Grant Palmer

[Darth J]

Palmer set himself up as being part and parcel of the thesis of his book, the title of which is "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

Palmer traded upon his status as an "insider" to bolster the claims of this book. Yet his perspective toward the Church (as exemplified in Midgley's findings about "Paul Pry, Jr.") demonstrate the falsity of all this. So it's not an "ad hominem" to question the integrity of a person whose thesis relies on this status as an "insider."

I see the same flaw in Martha Beck and her "Leaving the Saints" book. The validity of the risible claims in that book were heavily dependent on Martha Beck, her personal life, her experiences, her words, her conduct. She injected herself into her thesis, just like Palmer did with his. So questioning it's not an "ad hominem" to question her integrity, either.

-Smac

Here's the distinction: Palmer's book was merely disingenuous. Beck's book was not just disingenuous, but punishingly stupid.

I also thought the misleading part of Palmer was "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." Palmer wasn't there, so he isn't an "insider" about Mormon origins. If he called it "An Insider's View of Mormon History," that might be more accurate. But that still conveys that Palmer is supposed to be more trustworthy about "what really happened" because he's an "insider."

[Darth J]

I think folks who have a problem with Roland Emmerich's 2012 would do well to make better movies rather than criticize the piece of crap.

If only we all had time and means to direct movies...

I didn't make this, but here is a better movie than 2012:

[the narrator]

The popular anti-FARMS ad hominem claim that the FARMS Review is saturated with personal attacks is glaringly and demonstrably false. More to the point, it is an ideological statement that functions as a kind of recognition code among anti-Mormons in general, cultural Mormons, fringe Mormons and the Signaturi.

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.

A shared myth that, although having no probative value at all, nevertheless performs a useful function as a kind of cultural glue, enabling them to stand shoulder to shoulder against the common enemy.

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

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.

It's a bit sad that you must immediately questions someone's faith, just because they don't totally buy into FAIR and FARMS. Well after having been in one of Dan's wards, I hope that he could vouch for me (at least for that time). Sheesh, his wife even asked for a copy of a talk I gave to send to their son on missions. My previous bishop certainly thought I was faithful enough to allow me to marry my wife last summer. And my current bishop seemed to think I was faithful enough to ask me to speak in sacrament meeting a couple days ago. Is that not good enough, or do I need to fax you a copy of my temple recommend? Give me a break.

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.

As your "new Mormon scholars," the ones who think FARMS is such a joke, have yet to actually publish anything of note, we'll wait and see what they have to say, shall we?

But of course you don't even know who they. So like your questioning of my faith, you ignorantly question their abilities. 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. But of course, none of it has ever been "of note" in your eyes, so of course it's nonsense.

You're too awesome.

[the narrator]

I didn't make this, but here is a better movie than 2012:

Awesome. If I had watched that for 2.5 hours, it would have been a time much better spent than watching 2012.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't make this, but here is a better movie than 2012:

haha!

[Daniel Peterson]

Just noticed a couple of things over at the Compound:

a)

"His sole purpose in posting in the Palmer thread," says someone (referring to me) who was otherwise quite kind to me, "was to continue a campaign of damaging Palmer's reputation in an effort to protect the Church."

This is absolutely false. I answered a question. I answered it honestly and mildly and in a non-inflammatory way, and I stand by my answer: If what I've been told about Grant Palmer's actions during the writing of the first draft of his book is true, I regard those actions as dishonorable and disingenuous.

There is no campaign, and I had no ulterior motive. I haven't thought or written or talked about Grant Palmer, so far as I can recall, for several years.

b)

Chris Smith, writing as if he imagines I can't read what he says over there, laments my pitiable oversensitivity to criticism and vows to treat me more gently in the future, in hopes of more effectively guiding me, tenderly, to behavioral change. (The condescension is thick enough to cut with a knife.)

