Grant Palmer

[Hyrum Page]

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?

Ah yes, the interminable discussion of the precise meaning of "insider." Have fun with that squabble over its relative meaning. I am satisfied that his experience as an employee at CES would make him more of an "insider," in at least some senses of the word, than most most members of the LDS Church. On the other hand, his lack of conviction of its truth according to your understanding of testimony would make him very much an outsider compared with many members of the Church. This is a boring argument to engage in.

I would say that you are free to make the argument about how his adherence or failure to adhere to this agreement with his employer would be pertinent to a discussion of the merits of the book. I do not think it is pertinent to an inquiry into the present status of Grant, unless that connection is duly drawn.

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.)

It wasn't their opinion that I was concerned about.

[Hyrum Page]

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 have read much of value in FARMS publications. I would not dismiss it all as "ad hom trash."

[dblagent007]

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

I said nothing about GAs lying. As for the CES admins, when you are put in a tough spot, you tell the story in the light that is most favorable to your side, right? Palmer probably did the same thing.

I can see how both Palmer and the CES admins justifiably feel that the other is wrong about the version of events.

[Hyrum Page]

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."

You are quite right, David. That is a solid point. At the same time, the OP was not about Grant Palmer's former relationship with CES. You are welcome to reread it if you like. I would submit that very few people have stuck to the point of the OP, and are thus all, to one extent or another, on the hook for having done so.

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.

Yes, the OP was about the current status of Grant Palmer and whether he was working on something new. You are welcome to think that the topic drift that USU initiated was more appropriate than mine, but my thought is that once it had drifted in that malodorous direction the other off-topic posts were open to criticism on a number of grounds, in addition to the criticism that they were also off topic. Thanks for mentioning that. You are right.

[Daniel Peterson]

In a reflective post over at the Compound (which, on the whole, I appreciate), Chris Smith says something that I think I need to correct: "I began to understand what may be motivating Dan in this situation, as well. He loves his Mormon community, and feels that that community is under constant attack by people like Palmer. By exposing what he perceives to be Palmer's deception, he provides a sense of vindication to his community over against its most vehement critics. It is not negativity toward Palmer that drives him, but positivity toward his own faith and family."

No.

I simply answered a question, explaining why Grant Palmer's receiving a CES pension might leave me feeling less than fully enthusiastic.

Though, it's quite true, I do love my faith and my community, and though I will defend them against attack, I was simply responding to a question. I do genuinely find such behavior as has been attributed to Grant Palmer in these specific circumstances disingenuous and dishonorable. I would feel the same way had he been a covert convert to Mormonism, working within some non-Mormon religious organization, and I think most reasonable people would, as well -- whether Mormon or non-Mormon.

[ttribe]

I said nothing about GAs lying.

Just that they might pressure someone to lie.

As for the CES admins, when you are put in a tough spot, you tell the story in the light that is most favorable to your side, right?

What tough spot? They found one of their own doing something he shouldn't have which undermined the express mission of their organization. They could have thrown him out on his backside. Instead, they let him stay on as a "chaplain" at a prison - for 13 years. They showed a tremendous amount of compassion for the man. I see nothing creating a "tough spot" for CES. I see "tough spot" created by Palmer himself for violating his word, and the trust placed on him and then shouting it to the hills with his book.

Palmer probably did the same thing.

I don't have the slightest idea and refuse to speculate.

[Daniel Peterson]

As for the CES admins, when you are put in a tough spot, you tell the story in the light that is most favorable to your side, right?

I have absolutely no reason to suspect that this is what happened in the Grant Palmer case, and you have even less reason to suspect it.

You've invented an unfaith-promoting just-so story. There is no evidence to support it.

[Pahoran]

I don't believe I said anything about saturation. And if you actually read what I have said here (though I acknowledge that there is a lot to mill through to actually do that reading), you would have seen that I explicitly said that the personal attacks are not representative as a whole. That they are present has been acknowledged by those involved with FARMS. My point has been that whether or not this myth is representative of reality, Dan's antics and similar antics by FARMS reviewers does not help in quieting the myth.

Dan's "antic" was to answer a question. His answer was honest and, AFAICT, reasonable in all the circumstances. I fail, therefore, how any reasonable person could characterise it as any kind of "personal attack," unless they are wilfully mischaracterising it as such.

And this is the very thing that I believe motives some at FARMS and FAIR to create and vilify the Other.

