Grant Palmer Supporters Unite!

[TrespassersW]

Answer: because they insist that Joseph is lying about his first vision. In reality, it is the claim that Joseph spoke to God that is unpalatable to anti-Mormons. Arguing about camp meetings and revivals is mere distraction, masking the fact that they can't believe God would appear to a 14-year-old boy to restore the true gospel.

Actually, it goes a bit beyond this, IMO. Some people seem to be quite determined to believe that Joseph Smith never once made a decent decision in his life. If he spoke, he was lying. If he helped someone or said a kind word, he was manipulating. If he forgave someone, he was pretending. And if he remained silent, he was scheming. It is truly mind boggling the lengths some will go to read sinister motives into some of the most mundane events.

Such projection is, I think, very telling.

[Daniel Peterson]

Wow Mr Hamblin is here, next we will have that other amiable person Dr Migley.

noel00 is fond of gratuitous accusations of nastiness, as well as casual charges of dishonesty. I believe we've just seen an implicit accusation of nastiness against Professor Louis Midgley. noel00 raised the issue of my alleged nastiness on a thread where I had made only one appearance -- in a single-sentence post that cannot reasonably be described as even slightly "nasty." Now, he's delivered a thinly-veiled attack against Dr. Midgley, who has never so much as appeared on the FAIR Boards. (Perhaps Mary Cheney will be next. Or my blind diabetic dog.)

The ad hominem logical fallacy is classified by logicians as a "fallacy of irrelevancy," so it isn't altogether surprising that, responding to clear and undeniable contemporary evidence of a Methodist camp meeting in the close proximity of Palmyra in the spring of 1820 (evidence of which his master, the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, was apparently unaware), noel00 next brings up not only later second-hand accounts by William and Lucy Smith, but Simon Southerton's DNA polemic and the early practice of plural marriage (accompanied, of course, by his trademark accusation of dishonesty):

I think because of Cowdery's account, the William Smith and Lucy Smith accounts make his 1820 story implausible. If he could lie about polygamy while sneaking around at night, arranging for William Clayton to talk to a third sister for him and marrying the Relief Society Presidency i feel prettty confident this is just another one of his stories. Must go and ring Simon see how his book is selling.

All of which, for tradition's sake, Peterson hissed nastily.

P.S. Incidentally, for those devoured with curiosity, nasty Peterson spent yesterday with his wife, first practicing for a performance of H

[noel00]

BTW your style of debate and argumentation was a subject of conversation ZLMB chat room this morning. it seems there are a people who feel your style is somewhat aggressive.

On the subject of the First Vision you dismiss the Smith and Lucy Smith accounts as second hand. It seems their recollections are supported by other material. The Smith story stands out there like a shag on a rock. Movements of family, date of joining the Presbyterian Church, revival. Funny how some LDS excepted the Stevenson diaries written betweem 1883 and 1893 show his memory which mentions the visit of the angel improves later to include the Father and the Son..

Walters writes

As to anti-mormon writers picking up inconsistances in Smith's story if it was invented in 1838, it should be noted that Tucker, at least does note such inconsistance, claiming that the angel story was an afterthought, a later invention, and Doggbery makes the same point. Because the 1838 story was not published until 1842 many of the early anti-mormon writers had never heard the story and mention only the Cowdery version. (for which Nibley a few years back had taken them to task as trying to garble the account) One can hardly fault an anti-mormon writer like J B Turner for failing to note inconsistances in Smith's first vision account when smith's account did not appear until the same year" May 15, 1973

[Daniel Peterson]

BTW your style of debate and argumentation was a subject of conversation ZLMB chat room this morning. it seems there are a people who feel your style is somewhat aggressive.

What do they think about my blind diabetic dog? Does he bark too much? Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps I need to start calling people nasty and dishonest. That might improve my image over at ZLMB.

Walters writes

It's good to hear the master's voice again after all these years.

