Grant Palmer

[Daniel Peterson]

Personal contempt? I can't object to Scratchian tactics without being motivated by personal contempt? "Just don't pretend to be friendly to me in Claremont?" What... the... hell.

I have no personal contempt for you, Daniel. In fact, I'm quite fond of you.

Right. Your ridiculously inaccurate and inflammatory thread-title over at the Compound ("DCP accuses Grant Palmer of scamming the Church") will, as you realize fully well, expose me now to several pages of hate-posts there.

I made no such accusation, and would never accuse him of such a thing.

Publicly and grossly distorting what somebody has said and then setting him up for attack is no way to demonstrate "fondness." Your actions speak far, far louder than your words.

But there is no justification for accusing someone of scamming the Church based on anonymous second-hand gossip, and all for the purposes of discrediting said person.

"Slander for ideological reasons," you call it.

That's false and contemptible, Smith. Genuinely disgusting.

You didn't ask, because you think you "know," but I know most of the people whom Lou cited. I know what they know, and how they know it. There's nothing "second-hand" about this, it isn't "gossip," and I think the story reprehensible for reasons quite unrelated to "ideology." We even omitted things that I know and you don't.

If Grant Palmer acted fraudulently, encourage the Church to recoup its losses through legal action. Don't use it as a rhetorical curmudgeon.

Get a clue, Smith.

If I had wanted to accuse Grant Palmer of "fraud," I would have done so. I know the word and how to spell it. I had no such intention, and I didn't do so. I don't believe that there was any legal "fraud," and I don't believe that the Church has suffered any "losses" that it could or should retrieve through "legal action."

Give me a break. "Louis Midgley's sources" have exactly zero credibility with me.

His sources, whom I know (and you don't), have considerable credibility with me. (Who's talking "second hand"?)

Dan thinks he's so much better than Scratch, but here he is citing malicious slander from anonymous informants, and not even firsthand!

You're wrong. Some of it was angry, more of it was sad and feeling somewhat betrayed. None of it was malicious. And, since I know them, they're not "anonymous."

If you have facts, Smith, share them. If you don't, silence would become you better than the way you've overreacted on this thread and, still worse, over at the Compound.

But stop the wild distortion and the sensationalizing rhetoric. You've behaved very, very badly here, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Daniel Peterson]

Smith at the Compound: "not only unprofessional, but immoral . . . ideologically-motivated malicious gossip"

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I stand by what we published. It rests on information from people who were directly involved with the matter, and, so far as I was able to determine, wasn't motivated by malice in the slightest degree.

If you have facts to contest what was written, summon them up. Name-calling doesn't substitute.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes, and Brent Metcalfe stole the KEP microfilm for the Tanners when he worked at the Church archives as a security guard. And Charles Larson is a "failed high school teacher". You FARMS and FAIR folk have such a great track record when it comes to digging up dirt on perceived enemies of the Church.

You don't do yourselves any favors by repeating this kind of tripe.

I'm a FAIR/FARMS folk, Chris, where do I fit into your oversimplification?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Snarl and spit and stereotype all you want, Smith.

Just don't pretend to be friendly to me in Claremont, OK? I've had it with this sort of stuff from you.

It seems easier to be a jerk online, IMO.

[the narrator]

<br />Snarl and spit and stereotype all you want, Smith.<br /><br />Just don't pretend to be friendly to me in Claremont, OK?

[Mike Reed]

I have to second this. I too, am sincerely quite fond of you, Daniel. We disagree on many things but disagreement does not lead to dislike. Sure, I don't like some of the things you write or your tone when writing.... I'm sure you would vehemently dislike my writing and my tone.

In any case, I just wanted it to be understood that just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean that I don't like you. Hell, I'm sure we would have great conversation over a root beer.

Ditto.

[LifeOnaPlate]

<br /><br /><br />

Do I need to play Mr. nice mediator with you two next week?