Your question-begging is almost as astonishing as your mind-reading skills.

The only vilification I have seen in this thread has been carried out by Chris and his loyal acolytes. How soon shall we see you taking issue with him?

<Crickets chirp>

It's a bit sad that you must immediately questions someone's faith, just because they don't totally buy into FAIR and FARMS.

Pardon me for interrupting your monologue, but I'm confident that you are quite intelligent enough to realise that I did no such thing. Perhaps your zeal to stick your fabricated FARMS monster mask on me led you astray. Of course I was not "question[ing any]one's faith"; I am not a Calvinist, and therefore presume to no such thing. It is your institutional loyalty that I am wondering about. You might think that subjecting the Church's defenders to "fire from the rear" is a powerful demonstration of your loyalty to the Kingdom, but I'm afraid that the connection is lost on me. Care to explain it?

Incidentally, I've removed your irrelevant links. They reflect poorly upon you. Thoughtful people don't simply shoehorn their ideological opponents into conveniently dismissable categories.

It's quite hilarious to see someone decrying the claim that FARMS and FAIR throw unnecessary personal jabs, and at the same time openly questioning the faith of the person they are criticizing.

It's even more hilarious to see someone decrying FARMS and FAIR for throwing unnecessary personal jabs, while staunchly defending the most visible and gratuitous jab-thrower in this thread.

But of course you don't even know who they. So like your questioning of my faith, you ignorantly question their abilities.

I've said nothing at all about their abilities; you "ignorantly" assumed something not in evidence.

They have published for Element, Dialogue, JMH, Restoration Studies, and numerous LDS and non-LDS journals. Presented for SMPT, MHA, AML, JWHS, AAR, and numerous other conferences. They've been selected to study with Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens at the BYU summer seminars.

Wow, quite a collection of TLA's and FCAN's. I'm suitably impressed, intimidated and cowed into submission.

All that is lacking there is some actual particulars. Who are these people, and what have they published?

But of course, none of it has ever been "of note" in your eyes, so of course it's nonsense.

Excuse me, but I was merely following from something someone else -- you? -- said earlier in the thread, to the effect that the devastatingly powerful contributions of this group are yet future.

Incidentally, are your "New Mormon Scholars" anything like the "New Mormon Historians" of a couple of decades ago? The ones whose idea of "New Mormon History" was simply to tart up the old anti-Mormon polemics and present them to us as the "real truth?"

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hyrum Page]

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.

OK.

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

Ah, OK, let me see:

It bothers me, and should bother anybody of integrity, if Louis Midgley's sources are correct in suggesting that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment (and, thus, to qualify for a CES pension) by disingenuous means.

OK. So, Louis Midgley has unidentified 'sources' (that's a good start) who are 'suggesting' (not averring, mind you) that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment by disingenuous means. From my reading, this is a deeply troubling accusation, which would likely only be leveled, especially on this kind of evidence, against someone you don't like.

But, OK, I grant that you weren't simply telling us why you don't like Grant. You were introducing an allegation by unnamed sources to someone else that Grant had behaved unethically in his relationship with his employer in response to an off-topic post. None of this has been proven (you can correct me if I am wrong, and David, who seems to have stronger confidence in the accusation, is welcome to do so also), but you were happy to share it anyway, since USU raised the issue in an off-topic post.

Now, maybe this is just me, but I would have refrained from using such information, lest someone think I am behaving in a, you know, 'Scratchian' fashion by relying on unnamed sources to share unconfirmed allegations. But I'm crazy like that these days, particularly when you are the target.

So it seems that we're at an impasse.

So it would seem. Pity that.

[Hyrum Page]

Thanks for answering me.

You are quite welcome.

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

Sometimes I find myself on the wrong side of it.

Which wall is that? I don't think of the principle I am defending in those terms, but I am open to your viewpoint.

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.

Well, Grant is a human being. He did what he did. Some of it may have been less than ideal. He would probably agree with that now, but I don't know the man well enough to say, having only met him on a couple of occasions.

I can believe that if you were in the position you imagine, based on the information you do have, him to have been in, you might very likely have acted in the way you claim now. And I would applaud you for doing so. If you failed, you can rest assured that I wouldn't make a federal case out of it every time someone brought up your name.

