Grant Palmer

[Stargazer]

Because I'll be damned if my tithing dollars are going to pay for some old apostate to sip merlot on the veranda.

I don't know. I believe that the tithing dollars involved would have been those which were used, during his employment, to fund his future retirement. While there may be some current tithing dollars being used in order to meet obligations not being otherwise met (due to the current economic situation), I imagine that his retirement is mostly funded by compensation he received during the time when he was faithful and believing. So it seems to me that he is entitled to it, generally.

The laborer is worthy of his hire.

[rockslider]

Sounds like Palmer should write a book on how to beat the honor code contract, I have a feeling there are others interested. Wow, the Lion king can ROAR! Truely impressive preformance.

And who the heck is this "the narrator" dude? Talking common sense? I wonder if these "next gen" are Meldrumites, with the old school being the laughing stock for more than the personal attack methods?

One of the best threads ever, very enlightening!

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh come on Dan, this sounds like a Carnie defense. Do we really need to start turning to dictionaries?

No. I speak English natively, and have a reasonably good command of it.

Disingenousness simply doesn't equal scam in my mind. Not even close. If they're mutually entailed in your vocabulary, I can only gaze on in astonishment.

If you are not accusing Palmer of engaging in dishonesty and deceit to acquire his job and pension, what are you saying? What do you mean?

I meant what I said.

It seems to me that Grant Palmer was disingenuous in his statements to his CES colleagues and superiors.

If you wish to harden that into "dishonesty" and "deceit," you're welcome to do so. And, strictly speaking, technically, I suppose you're right. But I didn't use those words. And I didn't use them for a reason.

I'm quite capable of saying what I mean.

Did you feel the necessity to state it though? What purpose did it serve?

I was answering a question. I'm apt to do that.

Well you did say, "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."

Hardly words of endearment, don't you think? I don't know how to understand this in any other way than the grammar of anger and hatred.

I've already explained how I view Smith's attitude toward my faith and toward me. If you don't believe what I said, saying it again is unlikely to make any difference.

I just had a great dinner with Chris at a burger joint in Claremont (you should hit it up when you are in town). I can assure you that I felt no contempt from with because of my faith.

It seems that my experience with Smith has differed, to some extent, from yours.

I will confess that I've been especially offended by some of the things that he's said, over the years, about my friend, colleague, and former student John Gee. They have seemed to me quite beyond the pale.

Furthermore, he has been an excellent interlocutor with us (and as I mentioned before, your biggest defender) in our Mormon Studies courses at Claremont. Bushman could vouch for that.

That's nice, if true. (I'm not sure why I need defending. I'm anything but the monster that some enjoy seeing in me.)

But he's done me no favors over at his other board, where I'm a continual target of hostile allegations, sneers, and sheer contempt. He has, in fact, just this evening, opened up yet another venue for me to be smeared.

I've got a thick skin, but it grows very tiresome. And I expected better from him.

While Chris may have been overgeneralizing about FARMS and FAIR

Ya think?

I think his comments point out the fact that many perceive FAIR and FARMS to be consistently engaging in the kind of personal attacks that Chris felt was going on here.

I realize that many people so perceive. But they're wrong.

We've published tens of thousands of pages of material at FARMS. The vast, overwhelming majority of those pages can't possibly even be imagined to involve personal attacks. I mean, really. Royal Skousen's multivolume Critical Text project? Anything by Jack Welch? John Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon? His annotated bibliography on transoceanic contacts? Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon? My papers on "Asherah" and on Psalm 82 and on "The Motif of the 'Weeping God'"?

As Chris pointed out, repeating these jabs and doing this very thing certainly does not help the image of FARMS and FAIR.

I repeated no "jabs." I said that, if what Professor Midgley's sources said about the prehistory of Grant Palmer's book is true, yes, I find Grant Palmer's behavior very problematic.

I can't lie about that. Asked a question, I'll give an honest answer.

And if I'm assaulted for giving an honest answer, I'll still give the honest answer.

And I am not talking about the image from critics, but the image of FARMS and FAIR that many of your own colleagues have, and certainly the image of FARMS and FAIR that the upcoming generation of Mormon Studies scholars have of those organizations.

I very much regret the false negative image that some may have of us. I'm sorry that they buy into the inaccurate stereotypes.

You know me, at least a little bit. And I think you understand that I'm neither vicious nor hateful. (At least, I hope you've noticed that.)