Looking forward to seeing you next week, and let me add that Chris is (oddly?) perhaps your biggest defender here at Claremont.

I think Dan jumped the gun towards Chris, sure. At the same time I think Chris's cheap shot and thread at the other board was uncalled for and inaccurate. (And seeing him preaching to the choir over there is lame.)

[the narrator]

<br />It seems easier to be a jerk online, IMO.<br />

come one Blair, if you are going to accuse Chris of being a jerk, you need to be FAIR and criticize Dan and all of his followers on this board of the same level of jerkiness.

I mean seriously, 90% of this board is made up of people wanting to prove how much of a jerk the other is. It's just a big jerk-off.

[LifeOnaPlate]

come one Blair, if you are going to accuse Chris of being a jerk, you need to be FAIR and criticize Dan and all of his followers on this board of the same level of jerkiness.

I mean seriously, 90% of this board is made up of people wanting to prove how much of a jerk the other is. It's just a big jerk-off.

Why would I overgeneralize like that?

[Pahoran]

Yes, and Brent Metcalfe stole the KEP microfilm for the Tanners when he worked at the Church archives as a security guard. And Charles Larson is a "failed high school teacher". You FARMS and FAIR folk have such a great track record when it comes to digging up dirt on perceived enemies of the Church.

You don't do yourselves any favors by repeating this kind of tripe.

Chris, this doesn't need to be explained to anyone who understands what integrity is; so I'll confine my explanation to you.

Mister Palmer isn't immoral for collecting his pension; that is merely fruit of the poisoned tree. Mister Palmer was immoral to continue for years to work for a church he no longer supported, and while collecting his salary, to continue to work on his now-discredited anti-Mormon book.

What his explanation boils down to, once stripped of the self-serving spin, is: "I kept working for the Church until my pension became available, then I took early retirement."

There are some people who seem to think that people should leave the Church of Jesus Christ just as soon as they come across a question they can't answer, however absurdly peripheral it might be, such as the meaning of some hieroglyphic symbol on a scrap of papyrus; oddly enough, such people never seem to have the slightest problem in someone "bleeding the beast" by continuing to collect a Church salary while surreptitiously working against it.

That's because such people have no concept of integrity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[the narrator]

<br />Why would I overgeneralize like that?<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I don't think it is an overgeneralization. Though perhaps I should clarify and say that it is not descriptive of 90% of the participants here, but rather 90% of the activity here.

[Chris Smith]

I'm a FAIR/FARMS folk, Chris, where do I fit into your oversimplification?

Since I've never seen you dig up dirt on the Church's opponents, my comments on such efforts' lack of credibility don't apply to you.

[Jaybear]

Mister Palmer isn't immoral for collecting his pension; that is merely fruit of the poisoned tree. Mister Palmer was immoral to continue for years to work for a church he no longer supported, and while collecting his salary, to continue to work on his now-discredited anti-Mormon book.

I was under the impression that Palmer was then and still is a member of the LDS Church.

[Pahoran]

I was under the impression that Palmer was then and still is a member of the LDS Church.

Are you also under the impression that membership == commitment to the Church's truth claims?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Chris Smith]

Daniel, you claimed that Grant Palmer used "disingenuous means" in order to retain his employment and get a pension from the Church. That sounds like a "scam" to me. I don't know how my thread title over there qualifies as an "inaccurate" representation of what you said.

Having said that, it's clear to me that you're not going to take back what you said, and you don't regret saying it, and I'm not going to be able to convince you to regret saying it. So I don't see much use in my continuing the discussion. I'm sorry that I posted in anger rather than simply reporting the post or privately contacting you about my feeling that it was inappropriate. And, I'm sorry that you continue for some reason to believe I hate you. You are wrong, and I have literally no idea why you believe that about me.

[ttribe]

Daniel, you claimed that Grant Palmer used "disingenuous means" in order to retain his employment and get a pension from the Church. That sounds like a "scam" to me. I don't know how my thread title over there qualifies as an "inaccurate" representation of what you said.