Good grief. If I were truly oversensitive to criticism, I would have hanged myself years ago. My Malevolent Stalker's four-year campaign of character assassination against me, although unique in its obsessive and rather cunning perversity, is far from unusual. I'm routinely maligned (and, on a few occasions, my wife has even been mocked and insulted, not to mention a non-existent daughter of mine who made a brief appearance in an anti-Mormon thread a few weeks back) not only in the Compound and at CARM and on the oddly-named "Recovery" board but, from what I've seen, in dozens of other places on the Web -- as well as, no doubt, in discussions on Websites of which I know absolutely nothing. (I stumbled across a new one just last night, for example, while looking for something else.) This happens virtually daily. Certainly weekly. If I didn't occasionally tire of it, there would be solid grounds for assuming me to be dead.

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

And you continue to ignore the lengthy and substantial reviews written by James Allen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Steven Harper, as well as the statement written by Jill Mulvay Derr on behalf of the Smith Institute.

It would have been nice to see a high quality review that didn't focus so heavily on his past.

And yet you continue to ignore the lengthy and substantial reviews written by James Allen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Steven Harper, as well as the statement written by Jill Mulvay Derr on behalf of the Smith Institute.

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?

An excellent question, and right on point.

As I've said, Professor Midgley's examination of the genesis of Grant Palmer's book is exactly the kind of thing that intellectual historians and literary biographers routinely do. That the tale doesn't reflect well on Grant Palmer is not Professor Midgley's fault.

However, when you are accusing people of misrepresenting FARMS and overgeneralizing, statistics plays a huge role. Which is why I am asking you what percentage of critical reviews do you personally think go overboard on the personal attacks? A friend of mine who is associated with FARMS told me that he felt that about 1/4 of reviews in FARMS went too far with their personal attacks. He however also noted that roughly only 1/3 of the reviews were critical responses (where the personal attacks would only be located). With those numbers, well over half of the critical responses in the Review, in his estimation, went too far in personal attacks and undermined (whether correctly or incorrectly) the credibility among many of FARMS. Without having to dig through and do an in-depth statistical analysis, would you say (off the top of your head), that this is a FAIR evaluation?

My response to this question, if it were posed to me, would be "No, not even close."

[the narrator]

My response to this question, if it were posed to me, would be "No, not even close."

Of course! That is why I poised the question to LoaP, who I believe has a different and more nuanced answer than you.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course! That is why I poised the question to LoaP, who I believe has a different and more nuanced answer than you.

Also, do you think it is wrong to publish a critical review>?

[smac97]

Here's the distinction: Palmer's book was merely disingenuous. Beck's book was not just disingenuous, but punishingly stupid.

I also thought the misleading part of Palmer was "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins." Palmer wasn't there, so he isn't an "insider" about Mormon origins. If he called it "An Insider's View of Mormon History," that might be more accurate. But that still conveys that Palmer is supposed to be more trustworthy about "what really happened" because he's an "insider."

This is unacceptable. Please say something with which I can disagree. Otherwise, I'm just flummoxed.

-Smac

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I see that my character continues to be trashed over at the Compound for my vicious and unethical response, in the sixth post of this thread, to Jaybear's question.

So I want to take the opportunity to say that I stand by what I said. If what I understand of Grant Palmer's behavior during the initial writing of his book is correct, I regard that behavior as dishonorable and disingenuous. And I have solid reason for believing what I understand of Grant Palmer's behavior during that period to be correct.

Is he a decent fellow in other regards? Very possibly. Probably, in fact. I have no reason to doubt it, and others have told me that he is.

Is it his apostasy or semi-apostasy to which I take exception? No. Not really. It's the way in which he behaved toward his colleagues and supervisors in CES. He was not forthright with them. He did something, secretly, that he had expressly and personally and directly promised them he would not do.

