Grant Palmer

[the narrator]

Chris,

Two-faced behavior is going to wear on anyone.

What DCP said would hold up in any place of employment. I am not sure that you have entered the real world of employment but when you do, I believe what Palmer did will seem shady to even you. Where I work he would have been arrested for that type of behavior. At a minimum he would have lost his pension. BTW, minimize the usage of big words they seem to have little usage in what you are attempting to state.

Lost, would you characterize what Palmer did to ensure his employment and pension, a 'scam'?

[Ceeboo]

My first post in a while. I'M BACK!!!!!!!! ( Here it goes! )

As someone who has gained GREAT respect and admiration for these two men on this board ( Dr. Dan and Chris ), I am saddened to see this thread develop as it has.

I am confident, given these 2 men involved, that after a night sleep there will be regret on both sides of this. ( Lord knows I have been there recently ).

IMHO: 2 very good and decent men simply having a less then perfect posting day.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[lostindc]

Lost, would you characterize what Palmer did to ensure his employment and pension, a 'scam'?

Depends on how you define a scam. If a scam is to dishonestly represent yourself to an employer and work on a book to denounce and attack your employer then yes what he did was a scam. Especially in the arena he was employed. Now if you define scam as something else, let me know and I will tell you if Palmer fits the definition.

Palmer knew the unique situation of his employment and he could have left it at anytime. He chose not too. He chose to be dishonest.

It happens, thats life, but lets not pretend he is something he is not.

[the narrator]

Depends on how you define a scam. If a scam is to dishonestly represent yourself to an employer and work on a book to denounce and attack your employer then yes what he did was a scam. Especially in the arena he was employed. Now if you define scam as something else, let me know and I will tell you if Palmer fits the definition.

Thank you. That is all I needed. Now will you please tell Dan Peterson that.

[lostindc]

Thank you. That is all I needed. Now will you please tell Dan Peterson that.

Care to explain further, because I actually agree with everything Peterson stated, from Palmer scamming his employer to Chris basically being two faced and trashing DCP.

[the narrator]

Care to explain further, because I actually agree with everything Peterson stated, from Palmer scamming his employer to Chris basically being two faced and trashing DCP.

Except that you apparently don't agree with everything. Peterson has been adamantly protesting that he did not say that Palmer was 'scamming' his employers. And went on to "trash" Chris for supposedly misrepresenting him.

Peterson was claiming that Chris misrepresented what he said when Chris wrote that Peterson "accuse[d] Grant Palmer of scamming the Church." Peterson protested Chris's rephrasing, accusing Chris of misrepresenting him. Peterson then told Chris: "You and I must speak different dialects of English. Disingenuousness doesn't entail scam in my universe."

[ToGo]

Care to explain further, because I actually agree with everything Peterson stated, from Palmer scamming his employer to Chris basically being two faced and trashing DCP.

Peterson jumped all over Chris for using the word you do, scam, in describing Peterson's comments about Palmer, claiming the word scam was unwarranted by Peterson's 'disingenuous means' description.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Except that you apparently don't agree with everything. Peterson has been adamantly protesting that he did not say that Palmer was 'scamming' his employers. And went on to "trash" Chris for supposedly misrepresenting him.

Peterson was claiming that Chris misrepresented what he said when Chris wrote that Peterson "accuse[d] Grant Palmer of scamming the Church." Peterson protested Chris's rephrasing, accusing Chris of misrepresenting him. Peterson then told Chris: "You and I must speak different dialects of English. Disingenuousness doesn't entail scam in my universe."

Chris's thread says:

How is this any better than what Scratch does? Here Dan is citing malicious slander from anonymous informants, and not even firsthand!

He also said he was "engaging in slander for ideological reasons."

[ToGo]

As I said, "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," then I find that dishonorable. If you believed Louis Midgley's sources to be correct, would you regard Grant Palmer's conduct as honorable?