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Here are a few essays from the FARMS Review. Please situate them in your black-and-white take on the FARMS Review.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=1&id=754

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=1&id=759

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=21&num=1&id=756

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=660

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=666

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=517

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=590

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

[Chris Smith]

I will confess that I've been especially offended by some of the things that he's said, over the years, about my friend, colleague, and former student John Gee. They have seemed to me quite beyond the pale.

For what it's worth, I apologized (on multiple occasions) to John Gee for what I said about his work, too. Unfortunately some have continued to put words in my mouth whenever I disagree with Dr. Gee, assuming that my disagreement implies some personal vendetta.

[LifeOnaPlate]

What can we say for these authors, who have essays published in a book you co-edited? Why are you cavorting with these polemicists of FARMS?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=1&id=476

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=608

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=226

And isn't Dan Peterson the VP of SMPT?

What I'm aiming at here is that the simplistic idea of FARMS as useless, nothing but ad hominem attacks, etc. is unFAIR haha.

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

Let me explain what I find false:

I wasn't accusing Palmer of scamming the Church. I don't believe that he did, and I didn't say that he did.

I wasn't using malicious slander. I don't believe that what I've been told was slander, and I'm quite certain it wasn't malicious.

I wasn't basing what I said on anonymous informants, because I know them (and I know their names).

And they were "firsthand" informants. They were the very CES colleagues and superiors who were directly involved in the matter.

Other than the caveats above, though, what you've said seems reasonably correct.

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

Flatly false.

FARMS has lost a lot of respect and credibility for these tactics. It's becoming a joke among new LDS scholars.

Who, you say, don't read what we publish.

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.

Not true. A wild mischaracterization of the FARMS Review.

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.

Except that . . . well, Professor Midgley's "whole essay" wasn't about "Palmer as a person" and didn't "begin [our] review of the book."

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

What that portion of Professor Midgley's essay did is pretty much standard practice in intellectual history. Researching the genesis of books is a common topic. The fact that the genesis of Grant Palmer's book is messy and appears to put Grant Palmer in a less than flattering light is not Professor Midgley's fault.

You may not be aware of the fact that, when Grant Palmer's book first appeared, it was heavily marketed as an "insider's view" of Mormon origins (hence its title), and it was hailed in various circles as the first honest treatment of early Mormonism by the first really honest Mormon historian.

Many people wrote to us, having encountered the marketing and the press releases, to know about the background of the man and the book.

It was, under the circumstances, entirely relevant to point out that Grant Palmer wasn't, as he was being marketed, a respected Mormon historian or a high-ranking official in the Church Education System. This was his non-peer-reviewed maiden publication -- the very same people who falsely claim that FARMS publications aren't peer-reviewed often seem, ironically, to be quite passionately loyal to Grant Palmer's book, which really wasn't peer-reviewed -- mainstream Mormon historians were unfamiliar with him, he was a pretty low-ranking CES teacher who was not in the good graces of CES (and would have been in even more trouble with CES had he not concealed his beliefs and actions from his colleagues and supervisors, to the point, even, of telling them things that weren't true), and his book was, to put it mildly, extremely problematic.

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?)

No, it's not.

And, frankly, your ability to judge its contents doesn't show to best effect when it becomes clear that you don't even know its title.

I'm wondering if that was the same summer seminar in which we discovered that virtually no participant had even heard of most of what we've published. Excellent grounds, clearly, for passing judgment on it.

I'm also well aware that many of these new scholars aren't even half familiar with most of what FARMS has done.

Which certainly qualifies them to have strong opinions on it!

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.

Well, from the universe I'm in, a substantial portion of Professor Midgley's essay is devoted to a critique of Grant Palmer's unfortunate attempt to derive the story of Moroni from E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf. (This may, of course, not be true in all possible universes.)

Sigh. This has all been profoundly depressing. My enthusiasm for the lectures at Claremont is at a very low ebb, and if I could withdraw at this point, I would.

[USU78]

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.

Well . . . what do we do about somebody who relies upon forgeries to make his main point, and continues to rely thereon after the forgeries are established as forgeries?

And what do we do about someone who so grossly misunderstands German Romantic literature that he makes connections that aren't connections . . . held together by those selfsame forgeries?

What to make of such a one?

Do we defend his evident stupidity when he's called on it?

Or do we call him on it as well?

[Chris Smith]

Well . . . what do we do about somebody who relies upon forgeries to make his main point, and continues to rely thereon after the forgeries are established as forgeries?