Have you kept up at all with the scholarship on these topics at all since the passing of the Rev. Wesley P. Walters ten or fifteen years ago (or since the heyday of his epistles to you fifteen years before that)? What do you think of the work of Mark Ashurst-McGee, for example? What is your opinion about Richard Bushman's 1984 partial biography of Joseph Smith? Did the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters disclose any of his thoughts on that book to you? If so, can they be revealed to the public?

[Beowulf]

How depressing it all is (sigh).

JS tells us countless times what happened, how it happened, when it happened, and to whom it happened.

But no one believes him.

Instead they rely on second- and third-hand accounts, or on garbled memories of people who were not there, but may have been in the vicinity within the same decade or so. (sigh)

It reminds me of Fawn Brodie's absurd tale of JS attempting to walk on water, and then falling into the lake, because some kid had removed the planks he had set out so meticulously. (Plainly a frontiersman's idea of a joke, btw.) She acknowledges that the story is almost certainly bogus, but she includes it anyway, because it "demonstrates Joseph's mind-set."

Sheesh.

Beowulf

[John Russell]

Much like the "Killian papers". Sure, they're fake, according to Killian's octogenarian secretary, but they most certainly convey the attitude that Killian had about George Bush's National Guard service. Of course, she also made an earlier statement that Killian had never spoken with her about George Bush. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the papers were forged, and that she had not knowledge of Killian's attitude towards Bush, the papers essentially were dead on.

[Confidential Informant]

How did a thread dedicated to defending Grant Palmer turn into a missive defending Rev. Walters?

C.I.

[wenglund]

I just want to take the opportunity and space to publicly thank Brother Grant Palmer for writing one of the best books EVER written about Mormonism. The book (An Insider's View of Mormon Origins) should be read by every Latter-day Saint. He is an honest, straight-forward man who loves the Lord and the Church. FARMS and people like Daniel Peterson (who called the book "awful") are, in my opinion, professional deceivers in the employ of the Great Deceptor.

Keep going, Grant.

IJA, BAMMER

Bammer,

Why not invite your hero here to answer the many and significant challenges to his book?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bammer]

Bammer,

Why not invite your hero here to answer the many and significant challenges to his book?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does the president of the United States answer all the attacks against him? Does President Hinckly? Didn't even Moses have his Aaron? I would surmise that, unlike you and I, Grant Palmer is far too busy to worry about the attacks from the riff-raff. He searches to provide established truth, not opinions from rank and file e-posters who've nothing better to do than attack him. Thank you again, Grant. And thanks for setting the example of turning the other cheek. You indeed live what you preach.

IJA,

BAMMER

[Beowulf]

Are you the Aaron to Grant Palmer's Moses?

Just curious.

[Daniel Peterson]

Does the president of the United States answer all the attacks against him?

[wenglund]

Bammer,

Why not invite your hero here to answer the many and significant challenges to his book?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does the president of the United States answer all the attacks against him? Does President Hinckly? Didn't even Moses have his Aaron? I would surmise that, unlike you and I, Grant Palmer is far too busy to worry about the attacks from the riff-raff. He searches to provide established truth, not opinions from rank and file e-posters who've nothing better to do than attack him. Thank you again, Grant. And thanks for setting the example of turning the other cheek. You indeed live what you preach.

IJA,

BAMMER

Your rationalization would have some merit were Palmer, as a retired CES employee, to be as busy and as prominent a public figure as the President of the United states and President Hinckley, or Moses and Aaron for that matter.

Your rationalization would also have some merit were Palmer's critics here actually "riff-raff," rather than highly trained and intelligent scholars and researchers.

But, I did catch your implied vote of no confidence in Palmer--your vacuous gushing notwithstanding.

And, I understand perfectly your reaction. Inviting Palmer here to test his published claims run too high a risk of bursting the bubble that is your perception of him, and pulling out from under you the threadbare rug of your anti-Morminism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[noel00]

I wonder if Palmer would turn up at a book signing by Midgley and act in a similar manner?