Doesn't your Malevolent Stalker also preface his 'intel' from his informants with "if my informant is correct..."? And why do you suppose your Malevolent Stalker does not know personally his informants as you know Midgley's sources?

[the narrator]

Chris's thread says:

Blair, but that isn't about Dan accusing Chris of misrepresenting him by using the word 'scamming.'

[lostindc]

Peterson jumped all over Chris for using the word you do, scam, in describing Peterson's comments about Palmer, claiming the word scam was unwarranted by Peterson's 'disingenuous means' description.

Palmer scammed his employer. It is a fact, what is the big deal with the usage of the word scam to describe the action of being completely dishonest? I feel bad for this Palmer fella. It seems like he has had a hard time. One day he is going to search the internet and find this thread archived and see a bunch of people arguing if he is a scammer or Disingenuousness. Probably would have been a much better decision to go sell some loans instead.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair, but that isn't about Dan accusing Chris of misrepresenting him by using the word 'scamming.'

Do you think Chris's comments fairly represent Dan at MormonDiscussions? In regards to "scamming," why not let Dan's words speak for Dan's words?

[the narrator]

Do you think Chris's comments fairly represent Dan at MormonDiscussions?

I have no idea who Scratch is, but for the rest of it, yeah. Like lostindc, I think Peterson was accusing Palmer of (1) scamming the Church. I also think that Peterson was using (2) malicious (3) slander from (4) anonymous informants, (5) who were not firsthand.

I'm puzzled by which of these you find was false?

In regards to "scamming," why not let Dan's words speak for Dan's words?

He did. That is why he quoted them word for word on the site. Not sure how he could let his words speak for themselves any more than that.

[Nemesis]

The word is disingenuous people, it's pretty innocuous it means someone is not being straightforward and totally fits this scenario. For the same cast of characters having to always be drama queens just boggles my mind and it is getting old.

Nemesis

[lostindc]

Give credit where credit is due, DCP, I believe did not say scam. Chris and I continue to state scam. I do believe palmer scammed much like you are attempting scam the board.

I have no idea who Scratch is, but for the rest of it, yeah. Like lostindc, I think Peterson was accusing Palmer of (1) scamming the Church. I also think that Peterson was using (2) malicious (3) slander from (4) anonymous informants, (5) who were not firsthand.

I'm puzzled by which of these you find was false?

He did. That is why he quoted them word for word on the site. Not sure how he could let his words speak for themselves any more than that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have no idea who Scratch is, but for the rest of it, yeah. Like lostindc, I think Peterson was accusing Palmer of (1) scamming the Church. I also think that Peterson was using (2) malicious (3) slander from (4) anonymous informants, (5) who were not firsthand.

I'm puzzled by which of these you find was false?

Can you point out where this occurred?

[the narrator]

Give credit where credit is due, DCP, I believe did not say scam. Chris and I continue to state scam. I do believe palmer scammed much like you are attempting scam the board.

How am I scamming anyone here? I'm awfully lost. lostinclaremont even.

[Chris Smith]

That's not what your previous comment said, though, which is why I entered the conversation in the first place.

That's what the comment was intended to communicate: that when FARMS and FAIR dig up dirt on people, I have not generally found it to be the whole story (or even accurate, in some cases). Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[Chris Smith]

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

Fair enough. Which is why I apologized for posting in anger rather than speaking to Dan privately.

[the narrator]

Can you point out where this occurred?

Ummm... Have you already forgotten how this got started?

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.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ummm... Have you already forgotten how this got started?

What in Midgley's review is the problem in your view?

[the narrator]

What in Midgley's review is the problem in your view?

That it was written. It's the standard FAIR of the FARMS review: Beginning with a character attack.

There is no need for that silliness. FARMS has lost a lot of respect and credibility for these tactics. It's becoming a joke among new LDS scholars.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That it was written. It's the standard FAIR of the FARMS review: Beginning with a character attack.

There is no need for that silliness. FARMS has lost a lot of respect and credibility for these tactics. It's becoming a joke among new LDS scholars.