And what do we do about someone who so grossly misunderstands German Romantic literature that he makes connections that aren't connections . . . held together by those selfsame forgeries?

What to make of such a one?

Do we defend his evident stupidity when he's called on it?

Or do we call him on it as well?

I've seen worse. Are we to conclude that everyone who makes significant mistakes in their reasoning is "stupid"?

Perhaps instead of calling him on his "evident stupidity," you could simply strongly disagree with whatever conclusions he drew?

Just sayin'.

[Daniel Peterson]

Sounds like Palmer should write a book on how to beat the honor code contract, I have a feeling there are others interested. Wow, the Lion king can ROAR! Truely impressive preformance.

And who the heck is this "the narrator" dude? Talking common sense? I wonder if these "next gen" are Meldrumites, with the old school being the laughing stock for more than the personal attack methods?

One of the best threads ever, very enlightening!

Your amateur ethology (as expressed more fully over at the Compound) has been duly noted, and will be accorded the credit that it deserves.

But if you want to see a really enlightening thread, there's one on a truly vile apostate board in which they're falling all over themselves to express their shock at my bitterness over Grant Palmer's pension and my desire to see Grant Palmer and all apostates starve to death. I've forfeited any claim to decency and good character, and etc. and so forth.

It grows tiresome.

[rockslider]

Sigh. This has all been profoundly depressing. My enthusiasm for the lectures at Claremont is at a very low ebb, and if I could withdraw at this point, I would.

Oh boo hoo ... guess I better go eat some worms ... the new kids on the block don't like me

[Daniel Peterson]

Oh boo hoo ... guess I better go eat some worms ... the new kids on the block don't like me

I knew that saying that would draw mockery from the Compound.

Nevertheless, it's true.

Curiously -- and it's plainly a psychological defect in me that deserves ridicule and derision -- I sometimes weary of being portrayed as an unethical and cruel person. Maybe that wouldn't bother a noble demigod like yourself, but it does occasionally depress me.

[rockslider]

Your amateur ethology (as expressed more fully over at the Compound) has been duly noted, and will be accorded the credit that it deserves.

But if you want to see a really enlightening thread, there's one on a truly vile apostate board in which they're falling all over themselves to express their shock at my bitterness over Grant Palmer's pension and my desire to see Grant Palmer and all apostates starve to death. I've forfeited any claim to decency and good character, and etc. and so forth.

It grows tiresome.

I've said nothing of your words about Palmer ...

Have you EVER been wrong? Have you ever backed down? Have you ever apologized? I've never seen it ... and now, the King wants to back out of his engagement, over this petty squabble ...

[Nemesis]

Oh boo hoo ... guess I better go eat some worms ... the new kids on the block don't like me

Kind of over the top and very unnecessary and above all very childish. This explains alot.

Nemesis

[USU78]

I've seen worse. Are we to conclude that everyone who makes significant mistakes in their reasoning is "stupid"?

Perhaps instead of calling him on his "evident stupidity," you could simply strongly disagree with whatever conclusions he drew?

Just sayin'.

The stupidity is not in making the initial error of connecting the salamander/fire spirit of the German early XIXth Century novella, but rather in continuing to make the connection to the forged Salamander Letter. Have you ready our friend Palmer's work? Have you read Der Goldne Topf? It's available in pretty good English translations all over the place.

No reasonable person can make the connections between Hoffmann's novella and Moroni under these circumstances unless he's stupid or a disingenuous ideologue.

I prefer stupid.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've said nothing of your words about Palmer ...

But my words about Palmer are the topic of discussion here.

If you simply want to mock me personally, you should probably retire to the Compound and start a thread there.

Have you EVER been wrong?

Yes. More times than I can count.

Have you ever backed down?

Whenever I've felt that it was the appropriate thing to do, yes.

Have you ever apologized?

Several times today alone.

I've never seen it ...

Coming from somebody whom I don't know and who doesn't know me, that must surely count for something, I suppose.

and now, the King wants to back out of his engagement, over this petty squabble ...

Do you have anything of substance to say?

Or is sneering your idea of substance?

[the narrator]

No. I speak English natively, and have a reasonably good command of it.

Disingenousness simply doesn't equal scam in my mind. Not even close. If they're mutually entailed in your vocabulary, I can only gaze on in astonishment.

