect well on those who engage in it.

In my perception, the book has been critiqued, and extensively. In my view, the circumstances under which that book came about do have bearing on the book itself, particularly as those circumstances speak to the claim of it being an "insider's view." But it appears you would have those circumstance remain hidden. And you haven't really answered my question on that point, have you?

If you prefer to look bad, be my guest. I was only trying to help.

I'm not worried. Over on the other board I'm already viewed as "a horror of a human being." I don't imagine it can get much worse than that. (See my avatar.)

[Calm]

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.

This attitude could be used for condemning what FARMS does though and justifying the often extreme criticism that all it produces is ad hom trash....since it's the so-called trash (or criticism) that people remember, if FARMS engages in any of that, no matter how little, then it is of no value whatsoever.

I think it's very important to recognize the praise with the trash, otherwise it's a given the trashing will always overwhelm the praise even if it's only a few throwing the manure around. OTOH, when the trashing/criticism does actually outweigh the praise, then it's time imo to evaluate the overall worth of an organization, a board, a conversation and what the ultimate result of such high volume criticism is and whether that is something positive or negative.

[David Bokovoy]

Let's face it, you are dodging the real issue here, which is the applicability of a person's character to the quality of their arguments. I have taken a position, which I believe is sound and defensible, that attacks on a person's character are no replacement for solid criticisms of their work.

You may not believe that you are an Olympian god, but you clearly assume you're the almighty dictator for the direction of this thread. I'm sorry, Trevor, but you're not free to switch the topic of initial conversation and identify your concern as "the real issue."

The issue Dan responded to was not Palmer's book, nor his problematic assessment of history. Whether you like it or not, the topic of this thread was the public figure Grant Palmer, not an Insider. In a question regarding a well known matter in this public figure's life, Daniel rightfully identified Palmer's actions as "disingenuous." Again, believers have a right to hold a discussion concerning a public figures action's and to even label them as immoral. Just like you as a non-believer did about Dan himself.

[SilverKnight]

My name is Trevor. I post on MDB all the time. I am known for defending Daniel against smearing by the Malevolent Stalker among other things. I try to be consistent and fair in my discussions with believers and non-believers alike. Sometimes I slip up, but I apologize and try to make amends.

Thanks for answering me.

And I can relate to the wall you are up against here.

Sometimes I find myself on the wrong side of it.

I think the issue is the moment Grant Palmer apostatized he should have made this known to his employers and let the chips fall where they may - as difficult as that might have been.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

He hadn't published anything. He had never published anything until his book finally appeared. They did not tell him to stop publishing.

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.

No they didn't. This isn't an accurate portrayal of what seems to have occurred. And the details are all-important.

Pardon me if I disagree with the suggestion that you were engaging in intellectual history when you responded to that post.

I didn't say that I was "engaging in intellectual history" when I posted a three-line response to a question on a message board.

Good grief.

You were telling us why you don't like Grant Palmer.

Ridiculously false.

I was answering a question about whether (and implicitly why) his receiving a pension from CES could be viewed with less than full enthusiasm.

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

And I think your criticism of it fatuous.

So it seems that we're at an impasse.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Yes, I would have thought so.

It holds true for journalism too, by the way.

[Calm]

Agree or be eaten is a pretty good description of any message board

At least we use silverware and allow no food fights (at least not for long) on this board.

[gmormon]

http://www.amazon.com/Incomparable-Jesus-Grant-H-Palmer/dp/1589580923/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267655985&sr=8-2

Just out of curiosity has anyone read his second book "The Incomparable Jesus"?

Thoughts

I found this comment at the end of one ot the reviews quite telling:

Note: The writer of this review recently cancelled his membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a direct result of his interest in church history. Curiosity, along with a willingness to explore with an open mind the actual history of the Mormon church led him to the exit.

edit: in fact the whole review is quite telling

[Calm]

The writer of this review recently cancelled his membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Is this accurate?

[ttribe]

Is this accurate?

That's not talking about Palmer. It's referring to the individual who wrote the review on Amazon.

[gmormon]

Is this accurate?

I cut and pasted directly from the link I provided

edit: Looks like I needed ttribe's translation to understand your question

[LifeOnaPlate]

At least we use silverware and allow no food fights (at least not for long) on this board.

There are still times when things go too far. I don't see it as being on the same level as the other board, which is often dominated by discussion of this board, or people who post here. A little of that goes on here, but not near as much imo. But I haven't been reading the boards much lately, aside from topics that have directly involved me.

[ttribe]

But I haven't been reading the boards much lately, aside from topics that have directly involved me.

LOL! That means you have been reading the boards A LOT lately since you've got two threads devoted to you!

[dblagent007]

He hadn't published anything. He had never published anything until his book finally appeared. They did not tell him to stop publishing.

Yes, but he distributed a manuscript under a pseudonym? I am using the term publish to include this kind of behavior.

No they didn't. This isn't an accurate portrayal of what seems to have occurred. And the details are all-important.

"seems to have occurred"? Are you privy to the facts or not?

Do you think the CES administrators would have felt some pressure by the higher-ups (GAs, I assume) to explain how Palmer was allowed to continue his church employment after he was initially busted for writing the Paul Pry paper only to later release a highly damaging book? Do you think they would have had a motive to make it clear to anyone and everyone that the reason they let Palmer off the first time was because he swore up and down that he wouldn't do anything like this, when, in fact, they may not have extracted a commitment from Palmer not to write a book in his free time that would be published after he left CES employ?

[ttribe]

Do you think the CES administrators would have felt some pressure by the higher-ups (GAs, I assume) to explain how Palmer was allowed to continue his church employment after he was initially busted for writing the Paul Pry paper only to later release a highly damaging book? Do you think they would have had a motive to make it clear to anyone and everyone that the reason they let Palmer off the first time was because he swore up and down that he wouldn't do anything like this, when, in fact, they may not have extracted a commitment from Palmer not to write a book in his free time that would be published after he left CES employ?

Ahh, so now CES Admin and GA's are lying to save face. What a switch you've made.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, but he distributed a manuscript under a pseudonym? I am using the term publish to include this kind of behavior.

Thanks for clarifying.

"seems to have occurred"? Are you privy to the facts or not?

I'm privy to the facts, but I'm also being modest. I don't quite claim inerrancy.

Do you think the CES administrators would have felt some pressure by the higher-ups (GAs, I assume) to explain how Palmer was allowed to continue his church employment after he was initially busted for writing the Paul Pry paper only to later release a highly damaging book? Do you think they would have had a motive to make it clear to anyone and everyone that the reason they let Palmer off the first time was because he swore up and down that he wouldn't do anything like this, when, in fact, they may not have extracted a commitment from Palmer not to write a book in his free time that would be published after he left CES employ?

Nope. I know these people. I don't buy your hypothetical scenario.