[Pahoran]

OK. So, Louis Midgley has unidentified 'sources' (that's a good start) who are 'suggesting' (not averring, mind you) that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment by disingenuous means. From my reading, this is a deeply troubling accusation, which would likely only be leveled, especially on this kind of evidence, against someone you don't like.

Actually the conclusion follows rather closely upon the evidence presented. Have you actually read the Midgley review?

The fact is that if someone I liked had treated their employer the way Mister Palmer treated CES, I'd be pretty much forced to conclude the same as Dan did.

Now, maybe this is just me, but I would have refrained from using such information, lest someone think I am behaving in a, you know, 'Scratchian' fashion by relying on unnamed sources to share unconfirmed allegations. But I'm crazy like that these days, particularly when you are the target.

How nice, or something.

I suggest you read the review.

Regards,

Pahoran

[dblagent007]

I have absolutely no reason to suspect that this is what happened in the Grant Palmer case, and you have even less reason to suspect it.

You've invented an unfaith-promoting just-so story. There is no evidence to support it.

I do have one piece of evidence to support this theory - it would explain the difference in how the CES and Palmer view the experience without either one of them being a liar.

Granted, you have access to one side of the story, but have you even heard Palmer's explanation (I heard it on Mormon Stories)? If you have, how do you account for his perspective?

[Daniel Peterson]

So, Louis Midgley has unidentified 'sources' (that's a good start)

I've met them. I know their names. I've known them, as I've said several times here, since long before I had ever heard the name Grant Palmer.

who are 'suggesting' (not averring, mind you)

What they had to say, they said in clear declarative sentences.

I was trying to be mild and moderate in my statement. (A lot of good it did me.)

that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment by disingenuous means. From my reading, this is a deeply troubling accusation

That's why I suggested that I found it troubling.

which would likely only be leveled, especially on this kind of evidence, against someone you don't like.

I have no personal feelings for or against Grant Palmer. None.

But, OK, I grant that you weren't simply telling us why you don't like Grant.

Not only wasn't I simply telling you why I don't like Grant Palmer, I wasn't telling you at all why I don't like Grant Palmer. Heck, for that matter I wasn't even telling you that I don't like Grant Palmer. Because, you know what?, I have no personal feelings for or against Grant Palmer. Absolutely none.

You were introducing an allegation by unnamed sources to someone else

An allegation confirmed directly to me by the same sources, whom I know and whose names I know.

that Grant had behaved unethically in his relationship with his employer in response to an off-topic post.

I replied to a question on the thread.

None of this has been proven

You bring the beakers and the test tubes and I'll supply the chemical solutions. That should do the job.

I have utterly no reason to believe that these people whom I first met years ago are liars. That doesn't quite amount to a geometric proof, but most normal humans would be satisfied, I think.

but you were happy to share it anyway, since USU raised the issue in an off-topic post.

I answered a question. With three lines. I'm personally aware of at least five pages of frothing internet indignation for every line of my mild little reply. It's grown considerably past ridiculous.

[dblagent007]

What tough spot? They found one of their own doing something he shouldn't have which undermined the express mission of their organization. They could have thrown him out on his backside. Instead, they let him stay on as a "chaplain" at a prison - for 13 years. They showed a tremendous amount of compassion for the man. I see nothing creating a "tough spot" for CES. I see "tough spot" created by Palmer himself for violating his word, and the trust placed on him and then shouting it to the hills with his book.

Tribe, the CES admins are placed in a tough spot when the GAs demand an explanation for why Palmer wasn't fired when they first discovered he wrote the Paul Pry manuscript. Or maybe the GAs don't demand and explanation, but the CES admins still feel a need to explain why Palmer wasn't fired earlier. When they tell the story, it will be in the light that is most favorable to them - i.e., Palmer swore up and down that he would never do anything like this again. I don't think they are necessarily lying.

[Pahoran]

I do have one piece of evidence to support this theory - it would explain the difference in how the CES and Palmer view the experience without either one of them being a liar.

Your theory's power to reconcile different viewpoints is a point in its favour, but it is not evidence.

And the fact that Mister Palmer had not published anything prior to the meeting{s} under discussion rather tends to count against it.

Granted, you have access to one side of the story, but have you even heard Palmer's explanation (I heard it on Mormon Stories)? If you have, how do you account for his perspective?