Having said that, it's clear to me that you're not going to take back what you said, and you don't regret saying it, and I'm not going to be able to convince you to regret saying it. So I don't see much use in my continuing the discussion. I'm sorry that I posted in anger rather than simply reporting the post or privately contacting you about my feeling that it was inappropriate. And, I'm sorry that you continue for some reason to believe I hate you. You are wrong, and I have literally no idea why you believe that about me.

Your immediate run to MDB with this (to stir the pot) didn't help things any.

[Pahoran]

Daniel, you claimed that Grant Palmer used "disingenuous means" in order to retain his employment and get a pension from the Church. That sounds like a "scam" to me. I don't know how my thread title over there qualifies as an "inaccurate" representation of what you said.

Thus Chris, the wide-eyed ingenue.

Palmer was caught circulating the first drafts of his material under a pseudonym: "Paul Pry Jr." Since "Paul Pry" was a very early anti-Mormon writer, it's clear he knew what he was about. He apologised to his colleagues at the seminary where he worked, and was put on probation with CES. Yet he continued to work on his "Pry" material.

And you don't see anything remotely "disingenuous" going on?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Having said that, it's clear to me that you're not going to take back what you said, and you don't regret saying it, and I'm not going to be able to convince you to regret saying it. So I don't see much use in my continuing the discussion.

So you see no use continuing in any discussion unless you can convince the target of your accusations that he is wrong.

Got it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[kantgomo]

I was under the impression that Palmer was then and still is a member of the LDS Church.

Wasn't he disfellowshipped after a six hour interrogation (term?)?

[ttribe]

Wasn't he disfellowshipped after a six hour interrogation (term?)?

If I was found actively trying to undermine my employer, I should think a 6-hour "interrogation" the least of my worries.

[dblagent007]

I think Dan jumped the gun towards Chris, sure. At the same time I think Chris's cheap shot and thread at the other board was uncalled for and inaccurate. (And seeing him preaching to the choir over there is lame.)

Is "preaching to the choir" here lame?

[the narrator]

What I know of Grant Palmer's later years with CES leaves a very bad taste in my mouth

<br /><br />Well that's not very fair, as I'm sure there is much about CES alone that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. And I know for a fact that many of your colleagues feel that way about CES.

[the narrator]

<br />I think Dan jumped the gun towards Chris, sure. At the same time I think Chris's cheap shot and thread at the other board was uncalled for and inaccurate. (And seeing him preaching to the choir over there is lame.)<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I'm not exactly sure what you are describing as a "cheap shot."

Dan said that "Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment . . . by disingenuous means." Which Chris summed up as "DCP accuses Grant Palmer of scamming the Church."

Is this not exactly what Dan was accusing Palmer of?

Personally, I think Dan and Chris should both apologize to each other and acknowledge that they let their steam get ahead of their words.

Do I need to hold a Root Beer Summit next week?

[dblagent007]

Dan, you have a habit of dropping hints about really bad things about people . . . so bad that you just can't disclose them. This is like the ultimate form of character attack. The person being attacked can't respond because he/she doesn't even know what the charge is, while the bystander is left to imagine lots of really bad stuff about the person. Off the top of my head, I've seen you do this to Mike Quinn and Eric Norwood so I guess its no surprise you would do it to Grant Palmer too.

[ttribe]

Dan, you have a habit of dropping hints about really bad things about people . . . so bad that you just can't disclose them. This is like the ultimate form of character attack. The person being attacked can't respond because he/she doesn't even know what the charge is, while the bystander is left to imagine lots of really bad stuff about the person. Off the top of my head, I've seen you do this to Mike Quinn and Eric Norwood so I guess its no surprise you would do it to Grant Palmer too.

Said the guy from the comfort of his pseudonym.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is "preaching to the choir" here lame?

It certainly can be, dblagent007.