Grant Palmer

[t2t2]

miknutes

did you mean milk nuts?

[VEL]

What is Grant Palmer's background?

Grant Palmer's Bio

"Grant H. Palmer (M.A., American history, Brigham Young University) is a three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, a former instructor at the Church College of New Zealand, and an LDS seminary teacher at two Utah locations. He has been active in the Mormon History Association and on the board of directors of the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association. Now retired, his hobby is pigeon fancying. He has four children and eight grandchildren. He and his wife live in Sandy, Utah. "

You might also want to read http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insider's2.htm

[Matt Andrews]

Thanks Benjamin, I appreciate your response. I also enjoyed the link. I have corresponded with Donofrio previously, and I think you've raised some good points.

The question isn't about why didn't more get used (although this is, in itself a valid question in some places), but rather, has enough been used to make a sufficient argument for plaigerism from a particular source.

Just to clarify then, you aren't trying to prove there wasn't derivation, you are arguing that there is not enough evidence to prove that there was. (I agree with that latter point.)

While obviously not eliminating the possibility of the Alma passage being derived from the Gospel of John, it does make it much less likely. The reason for this? The Mosiah text which shows clear connections to the Alma text shows no resemblance to the passage from John.

(italics added)

I'm not sure I follow you here. Wouldn't a proponent of the 'derivation hypothesis' simply point out that the author of the BoM wrote the same story twice with slightly different names, but both were simply the Lazarus story with a twist? I don't see how it makes a derivation less likely.

Thanks again.

[Daniel Peterson]

What is Grant Palmer's background?

Louis Midgley's essay, links to which occur at the address below, offers some interesting details on Grant Palmer's background:

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...ume=15&number=2

[Ray Agostini]

Ray, thanks for taking the time to update your impressions of Palmer.  I have been wondering about that as some of the things you've said recently didn't seem to fit with the framework of your comments about the book when it first came out (such as the historical aspect of the BoM).l

You are welcome Cal. I know I can sometimes send people near madness if I don't explain myself. And I have been much misunderstood, but it has helped me to also realise how GAs and others have been taken out of context on some things. I have been guilty of this too, but when it happens to me it makes me realise to be more careful of taking as gospel what someone may have expressed as an opinion in the past. I think it was Nibley who gave the three year "use by" date for all statements. I think in some cases it could be one year.

Ben, thanks for taking that time to write all that out. I will digest it in detail later and possibly reply.

[juliann]

I read Mormon Enigma when it first came out, but I went back into the church many times since then, and on the whole it has had virtually no impact on my belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, nor of the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith's revelations. At the time of the first reading I think it did, but many more years of reading on polygamy, and in particular Compton's book, put some balance back into the topic.

I eagerly purchased this book when it came off the presses. I was so excited to have something this comprehensive on a woman that has been discarded for far too long. I was dismayed to find it filled with little but she "thought" and "felt" type stuff that there was absolutely no directive evidence for. I am disgusted when historians stoop to mindreading. All the book convinced me of is that there is precious little direct evidence on this woman. What a loss to us. Like you, I appreciated Compton's approach and use his research extensively because he actually let the women speak through their own writings.

[ScriptureLover]

Lee Universe -

When are they going to learn, that if you want to learn all the facts, you have to go to Deseret Book and start reading a lot.

Deseret Book store? Oh come now. They sell fluff. The BYU library is far superior

[Benjamin McGuire]

Matt asks:

Just to clarify then, you aren't trying to prove there wasn't derivation, you are arguing that there is not enough evidence to prove that there was. (I agree with that latter point.)

In this specific instance, I am proving that there wasn't a derivation.

The larger argument is that your distinction isn't valid. When arguing for a "derivation", you are, by necessity arguing that a specific text is derived from a specific source. This proof will need to show that other possible sources cannot be the source, or that there is sufficient uniqueness in the borrowing to confirm that one is indeed a source.

To say that there is a connection is something different. There we can show similarities between texts as explainable through a common tradition or a pool of literature. But the extent to which this is a valid argument for the 19th century derivation of the book is only useful if it can be expanded beyond simple verbal overlaps - which must be viewed as being at least partially caused by a common vocabulary and language.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Wouldn't a proponent of the 'derivation hypothesis' simply point out that the author of the BoM wrote the same story twice with slightly different names, but both were simply the Lazarus story with a twist? I don't see how it makes a derivation less likely.

A proponent of the theory might - but it would show how little they understand of the methodology used to make such a claim - and they would be wrong. The first story cannot be construed as the Lazarus story with a twist. That is the issue. If this hypothesis were correct, we would expect to see at least as strong a connection between the first conversion narrative and the Lazarus narrative as the parallels offered by Palmer. Some of the parallels offered by Palmer to connect the two overlap the parallels between the two Book of Mormon narratives. This means that a credible argument cannot be raised that the one is dependant on the Lazarus narrative without first explaining how it isn't a derivative of the earlier BoM text. Do you see the issue?