Do I regard Grant Palmer as having "scammed" the Church? No, I don't. Did I say what I did because I want to blacken his character? No. I've neither said nor written nor thought nor posted anything about Grant Palmer for quite some time. I posted what I did because the question had been asked whether somebody here was bothered that Grant Palmer receives a CES pension. I responded that I'm not bothered, really, except for what I see as disingenuousness on his part. Other than that, no problem. That answer was directly relevant to Jaybear's question.

To clarify: I do not wish to destroy Grant Palmer. I bear him no ill will. I scarcely think about him. I don't want him to starve to death. I have not slandered him. And I don't retract what I said.

[Chris Smith]

Chris Smith, writing as if he imagines I can't read what he says over there, laments my pitiable oversensitivity to criticism and vows to treat me more gently in the future, in hopes of more effectively guiding me, tenderly, to behavioral change. (The condescension is thick enough to cut with a knife.)

I was simply trying to explain my intention in confronting you. And my vow was not to be more gentle in future confrontations about your behavior, but to avoid such confrontations altogether. If they are going to cause harm or to compromise our friendship, then it isn't worth it to me.

My Malevolent Stalker's four-year campaign of character assassination against me, although unique in its obsessive and rather cunning perversity, is far from unusual. I'm routinely maligned (and, on a few occasions, my wife has even been mocked and insulted, not to mention a non-existent daughter of mine who made a brief appearance in an anti-Mormon thread a few weeks back) not only in the Compound and at CARM and on the oddly-named "Recovery" board but, from what I've seen, in dozens of other places on the Web -- as well as, no doubt, in discussions on Websites of which I know absolutely nothing. (I stumbled across a new one just last night, for example, while looking for something else.) This happens virtually daily. Certainly weekly. If I didn't occasionally tire of it, there would be solid grounds for assuming me to be dead.

I find much of what is said about you on the Internet to be disgusting. And as the narrator pointed out, I have on several occasions here at Claremont defended not only the apologetic enterprise more generally, but also the value of what you and FARMS have done specifically.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thankfully, there are several people over at the Compound who know better than I do what I think and what motivates me. It's so helpful to have them weigh in on the subject of this thread!

They've got considerably more work to do, though, because I think their analysis of the situation is badly mistaken.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just a note to express regret for the hard feelings that have been occasioned by this thread.

I had no intention of inflaming or maligning anybody. I'm involved in no campaign to destroy or defame anybody. I have no ill will toward anybody. I simply expressed my opinion in response to a question. (It continues to be my opinion.)

Best wishes to all.

[Daniel Peterson]

I simply have to contradict this:

Over at the Compound, where, as was absolutely obvious from the start, my criminal behavior on this thread was certain to evoke thunderous moral outrage, I'm being blamed for my desire to see Grant Palmer stripped of his pension.

Of course, I've never said that I want to see him stripped of his pension. I've never said it because I've never wanted that, and I don't want it know.

But the facts mustn't be allowed to interfere with truly gratifying horror at the supposed misdeeds, yet again, of a "Mopologist."

[David Bokovoy]

I simply have to contradict this:

Over at the Compound, where, as was absolutely obvious from the start, my criminal behavior on this thread was certain to evoke thunderous moral outrage, I'm being blamed for my desire to see Grant Palmer stripped of his pension.

Of course, I've never said that I want to see him stripped of his pension. I've never said it because I've never wanted that, and I don't want it know.

But the facts mustn't be allowed to interfere with truly gratifying horror at the supposed misdeeds, yet again, of a "Mopologist."

What I find so incredibly ironic, yet apparently no one else appears to capture, includes the multiplicity of posts dedicated to patting Chris, Runtu and others on the back for publicly calling out your alleged disingenuous behavior.

Posts which go so far as to admonish these individuals to both publicly and privately continue their pious effort of drawing people

[why me]

What I find so incredibly ironic, yet apparently no one else appears to capture, includes the multiplicity of posts dedicated to patting Chris, Runtu and others on the back for publicly calling out your alleged disingenuous behavior.