I know you know logic well enough to know that mutual entailment is not necessary to make this fairly clear connection. If you want to maintain your stance that you in no way implied a scam, well then I'm really not sure what you meant. As others here (who are your clear supporters) also quickly saw the implicit (or what they may have seen as explicit) reading, then perhaps it was you who you who perhaps needed to be more clear when making such an accusation to avoid these kinds of misconceptions.

I believe I have seen you often critique those who use 'cult' in a derogatory manner, only to cower back in technical definitions in denial.

Sometimes when our failure to communicate well requires an apology even if there never was any ill intent. We're both married, we know how that is.

It seems to me that Grant Palmer was disingenuous in his statements to his CES colleagues and superiors

.

I don't know Palmer, neither am I privy to his situation. And frankly I don't care. Yeah, his book wasn't perfect and had it's flaws, but from all that I have read of him, he seems to have charity at his heart, and Christ in his intent, so that is all I care for.

If you wish to harden that into "dishonesty" and "deceit," you're welcome to do so. And, strictly speaking, technically, I suppose you're right. But I didn't use those words. And I didn't use them for a reason.

Of course you didn't use them for a reason. You know as well as me how powerful words can be, and how ever more powerful carefully chosen words are. Plausible deniability lies at the heart of careful and disingenuous discourse.

I was answering a question. I'm apt to do that.

Of course you are. I use that all the time to be a jerk.

I've already explained how I view Smith's attitude toward my faith and toward me. If you don't believe what I said, saying it again is unlikely to make any difference. It seems that my experience with Smith has differed, to some extent, from yours.

I don't really know much about your experiences with each other, I only know what he has told me about you... which has only been in the positive. As far as your faith goes, I like to assume that we share the same faith. In my experience with Chris (and the rest who know him here), his attitude with my faith has been one of complete respect. If you feel like you have experienced something different, I'm sorry. I'll slap him on the back of the head for you.

I will confess that I've been especially offended by some of the things that he's said, over the years, about my friend, colleague, and former student John Gee. They have seemed to me quite beyond the pale.

I recognize that the blood between Chris and Gee may not be all that great. He mentioned it briefly with me, but refrained from expanding on it when I tried to pry in. Seeing that he is trying to move past it and his made an apology as a step toward that, I think perhaps it might be time to let them sort it out and you not

That's nice, if true. (I'm not sure why I need defending. I'm anything but the monster that some enjoy seeing in me.)

Well it's true.

But he's done me no favors over at his other board, where I'm a continual target of hostile allegations, sneers, and sheer contempt. He has, in fact, just this evening, opened up yet another venue for me to be smeared.

I've got a thick skin, but it grows very tiresome. And I expected better from him.

You should know by now that you can't expect the best from anyone in boards like these. They are just breading grounds of contention, miscommunication, and all around jerkiness.

I realize that many people so perceive. But they're wrong.

We've published tens of thousands of pages of material at FARMS. The vast, overwhelming majority of those pages can't possibly even be imagined to involve personal attacks. I mean, really. Royal Skousen's multivolume Critical Text project? Anything by Jack Welch? John Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon? His annotated bibliography on transoceanic contacts? Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon? My papers on "Asherah" and on Psalm 82 and on "The Motif of the 'Weeping God'"?

I perhaps overgeneralized and apologies. I think FARMS does some great stuff. In fact I was telling Chris that I think your essay in Nephi's Asherah is perhaps the best FARMS essay I have ever read. (Where, by the way, is your essay on the Weeping God?). Rather, my feelings about FARMS are basically rooted in the FARMS Review (or whatever it is called now), which I know you have headed on and off (mostly on?) for the last bit of forever.

I very much regret the false negative image that some may have of us. I'm sorry that they buy into the inaccurate stereotypes.

I'm sorry that all too often the Review builds that very stereotype. Now I don't mean to say that all of the Reviews are like that, but it seems clear to me (and to many others) that the Review has a tendency to go for personal attacks that are unnecessary. Perhaps you feel that this view is unfounded, but it is the view that exists, and every time it happens--no matter how rare it may be--reinforces that view.

You know me, at least a little bit. And I think you understand that I'm neither vicious nor hateful. (At least, I hope you've noticed that.)

I know that you are neither, or at least I have never seen it in person. To be honest, I think you are the strongest voice of reason among the FARMS regulars--that is not to say that you are the only one with reason, but the strongest.

Ugh. I feel like I have been way to patronizing here. My apologies. Again, looking forward to seeing you next week.