What exactly is his perspective?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ttribe]

Tribe, the CES admins are placed in a tough spot when the GAs demand an explanation for why Palmer wasn't fired when they first discovered he wrote the Paul Pry manuscript. Or maybe the GAs don't demand and explanation, but the CES admins still feel a need to explain why Palmer wasn't fired earlier. When they tell the story, it will be in the light that is most favorable to them - i.e., Palmer swore up and down that he would never do anything like this again. I don't think they are necessarily lying.

Sorry. I just don't see it this way. Perhaps I don't see GA's as unfeeling taskmasters who wouldn't be able to understand the decision making process regarding Palmer at face value.

[Hyrum Page]

I answered a question. With three lines. I'm personally aware of at least five pages of frothing internet indignation for every line of my mild little reply. It's grown considerably past ridiculous.

OK. Here's the deal. I apologize. At the same time, I would like to point out that this all comes down to me taking your word for it. I don't know these sources to whom you refer, but I trust you are not lying based on our interactions in the past. Lots of folks would say I am a fool for doing so, but so be it.

I am sorry I made such a big deal out of this. It clearly was not worth it. It rarely, if ever, is.

[ttribe]

OK. Here's the deal. I apologize. At the same time, I would like to point out that this all comes down to me taking your word for it. I don't know these sources to whom you refer, but I trust you are not lying. Lots of folks would say I am a fool for doing so, but so be it.

I am sorry I made such a big deal out of this. It clearly was not worth it. It rarely, if ever, is.

[Tarski]

Your theory's power to reconcile different viewpoints is a point in its favour, but it is not evidence.

And the fact that Mister Palmer had not published anything prior to the meeting{s} under discussion rather tends to count against it.

What exactly is his perspective?

Regards,

Pahoran

It seems that since he is still a member of the LDS church and is also a believer in Christ, you ought to refer to him as Brother Palmer. That is unless brotherhood in Christ is totally dependent on the holding of orthodox views about church history.

Would you be surprised if he showed up in the same heaven as you? Would you protest?

[the narrator]

Your question-begging is almost as astonishing as your mind-reading skills.

If you aren't capable of seeing the the fair comparison of groups creating a common Other to create self-identification and unification, then that is your own fault.

The only vilification I have seen in this thread has been carried out by Chris and his loyal acolytes.

And your question of my faith.

Pardon me for interrupting your monologue, but I'm confident that you are quite intelligent enough to realise that I did no such thing. Perhaps your zeal to stick your fabricated FARMS monster mask on me led you astray. Of course I was not "question[ing any]one's faith"

;

you said: "Narrator, you claim to be a believing Latter-day Saint. Many others in this forum have made that claim; rather more than those who actually were. DCP's Malevolent Stalker comes to mind. That's not to say that I disbelieve you, but you will forgive me for reserving judgement on the question until more evidence is in. Perhaps you are simply one of those who, as so penetratingly observed by the late great Hugh W. Nibley, think the way to earn the respect of the world is simply to agree with everything it says about us."

You were questioning my faith.

It is your institutional loyalty that I am wondering about.

Actually, you were questioning whether or not I was " a believing Latter-day Saint." You were questioning my faith. A tactic another popular figure on this thread seems to turn to as well when someone doesn't pledge allegiance to FAIR and FARMS. I've been honest all along. I don't have any institutional loyalty to FARMS. Loved it on my mission. Still enjoy parts of it now. But I don't pray to it.

You might think that subjecting the Church's defenders to "fire from the rear" is a powerful demonstration of your loyalty to the Kingdom, but I'm afraid that the connection is lost on me. Care to explain it?

Nothing to explain. I wasn't demonstrating anything to anyone. I was just defending Chris from what I felt was an unfair backlash.

Incidentally, I've removed your irrelevant links. They reflect poorly upon you. Thoughtful people don't simply shoehorn their ideological opponents into conveniently dismissable categories.

What links are you talking about?

It's even more hilarious to see someone decrying FARMS and FAIR for throwing unnecessary personal jabs, while staunchly defending the most visible and gratuitous jab-thrower in this thread.

Actually. It really is much more hilarious to see a horse's *** claiming that FARMS doesn't make personal attacks, while simultaneously questioning the faith of someone they are attacking.

I've said nothing at all about their abilities; you "ignorantly" assumed something not in evidence.

I see you also like to play the game of plausible deniability with your rhetoric. Fair enough. I also didn't say that you a horse's *** either.

Wow, quite a collection of TLA's and FCAN's. I'm suitably impressed, intimidated and cowed into submission

.