Ben

[Matt Andrews]

Some of the parallels offered by Palmer to connect the two overlap the parallels between the two Book of Mormon narratives. This means that a credible argument cannot be raised that the one is dependant on the Lazarus narrative without first explaining how it isn't a derivative of the earlier BoM text. Do you see the issue?

Hi again, Ben. I agree that the similarities Palmer cites are not enough to prove a derivation. And I think you have proved that he has not proved it. (I don't think you have proved that there wasn't a derivation, nor do I think you have to in this case. Palmer is making the claim, so the burden of proof is on him.)

(That is, you would expect to see similarities if there was derivation, but there are other explanations, as well, and you pointed out one such explanation: that the similarities occur entirely by chance, as you might expect any two texts written in the same language to have random similarities.)

As to the second point, Palmer tries to connect the Lazarus story with a BoM story. Why not connect it to two BoM stories? I don't see how this changes Palmer's argument. He still hasn't proved a connection, just shown similarities.

It seems like you are saying that the presence of two similar stories in the Book of Mormon make it less likely that the similarites between one of them and the Lazarus story show derivation. It seems to me it has no effect whatsoever.

I'm not sure what point the second BoM story makes. I don't see how, as you put it, if he concedes that the BoM story may also be "a derivative of the earlier BoM text", hurts his argument. "Do you see the issue?" No, I don't see it, but I'm trying to.

(Of course, you have no obligation to try to help me see it, but it might help your essay if you could, and I appreciate your efforts.)

The first story cannot be construed as the Lazarus story with a twist.

Well, there are plot differences, certainly, but there are also similarities, right? People think person A is dead. Holy man appears, and through the power he/He holds, Person A is no longer considered dead. Palmer has shown similar language in a similar (not identical, by any means) context. Is this enough to prove dependence? I don't think so.

Another simple defense would be that these experiences happened in all three instances, and of course the phrases used to describe it in English are similar, as the situations have similarities. If two people each write a description (or two descriptions) of eating an ice cream cone, then spilling it on their lap, they may well use similar language. If one guy got the idea to write a fictional account of dropping an ice cream cone, or two such accounts, from the first guy, then we would also expect to see similar language. If his two accounts had more similarities with each other than with the original guy's account, that doesn't make it any less( or any more) likely that he borrowed the idea and some language from the first guy. Do you see what I'm getting at?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Matt writes:

Why not connect it to two BoM stories?

How would you do this? You offer some suggestions later in the post, but they don't seem to be demonstratable arguments.

What would be the basis for connecting the first conversion narrative to the Lazarus story?

Well, there are plot differences, certainly, but there are also similarities, right? People think person A is dead. Holy man appears, and through the power he/He holds, Person A is no longer considered dead. Palmer has shown similar language in a similar (not identical, by any means) context. Is this enough to prove dependence? I don't think so.

No. In fact, in the first story, none of those mentioned believe that Alma is dead. No holy man appears - they take the catatonic Alma to his father. However, if anything is credited with his recovery, it is the prayers of the congregation as a whole. Alma's father (like Ammon in the text in question) has nothing to do with the recovery directly. There is nothing resembling Jesus commanding Lazarus to come forth. The awakening is not attributed to the "holy man". The use of these archetypes does nothing but obscure the actual narrative and its function in the text. This is part of the problem with Palmer's exegesis. He overdoes his description of Ammon's involvement in the Alma account.

All of these parallels which Palmer is pointing out are distinctly absent from the earlier conversion narrative in Mosiah. The earlier narrative in Mosiah 27 shows no significant connections to the Lazarus account.

When uniqueness cannot be demonstrated, rhetorical value becomes a critical element in the discussion. The only way to prove reliance is to show that the only reason it was written the way it was - was precisely because another text follows a specific pattern. In this case, where the rhetorical values of phrases in each text are often alien to one another.

Ben

[leeuniverse]

Lee Universe -

When are they going to learn, that if you want to learn all the facts, you have to go to Deseret Book and start reading a lot.

Deseret Book store? Oh come now. They sell fluff. The BYU library is far superior

I would agree that going to a good library such as BYU you would find lot's of good stuff, especially older materials, but maybe you aren't aware that not all of what is at Deseret Book is "fluff"?

There is a lot of good scholared and historical materials there as well.

Also, a lot of the fluff can also be very well done and addresses important concepts and things that might not be found in a library.

I would actually recommend both as good, but with a Library you have to be wise to know how to weed though the slanderous and misrepresentative junk, while in Deseret Book, some of the materials may be fluff, it at least is on the side of good instead of evil.

At Deseret Book, you will get the fluff AND the facts, without all the baggage of having to weed through bearing false witness materials which brings only darkness and not Light.