[Daniel Peterson]

I wonder if Palmer would turn up at a book signing by Midgley and act in a similar manner?

I wonder about many things, too. I wonder what electrons look like. I wonder if there's any merit to the claim that the actual author of Shakespeare's plays was Edward DeVere, the eighth Earl of Oxford. I wonder whether Kerry will take the presidency. I wonder where Usama b. Ladin is. I wonder whether stocks will go up or down, whether it will rain tomorrow, and whether I'll ever have a granddaughter.

I wonder whether you've kept up with any of the relevant historical discussion since the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters penned his important Epistles to the Australian thirty years ago. I wonder what you think about the work of Mark Ashurst-McGee, and whether you're able to disclose any meditations from the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters about Richard Bushman's 1984 volume Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism. I wonder why you suddenly want so very badly to turn this thread toward a discussion of Professor Midgley, who hasn't ever posted on the FAIR Boards.

I wonder if you can provide information on any of the topics above.

[Beowulf]

And who is also one of the sharpest minds to ever grace BYU campus.

[bammer]

WENGLUND WROTE:

And, I understand perfectly your reaction. Inviting Palmer here to test his published claims run too high a risk of bursting the bubble that is your perception of him, and pulling out from under you the threadbare rug of your anti-Morminism.

BAMMER RESPONDS:

I've never said Grant's books or the man was perfect - I said it his book was the best ever written about Mormonism. I stand by this. Grant and I do not see eye to eye on a number of issues. He is much more of a supporter of the LDS gospel that I will ever be. But Grant is an honest man who has seen and knows the LDS score. And he shared it much to the chagrin of those who are to fearful to admit that the king is not wearing clothes. Finally, Grant is a humble and meek man. I love this about him. I think arguing whether in person or online would only hurt his otherwise tender sensitivities toward the spirit. He is not a rabble-rouser nor is he prone to unproven rhetoric. He is a gentle follower of Christ and I applaud his honest attempts to share truth with a group of people who have been mislead, and before a gathering of deceptive wolves that will say ANYTHING to defend the non-Christian, man-made, service-club they call the Church. Call me what you will, but you bear false witness against an innocent man in Grant Palmer.

Daniel Peterson Wrote:

My riff-raff "Editor's Introduction" to FARMS Review 15/2 also has a few things to say about Mr. Palmer's book, as well.

BAMMER REPLIES:

I'm fairly certain that Peterson, that imp of the great deceptor, is hoping someone, ANYONE, in church hierarchy, will take notice of his profoundly insightful "few things" about Grant's work, and call him into the higher eschelons of Mormon power. Then the imp will rejoice in his power and recognition! Then he will have achieved the highest degree of earthly ecclesiastical acclaim! I can't wait to rush to read the wisdom of his words! The power and might of his intellect! The few things HE, EVEN HE, has to say about an Insiders View.

While you are waiting, please forgo the personal stuff. Thanks from your ever vigilant mod team.

[Confidential Informant]

Ah ha! So now it isn't enought the good Dr. Peterson (a.k.a Dr. Evil) simply be a paid lackey of the LDS Church. Now, he is seeking position and authority via his writen musings!

That clanking of chains we heard wasn't the chains of death and hell, it was Dr. Peterson ascending the mormon corporate ladder!

C.I.

[pseudogratix]

Sigh. Still yawning and still waiting for Shawn (Bammer) to kindly detail the deception of FARMS in regard to Palmer's book.

[Beowulf]

Now we are accusing the self-effacing Dr. Petersen of aspiring to high office in the church, are we?

While I do not know his inner soul, somehow I doubt that this is one of his vices. I have known many academics over the years (I am the offspring of one, now retired), and their aspirations do not (as a general rule) tend toward obtaining jurisdictional power over people not in academia.

Better to accuse the good Ph.D. holder of some other vice closer to his lifestyle, such as aspiring to win accolades from his fellow Mideast Studies scholars over some erudite piece of writing.