Posts which go so far as to admonition these individuals to both publicly and privately continue their pious effort of drawing people

[LifeOnaPlate]

I thought it was cruddy when Chris went back to the board and said he acted hastily, apologized, and then other people decided to give him a hard time for it. Agree or be eaten.

[Hyrum Page]

And as Daniel so predicted, the other board is now trashing Daniel to no end.

To no end? I don't think so. The criticism of Daniel, in some cases, ends where the praise begins, and there is praise, contrary to your generalization.

[Hyrum Page]

I thought it was cruddy when Chris went back to the board and said he acted hastily, apologized, and then other people decided to give him a hard time for it. Agree or be eaten.

Exactly, like when I agreed with Dr. Scratch and his informant that you had turned in shoddy work to FARMS... Oh, wait, I called him on it, said it was unacceptable, and expressed my lack of belief that such an informant even existed.

I can see why you think we are all lemmings on MDB. I really can.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Exactly, like when I agreed with Dr. Scratch and his informant that you had turned in shoddy work to FARMS... Oh, wait, I called him on it, said it was unacceptable, and expressed my lack of belief that such an informant even existed.

I can see why you think we are all lemmings on MDB. I really can.

I appreciate the folks at MD who vouched for me. I understand the connection that you're trying to make, but I don't see how outright libel by scratch is equivalent to Dan's opinion of Grant Palmer. I've already noted in this thread that there are things I like and don't like about reviews on Palmer. Am I supposed to condemn it wholesale, or? Do I have to agree with anyone who countered scratch's attack on all things? Do I have to call Dan Peterson a bad man in order to be in the accepted club?

[Hyrum Page]

I appreciate the folks at MD who vouched for me. I understand the connection that you're trying to make, but I don't see how outright libel by scratch is equivalent to Dan's opinion of Grant Palmer. I've already noted in this thread that there are things I like and don't like about reviews on Palmer. Am I supposed to condemn it wholesale, or? Do I have to agree with anyone who countered scratch's attack on all things? Do I have to call Dan Peterson a bad man in order to be in the accepted club?

You are always welcome, Blair. I am happy to defend people who are being treated unfairly, regardless of their viewpoints.

Having said that, I completely fail to see how you were able to draw a connection between my response to your specific post about the treatment of Chris on MDB and the discussion of Daniel's opinion of Grant. Maybe you can enlighten me on that. I applaud your creative eisegesis, but I am not seeing it.

What I am pointing out is that we are not a seething horde at the "Compound" living by the motto "agree or be eaten." I hope that helps you understand my post better.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I thought it was cruddy when Chris went back to the board and said he acted hastily, apologized, and then other people decided to give him a hard time for it. Agree or be eaten.

Apparently this is the comment you're referring to? If so, are you saying there weren't people who gave Chris a hard time for trying to make things right? My view is that Chris acted hastily, Dan responded in kind, Chris felt bad about it and went back to MD to make it right, and some folks there didn't like that. More of the trollish-type. I stopped following the thread around page 4 or 5, so after that I don't know how things proceeded.

This is all pretty lame, when you step back and think about it. I guess some people find it entertaining. What do you do when you have friends on various sides of a disagreement, especially a public one? It's not a comfortable spot to be in.

[Hyrum Page]

Apparently this is the comment you're referring to?

It is the post I quoted and responded to, so yes.

If so, are you saying there weren't people who gave Chris a hard time for trying to make things right?

No, I am making it clear that "agree or be eaten" is not a general creedo of all participants at MDB, which your post may have, perhaps unintentionally, misled people to believe.

It's not a comfortable spot to be in.

No indeed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is the post I quoted and responded to, so yes.

No, I am making it clear that "agree or be eaten" is not a general creedo of all participants at MDB, which your post may have, perhaps unintentionally, misled people to believe.

No indeed.

Agree or be eaten is a pretty good description of any message board, though there are degrees of expected conformity. It was heartening to see so many people call out Scratch on his recent libel, that's for sure. But I'm biased about that