Grant Palmer

[Chris Smith]

boo-urns

Smithers, are they saying "boo," or "boo-urns?"

[Chris Smith]

Yes, you overgeneralized. Apology accepted.

Will you accept my apologies? It would help me sleep tonight without developing an ulcer.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Smithers, are they saying "boo," or "boo-urns?"

Classic, dude. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRT70ceAMQ4

[dblagent007]

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)

Yeah, I thought Midgely's "review" was little more than a character assassination. I guess Palmer's "insider" status was a burning question for FARMS, not so much for the rest of us (does it really affect the accuracy of the rest of his claims?).

I don't buy his Golden Pot theory, but I thought he provided a good collection of interesting historical information.

[Wiki Wonka]

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

I keep mistakenly jumping into a thread titled "Daniel and the Lion's Den," thinking that it's this one...

WW

[LifeOnaPlate]

I keep mistakenly jumping into a thread titled "Daniel and the Lion's Den," thinking that it's this one...

WW

Our foes have rejoiced when our sorrows they've seen.

[Daniel Peterson]

Will you accept my apologies? It would help me sleep tonight without developing an ulcer.

Okay.

It will help me go to Claremont without wishing I could go just about anyplace else instead.

[Chris Smith]

Okay.

Thank you.

[the narrator]

Okay.

It will help me go to Claremont without wishing I could go just about anyplace else instead.

Oh come on, Claremont isn't that bad. It's got a great burger joint.

And me, which is reason enough for anyone to come out here.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, I thought Midgely's "review" was little more than a character assassination.

Except that much of it was about E. T. A. Hoffman and the rest of it wasn't character assassination.

It was intellectual history, focusing on the genesis of Grant Palmer's book. That Grant Palmer's behavior appears to have been rather less than honorable is not a fact that was created by Professor Midgley. And wailing about Professor Midgley's supposed nastiness won't make the reality go away.

I guess Palmer's "insider" status was a burning question for FARMS, not so much for the rest of us (does it really affect the accuracy of the rest of his claims?).

It affects his status. And his status, as I've indicated above, was being greatly puffed up in the marketing materials produced by Signature Books in order to puff his book.

As I've also indicated above, people -- and not just a few of them -- were asking us who he was. Was he really a leader of CES? (No.) Was he really the preeminent Mormon historian? (Not by light years.) Was he truly an "insider," with an "insider's" knowledge of early Mormonism? (Again, no.)

[Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, Rock Slider, I notice that, over at the Compound, you've suggested that, since he has a doctorate, Grant Palmer would be a great candidate for inclusion on "Mormon Scholars Testify."

Har har har.

Doctorates aren't necessarily required for inclusion on "Mormon Scholars Testify."

So far as I'm aware, though, Grant Palmer has a master's degree (from BYU), but no doctorate.

[Chris Smith]

Oh come on, Claremont isn't that bad. It's got a great burger joint.

True, but you have to go to Upland to get Chipotle.

Which is unacceptable.

[dblagent007]

It affects his status. And his status, as I've indicated above, was being greatly puffed up in the marketing materials produced by Signature Books in order to puff his book.

I don't think targeting a substantial portion of the FARMS review at Signature's marketing hype was a good move. Focusing on that sideshow gave me the feeling that FARMS didn't dispute most of the substance (other than the Golden Pot).

As I've also indicated above, people -- and not just a few of them -- were asking us who he was. Was he really a leader of CES? (No.) Was he really the preeminent Mormon historian? (Not by light years.) Was he truly an "insider," with an "insider's" knowledge of early Mormonism? (Again, no.)

I guess this goes back to the idea that people will automatically discount the other side and give credence to their own side. Thus, it was important to make sure that everyone knew that Palmer was on the other side so they could easily dismiss the whole thing as "anti-mormon."

I watched the PBS documentary on the Mormons back when I was a TBM and one of my biggest peeves was that Whitney did not list whether the speakers were mormon so I had no idea who I could really trust. Oh man, was I ever naive.

[All-Seeing Eye]

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

Regards,

Pahoran

I, for one, am under no such impression... hence, one reason why I am puzzled when the church brings up its membership numbers.

[rockslider]

Incidentally, Rock Slider, I notice that, over at the Compound, you've suggested that, since he has a doctorate, Grant Palmer would be a great candidate for inclusion on "Mormon Scholars Testify."

Har har har.

Doctorates aren't necessarily required for inclusion on "Mormon Scholars Testify."

So far as I'm aware, though, Grant Palmer has a master's degree (from BYU), but no doctorate.

From the Midgley paper you linked:

"He then worked one year on a Ph.D. at Brigham Young University before being again assigned as CES coordinator for the Chico Stake (1975

[Daniel Peterson]

He didn't finish the Ph.D.

I don't think targeting a substantial portion of the FARMS review at Signature's marketing hype was a good move.

I thought it was an obligation on our part, given the number of phone calls and letters and e-mails that we were receiving on the matter, and I stand by that judgment still.

Focusing on that sideshow gave me the feeling that FARMS didn't dispute most of the substance (other than the Golden Pot).