[Dr. Shades]

I wonder if Palmer would turn up at a book signing by Midgley and act in a similar manner?

I must've missed this one.

How did Midgley act at Palmer's book signing?

[Guest Mal]

I wonder if Palmer would turn up at a book signing by Midgley and act in a similar manner?

I must've missed this one.

How did Midgley act at Palmer's book signing?

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insider's4.htm

After Midgley obtained a preliminary draft of Palmer's book, he scrutinized it in vain for "anti-Mormon propaganda" (375). Still, Midgley enjoys throwing out the epithet "anti-Mormon," apparently intending only to be hurtful to the author. "I realize that some will complain that ... what I have presented is an ad hominem attack" (377), Midgley confesses, also admitting to having been a heckler at a book signing for Palmer. "I was aggressive," he writes; "I raised a bit of hell with Palmer." Midgley continues by denigrating Palmer's beliefs: "Palmer appears to have filled the empty space generated by his cynicism with sentimentality about Jesus" (397). Is nothing beyond the reach of sarcasm by FARMS polemicists?

[mormon fool]

I wonder if Palmer would turn up at a book signing by Midgley and act in a similar manner?

I must've missed this one.

How did Midgley act at Palmer's book signing?

For Midgley's side of the story see here.

I don't see anything wrong with asking a few thought provoking questions at a book signing that invited both supporters and critics.

[Daniel Peterson]

a gathering of deceptive wolves that will say ANYTHING to defend the non-Christian, man-made, service-club they call the Church.

I guess Bammer is referring to Professors Bitton, Allen, Midgley, and Harper, to the entire faculty and staff of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute, and to Mark Ashurst-McGee. Unprincipled and deceptive wolves, all of them.

Such dismissals certainly are easier than troubling oneself with an attempt to refute what they've written.

Call me what you will, but you bear false witness against an innocent man in Grant Palmer.

Rather ironic, that, in view of Bammer's own just-demonstrated lust for name-calling and bearing false witness. Isn't there something, somewhere, about "motes" and "beams"?

I'm fairly certain that Peterson, that imp of the great deceptor, is hoping someone, ANYONE, in church hierarchy, will take notice of his profoundly insightful "few things" about Grant's work, and call him into the higher eschelons of Mormon power.  Then the imp will rejoice in his power and recognition!  Then he will have achieved the highest degree of earthly ecclesiastical acclaim!  I can't wait to rush to read the wisdom of his words!  The power and might of his intellect!  The few things HE, EVEN HE, has to say about an Insiders View.

Funny! Actually, I dreamed once that I had been called to the Council of the Twelve. It was one of the most frightening nightmares I've ever experienced. When I woke up and realized that it wasn't true, that my life wasn't actually over, the relief was overwhelming. Dreams are very strange things. Last night, I dreamed that I was hanging out with Muhammad Khatami, the president of Iran. Really, I did. I met him once, in Tehran a few years ago, but I have no idea where the dream came from.

[Bob Bennett]

Daniel,

Here I thought you were the Great Deceptator! And now I find out you're only an 'imp'! You seem to have been demoted. Best of luck in your unholy aspirations to worm your way into the upper echelons of our social club.

[ScriptureLover]

I don't see anything wrong with asking a few thought provoking questions at a book signing that invited both supporters and critics.

Indeed, I know Lou Midgley, and one has to understand that his personal rhetorical style would of course, reflect him saying

hey boys, I raised hell with that chap!

But that is not meant to be taken literally. Actually Midgley has been one of the most careful and scrutinizing people on the planet when it comes to claims of critics of the church. What he means is he isn't letting them off the hook with generalized broadsides and phony innuendo as answers. His version of hell is a very in depth interview of the person, not running around in public screaming at the top of his lungs "STONE HIM! STONE HIM!, spilling the guests' coffee all over him, and sticking his tongue out at him in a T.V. camera interview........simply because Midgley disagrees with the critic.........