I don't know what either of those acronyms mean. Care to fill me in?

All that is lacking there is some actual particulars. Who are these people, and what have they published

?

It's not my place to name them.

Excuse me, but I was merely following from something someone else -- you? -- said earlier in the thread, to the effect that the devastatingly powerful contributions of this group are yet future.

I don't think I said anything of the sort, nor know what that would even mean.

Incidentally, are your "New Mormon Scholars" anything like the "New Mormon Historians" of a couple of decades ago? The ones whose idea of "New Mormon History" was simply to tart up the old anti-Mormon polemics and present them to us as the "real truth?

"

If you are asking if they are anything like Richard Bushman, Grant Underwood, Davis Bitton, Leonard Arrington, etc., then sure. They are just like those New Mormon Historians. Or like other new mormon scholars of a previous generation like Eugene England, Lowell Bennion, Armand Mauss, etc.

[USU78]

In a reflective post over at the Compound (which, on the whole, I appreciate), Chris Smith says something that I think I need to correct: "I began to understand what may be motivating Dan in this situation, as well. He loves his Mormon community, and feels that that community is under constant attack by people like Palmer. By exposing what he perceives to be Palmer's deception, he provides a sense of vindication to his community over against its most vehement critics. It is not negativity toward Palmer that drives him, but positivity toward his own faith and family."

No.

I simply answered a question, explaining why Grant Palmer's receiving a CES pension might leave me feeling less than fully enthusiastic.

Though, it's quite true, I do love my faith and my community, and though I will defend them against attack, I was simply responding to a question. I do genuinely find such behavior as has been attributed to Grant Palmer in these specific circumstances disingenuous and dishonorable. I would feel the same way had he been a covert convert to Mormonism, working within some non-Mormon religious organization, and I think most reasonable people would, as well -- whether Mormon or non-Mormon.

Actually it was me that brought up Palmer and his pension being vested . . . which I used to comedic effect.

DP's involvement in the Palmer/Pension discussion then ensued.

Just so we're clear here: I am the maladjusted miscreant here.

USU "Why so serious?" 78

[lostindc]

It seems that since he is still a member of the LDS church and is also a believer in Christ, you ought to refer to him as Brother Palmer. That is unless brotherhood in Christ is totally dependent on the holding of orthodox views about church history.

Would you be surprised if he showed up in the same heaven as you? Would you protest?

Little pompous and baiting dont ya think?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Would you be surprised if he showed up in the same heaven as you? Would you protest?

No protest from me. I rejoice whenever Christ suceeds in saving another sinner.

[dblagent007]

What exactly is his perspective?

If you want Palmer's perspective, you can find it here. http://mormonstories...ntPalmerPt2.mp3

Start listening at about 8:30 in.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah yes, the interminable discussion of the precise meaning of "insider." Have fun with that squabble over its relative meaning. I am satisfied that his experience as an employee at CES would make him more of an "insider," in at least some senses of the word, than most most members of the LDS Church.

CES employees are legion. Beyond their own individual membership in the Church and whatever learning they they may have accomplished pertaining to its doctrine and history -- which is accessible to virtually the Church member who cares to expend the effort -- I doubt it would be common for them to regard themselves as insiders. I've worked for a Church-correlated publication for a while now, and I wouldn't present myself as an "insider."

On the other hand, his lack of conviction of its truth according to your understanding of testimony would make him very much an outsider compared with many members of the Church. This is a boring argument to engage in.

It is germane to any discussion of what the book purports to be: "an insider's view."

I would say that you are free to make the argument about how his adherence or failure to adhere to this agreement with his employer would be pertinent to a discussion of the merits of the book. I do not think it is pertinent to an inquiry into the present status of Grant, unless that connection is duly drawn.

A reader or prospective reader is entitled to information about the circumstances surrounding the book's origin in evaluating its merits. Regardless of whether you think it is relevant, it is up to the individual reader to make that determination for him/herself. But you, apparently, would shut off discussion of it all together. You have yet to justify that attitude.

It wasn't their [people at the Mormon Discussions board] opinion that I was concerned about.

Then I repeat, I'm not worried. Nobody whose opinion I respect or care about has yet censured me for wanting to know and understand the particulars about how Palmer's book came to be or wanting to understand more about his life's circumstances as a highly visible and rather outspoken apostate.