[LifeOnaPlate]

the narrator: boo-urns to your response that simply reading Midgley's review will demonstrate that it is nothing but an ad hominem attack. I hope you'll give some specifics. I don't like everything about the review, but your dismissal seems a bit too easy.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm sorry that all too often the Review builds that very stereotype. Now I don't mean to say that all of the Reviews are like that, but it seems clear to me (and to many others) that the Review has a tendency to go for personal attacks that are unnecessary. Perhaps you feel that this view is unfounded, but it is the view that exists, and every time it happens--no matter how rare it may be--reinforces that view.

Wouldn't you prefer an accurate opinion to a popular one?

[William Schryver]

Curiously -- and it's plainly a psychological defect in me that deserves ridicule and derision -- I sometimes weary of being portrayed as an unethical and cruel person. Maybe that wouldn't bother a noble demigod like yourself, but it does occasionally depress me.

Believe me, I'm familiar with the sensation.

[the narrator]

Let me explain what I find false:

I wasn't accusing Palmer of scamming the Church. I don't believe that he did, and I didn't say that he did.

I wasn't using malicious slander. I don't believe that what I've been told was slander, and I'm quite certain it wasn't malicious.

I wasn't basing what I said on anonymous informants, because I know them (and I know their names).

And they were "firsthand" informants. They were the very CES colleagues and superiors who were directly involved in the matter.

Other than the caveats above, though, what you've said seems reasonably correct.

Flatly false.

Who, you say, don't read what we publish.

Not true. A wild mischaracterization of the FARMS Review.

Except that . . . well, Professor Midgley's "whole essay" wasn't about "Palmer as a person" and didn't "begin [our] review of the book."

What that portion of Professor Midgley's essay did is pretty much standard practice in intellectual history. Researching the genesis of books is a common topic. The fact that the genesis of Grant Palmer's book is messy and appears to put Grant Palmer in a less than flattering light is not Professor Midgley's fault.

You may not be aware of the fact that, when Grant Palmer's book first appeared, it was heavily marketed as an "insider's view" of Mormon origins (hence its title), and it was hailed in various circles as the first honest treatment of early Mormonism by the first really honest Mormon historian.

Many people wrote to us, having encountered the marketing and the press releases, to know about the background of the man and the book.

It was, under the circumstances, entirely relevant to point out that Grant Palmer wasn't, as he was being marketed, a respected Mormon historian or a high-ranking official in the Church Education System. This was his non-peer-reviewed maiden publication -- the very same people who falsely claim that FARMS publications aren't peer-reviewed often seem, ironically, to be quite passionately loyal to Grant Palmer's book, which really wasn't peer-reviewed -- mainstream Mormon historians were unfamiliar with him, he was a pretty low-ranking CES teacher who was not in the good graces of CES (and would have been in even more trouble with CES had he not concealed his beliefs and actions from his colleagues and supervisors, to the point, even, of telling them things that weren't true), and his book was, to put it mildly, extremely problematic.

No, it's not.

And, frankly, your ability to judge its contents doesn't show to best effect when it becomes clear that you don't even know its title.

I'm wondering if that was the same summer seminar in which we discovered that virtually no participant had even heard of most of what we've published. Excellent grounds, clearly, for passing judgment on it.

Which certainly qualifies them to have strong opinions on it!

Well, from the universe I'm in, a substantial portion of Professor Midgley's essay is devoted to a critique of Grant Palmer's unfortunate attempt to derive the story of Moroni from E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf. (This may, of course, not be true in all possible universes.)

Sigh. This has all been profoundly depressing. My enthusiasm for the lectures at Claremont is at a very low ebb, and if I could withdraw at this point, I would.

I'm going to just have to withdraw from this and apologize for any overgeneralizations I have made. While I may not know the latest title of the FARMS Review--I'm guessing that it is just that currently, it is hardly evidence of my knowledge of the contents. Do I have every essay memorized, no. Do I think it at times has great responses available, sure. I think the review of How Wide the Divide is a great example of how it can and should be done (and was the reason I got into philosophy after my mission). Do I think that other essays have severely failed to meet this level of civility, certainly. Unfortunately, this failing has marked a challenge for me (and many others) to take it seriously.

BTW, the comments you attributed to me about new LDS scholars being unaware of what FARMS is doings was a failure of me to properly tag Blair's comments. Those were his words, which may be true to an extent, but I believe are marks of the challenge and not the source.

This conversation has devolved from the beginning and going nowhere. I'm sorry for hard feelings I may have caused.