Yet none of these new scholars are evidently capable of explaining exactly what the problem is. The problem can't be that they don't want to engage in mud-flinging, after all I've seen plenty of mud-flinging, only it consists of vague complaints and appeals to a common view of some group of up-and-coming LDS scholars. What does a person have to do to qualify as a new LDS scholar anyway? I've pretty consistently advocated for peaceful and good apologetics. I'm well aware of the reputation problem FARMS has in certain circles. I'm also well aware that many of these new scholars aren't even half familiar with most of what FARMS has done. (Parenthetically, it's the Maxwell Institute now.)

Can you give me some specifics about what bothers you in the Midgley review?

[Chris Smith]

To be clear:

1) I probably made more of Dan's comments than he intended. He did not use the words "scam", "fraud", or "hate", and I should not have put those words in his mouth even though I strongly disapprove of what he actually did say. So to the extent that I misrepresented what Dan said, I apologize.

2) Because I like and admire Dan, I do not want to ruin whatever friendship there might be between us.

3) I don't believe that FAIR and FARMS contributors all engage equally in ad hominem argumentation. The large majority do not.

As for my specific objections to Dan's remarks, I don't believe that Dan (or Louis Midgley, or anyone else) should be repeating accusations like this in a public setting, even if they should turn out to be true, for the following reasons:

1) Such gossip has no bearing on the lives of anyone here. It neither improves our lives nor has any implications as to whether Grant's arguments in Insider's View are accurate. Its total effect is therefore to seed resentment. Nothing positive comes from it, so far as I can see.

2) Such gossip is not reflective of the love that is the primary object of the Christian life.

3) Although the substance of the accusation may be true, Dan does not know for a fact that it is true, and also does not know for a fact that it tells the whole story. He does not give us Palmer's own version of events, and Palmer is not here to defend himself. Even a true accusation can be tremendously damaging if it is incomplete.

4) Dan is unable to corroborate his claims, except to cite anonymous sources. It seems that a charge of dishonesty should have some kind of verifiable corroboration behind it, or else it becomes possible make any claim about anybody. (See Mr. Scratch's posts for exhibit A.)

I would hope that Dan can accept my apology, forgive my anger and indiscretion, and understand my critique of this gossip in the constructive spirit in which it is intended, even if he disagrees with it.

And I will treat Dan kindly when he is here at Claremont, and I will do so in all sincerity, regardless of what he may think.

Peace,

-Chris

[the narrator]

Yet none of these new scholars are evidently capable of explaining exactly what the problem is.

I think I already did. It's the name-calling, ad hominems, and personal attacks that the FARMS Review uses repeatedly to set up their responses as a battle of good verses evil. It's the very reason why Midgley had to write a whole essay attacking Palmer as a person to begin their review of the book.

The problem can't be that they don't want to engage in mud-flinging, after all I've seen plenty of mud-flinging, only it consists of vague complaints and appeals to a common view of some group of up-and-coming LDS scholars.

Actually, that is pretty much what the problem is. Mud-slinging in the guise of scholarship.

What does a person have to do to qualify as a new LDS scholar anyway?

I dunno. Be a graduate student or recent graduate student actively involved with Mormon studies. They are usually my friends active in SMPT, MHA, JWHS, AML, and other acronyms. They are here at Claremont, and abroad at other graduate schools. Last summer I was in the building for the Maxwell Institute for a seminar at BYU making fun of the FARMS Review for that very thing. (I think I just remembered, is it called just The Review now?)

I've pretty consistently advocated for peaceful and good apologetics. I'm well aware of the reputation problem FARMS has in certain circles. I'm also well aware that many of these new scholars aren't even half familiar with most of what FARMS has done. (Parenthetically, it's the Maxwell Institute now.)

Can you give me some specifics about what bothers you in the Midgley review?

I did. The entire essay is set up as an attack on Palmer's character. If you can't see that, then we (to use Dan's words) are in a different universe from each other.