So, in other words, you were wholly unaware of the simultaneously-published essay by Davis Bitton and of the simultaneously-published reviews by Steven Harper and Mark Ashurst-McGee and of the simultaneously-published statement from the Smith Institute, and you entirely missed the subsequently-published review by James Allen?

I am puzzled when the church brings up its membership numbers.

Would you prefer that they be kept secret?

[dblagent007]

So, in other words, you were wholly unaware of the simultaneously-published essay by Davis Bitton and of the simultaneously-published reviews by Steven Harper and Mark Ashurst-McGee and of the simultaneously-published statement from the Smith Institute, and you entirely missed the subsequently-published review by James Allen?

Here is the beginning of Bitton's review:

Grant H. Palmer thinks the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been dishonest by holding back information that controverts the traditional account of its origins. But he doesn't mind holding back quite a bit himself.

The present book is not just a view of Mormon origins but "an insider's view" of those origins. We are supposed to be really impressed. An "insider" must certainly know the facts. An "insider" surely wouldn't be so ill-bred as to write against his own religion. So thinks the general reader who comes across the advertising or examines the cover and opening pages of Palmer's book.

Am I in a position to give an "insider" perspective on America just because I live in America and am an American citizen? I shop at a certain store. Does that entitle me to claim "insider" status if I choose to write about that store? Perhaps if our author had been a secretary to the First Presidency, he could then write an insider's expos

[ttribe]

Bitton does the same thing. The undue focus on this issue gives the impression that it was more important than the substance of what Palmer wrote.

Does motive not matter?

[USU78]

Bitton does the same thing. The undue focus on this issue gives the impression that it was more important than the substance of what Palmer wrote.

If it wasn't important and shouldn't be discussed, then why should Palmer bring up his background in his forward?

I think too often we ignore the forwards to books. They tell us a lot about what authors want us to think . . . and sometimes things I doubt they intend.

Palmer, by his marketing approach to his book, and perhaps stupidly, invites us to look at his credentials and motivations.

Why should anybody be annoyed that somebody accepted Palmer's invitation?

[dblagent007]

If it wasn't important and shouldn't be discussed, then why should Palmer bring up his background in his forward?

I think Palmer gives his side of the story in the interview he gave to Mormon Stories. http://mormonstories.org/?p=92

[USU78]

I think Palmer gives his side of the story in the interview he gave to Mormon Stories. http://mormonstories.org/?p=92

Which interview postdates Midgely's review by 3 years.

Na, und?

[Benjamin McGuire]

dblagent007,

One of the problems with Palmer's text is that its easy to make a lot of claims that don't really need to be substantiated - but its much more difficult to explain why the reasoning is faulty, and show how the methodology is messed up, and so on. I talked to Bitton a couple of times while he was writing his review. After Palmer did his interview with John D., I was prepared to respond to it, but at the time John declined because he felt that my approach was too academic (and he was probably right). But at the same time, my approach was rather devastating to the way in which Palmer used sources. Take for example, my comments in this discussion here:

At any rate, I think that it's easy to champion Palmer, but very difficult to actually defend him.

[dblagent007]

dblagent007,

One of the problems with Palmer's text is that its easy to make a lot of claims that don't really need to be substantiated - but its much more difficult to explain why the reasoning is faulty, and show how the methodology is messed up, and so on. I talked to Bitton a couple of times while he was writing his review. After Palmer did his interview with John D., I was prepared to respond to it, but at the time John declined because he felt that my approach was too academic (and he was probably right). But at the same time, my approach was rather devastating to the way in which Palmer used sources. Take for example, my comments in this discussion here:

http://www.mormonapo...7-grant-palmer/

At any rate, I think that it's easy to champion Palmer, but very difficult to actually defend him.

You made some good points in that other thread. You should have written a review of Palmer's book. It would have been nice to see a high quality review that didn't focus so heavily on his past. I tend to agree, however, that it wouldn't work in a podcast format.

[Calm]

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.

Never occurred to me that you meant a scam...perhaps I've been watching too much Leverage where the scam is an elaborate plan to get a lot of money for little or no money right from the beginning, IOW the intent is to cheat someone.

From what Palmer and others have described about his activities, I doubt that he went into the situation anticipating where he was going to end up, let alone planning anything beyond doing some research and maybe garnering a few accolades for it. It's possible that at those moments when he made commitments, he fully intended to honour them. From his own descriptions, it seems his thoughts and intentions varied a great deal over the time period of his employement, not focused on a plan to defraud his employers. He also seems to think that if the Church paid attention to his work in a positive way, it would actually benefit members, not leave them with less than they had before they encountered him.

And I highly suspect that he feels that he gave full value for his salary and pension even if he were to admit that his qualifications for that work were lacking to the standard required by his boss and he had been less than forthright or even outright dishonest about them (it is a fact that one can be a good teacher even if one is lowest of the low and a rotten teacher when one is the most honourable individual in existence, after all and it's easily enough to rationalize that one's boss shouldn't have a say in what one does when not working, but only the hours for which one is being paid to work...and I would agree--and disagree---with that to a certain extent myself).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's a perhaps-irreverent question. How much time must pass after Grant Palmer's death for it to be OK to talk about his methods in writing the book? How does it compare with his discussion of Joseph Smith?