[rockslider]

It was interesting, in the Midgley paper, that he noted that the work was going to be viewed as ad hominem, and defended the reasons that it should not be viewed as such (based on his claims of position, verses his actual experience). The section noting his actual work history would likely have sufficed.

It was a long paper, with section after section of what appeared to be focused on pretty personal issues (above and beyond the work history issue)

[Daniel Peterson]

I know you know logic well enough to know that mutual entailment is not necessary to make this fairly clear connection.

It's not a logical question. It's a lexical and semantic one.

Again, I can think of innumerable circumstances for which I would use the term disingenuous when I'm not even remotely thinking of a scam -- which, to me, is an economic or commercial concept akin to (if not synonymous with) fraud. In fact, I would rarely use the term disingenuousness in a financial or commercial context.

If you want to maintain your stance that you in no way implied a scam, well then I'm really not sure what you meant.

I meant, simply, that he was, as I see it, disingenuous if not outright dishonest in his commitments to his supervisors and in his comments to his colleagues. Was there an economic motivation (i.e., his looming retirement and pension) for what he did? Possibly. Even probably. But whether it was his primary motive or not, I don't know and don't much care. I'm really not bothered by his drawing a pension. I'm bothered by disingenuousness.

As others here (who are your clear supporters) also quickly saw the implicit (or what they may have seen as explicit) reading, then perhaps it was you who you who perhaps needed to be more clear when making such an accusation to avoid these kinds of misconceptions.

I think I've said what I meant and what I didn't mean enough times that there should be little question by this point.

I don't know Palmer, neither am I privy to his situation. And frankly I don't care. Yeah, his book wasn't perfect and had it's flaws, but from all that I have read of him, he seems to have charity at his heart, and Christ in his intent, so that is all I care for.

I've said nothing whatever about his character in general. From what I can tell, he seems a nice enough fellow. But I continue to regard his behavior during the writing of the initial draft of his book as disingenuous. I really can't see any other way to regard it.

Of course you didn't use them for a reason. You know as well as me how powerful words can be, and how ever more powerful carefully chosen words are. Plausible deniability lies at the heart of careful and disingenuous discourse.

The insinuation of deception on my part is duly noted.

But I deny it.

I'm not sneaky. If anything, I'm typically too forthright. It gets me in trouble.

I used the words I did because I meant what they said, and no more. Yes, I know how powerful words can be. I tend to be quite careful in my choice of them. And I don't much appreciate it when others read into what I've said words that I haven't used.

You should know by now that you can't expect the best from anyone in boards like these. They are just breading grounds of contention, miscommunication, and all around jerkiness.

Absolutely true. I quit posting over at the Compound some months ago, because it seemed utterly pointless and only brought frustration.

This thread hasn't exactly improved my attitude toward message boards.

I perhaps overgeneralized and apologies. I think FARMS does some great stuff.

Yes, you overgeneralized. Apology accepted.

In fact I was telling Chris that I think your essay in Nephi's Asherah is perhaps the best FARMS essay I have ever read. (Where, by the way, is your essay on the Weeping God?).

"On the Motif of the Weeping God in Moses 7"

Rather, my feelings about FARMS are basically rooted in the FARMS Review (or whatever it is called now), which I know you have headed on and off (mostly on?) for the last bit of forever.

Present at the creation, and always on.

But the FARMS Review is only a relatively small portion of what the Maxwell Institute (or even FARMS) publishes.

I'm sorry that all too often the Review builds that very stereotype. Now I don't mean to say that all of the Reviews are like that, but it seems clear to me (and to many others) that the Review has a tendency to go for personal attacks that are unnecessary. Perhaps you feel that this view is unfounded, but it is the view that exists, and every time it happens--no matter how rare it may be--reinforces that view.

I do feel that the view is basically unfounded. Of the many thousands of pages published in the FARMS Review over the years, the vast majority cannot, by any stretch, reasonably be depicted as relying on "personal attacks."

[sunstoned]

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."

Pahoran,

Seldom to I agree with you on this board, but this time you have hit the nail on the head. IMO if Mr. Palmer was acting as a moral person and lost his faith, then he should have ridden it out the last few years without messing without anyone's mind or testimony, and then collected his pension (which he earned) and then he should have shut up about it. Coming out with his book after his years of service in the CES smacks of deceit.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This conversation has devolved from the beginning and going nowhere. I'm sorry for hard feelings I may have caused.

There is little more that can be said to resurrect things, so how about a few zany emoticons?