Grant Palmer Supporters Unite!

[Guest Mal]

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

After reading this review, it sounds as if FARMS really has their panties in a knot over this book. I'm going to go purchase it tomorrow so that I can see for myself what all the hubub is all about. It sounds like the guy really struck a nerve.

[Guest Mal]

I would like to thank everybody here and expecially FARMS for turning me on to this book. Grant Palmer seems to have a refreshingly honest and secular (and yet at the same time informed from the inside) view on key issues of mormonism.

I'm only a few chapters into it, and I'm already loving it. Thank you for the recommendation!!!!

[juliann]

You are certainly easy to please, Mal.

[Confidential Informant]

I would like to thank everybody here and expecially FARMS for turning me on to this book. Grant Palmer seems to have a refreshingly honest and secular (and yet at the same time informed from the inside) view on key issues of mormonism.

I'm only a few chapters into it, and I'm already loving it. Thank you for the recommendation!!!!

I love the childish little game of "oh, I'll go do it just to make them mad."

My 8 year old does that all the time.

Do you really think anyone at FARMS gives a rip if you buy Palmer's book? Yeah, you really hurt 'em with that reply...

Oh, was that sarcasm? I'm sorry, are we not supposed to do that any more? (Oops, I think that was sarcastic too...and so was that...oh, I can't stop....).

C.I.

[Guest Mal]

You are certainly easy to please, Mal.

I am but a simple person. I desire to know the truth, and straightforward honest approaches to seemingly complicated issues are of importance to me. I have yet to get to this "golden pot" thing that seems to be cause for such an uproar, but thusfar I have not seen anything worthy of 5 independant FARMS endorsed reviews. The book must get much crappier. I will be sure to exclaim my disappointment in Grant Palmer's book when I get to that part.

[Daniel Peterson]

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

After reading this review, it sounds as if FARMS really has their panties in a knot over this book. I'm going to go purchase it tomorrow so that I can see for myself what all the hubub is all about. It sounds like the guy really struck a nerve.

I believe that you've pulled this little gambit at least once before, two or three months ago, or thereabouts, under one or another of your various names. Was it over on the "Recovery" board, or was it here? (The search function isn't working well for me tonight.) The stunt was cute the first time, albeit rather implausible. (Do you always run out to see movies that the critics have panned because the critics were negative?) How many copies of Palmer's book do you really intend to buy?

It's amusing to see you quoting yourself, as above, in a rather obvious attempt to arouse at least a smidgin of interest in the Signature Books link that you had furnished earlier. And then, twenty-four hours and eleven minutes later, nobody having taken your bait and the thread having dropped to page two, you had to try it again:

I would like to thank everybody here and expecially FARMS for turning me on to this book.  Grant Palmer seems to have a refreshingly honest and secular (and yet at the same time informed from the inside) view on key issues of mormonism.

I'm only a few chapters into it, and I'm already loving it.  Thank you for the recommendation!!!!

A bit too transparent.

[Guest Mal]

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

After reading this review, it sounds as if FARMS really has their panties in a knot over this book. I'm going to go purchase it tomorrow so that I can see for myself what all the hubub is all about. It sounds like the guy really struck a nerve.

I believe that you've pulled this little gambit at least once before, two or three months ago, or thereabouts, under one or another of your various names. Was it over on the "Recovery" board, or was it here? (The search function isn't working well for me tonight.) The stunt was cute the first time, albeit rather implausible. (Do you always run out to see movies that the critics have panned because the critics were negative?) How many copies of Palmer's book do you really intend to buy?

It's amusing to see you quoting yourself, as above, in a rather obvious attempt to arouse at least a smidgin of interest in the Signature Books link that you had furnished earlier. And then, twenty-four hours and eleven minutes later, nobody having taken your bait and the thread having dropped to page two, you had to try it again:

I would like to thank everybody here and expecially FARMS for turning me on to this book.

[Guest Mal]

BTW, I don't intend to buy any copies of FARMS reviews. According to the response from Signature, FARMS isn't even credible by mainstream scientists' standards, so I think I will pass until the FARMS motto is something along the lines of: "In the pursuit of truth, no matter what the truth may turn out to be".

Keep me posted on that.

[Daniel Peterson]

BTW, I don't intend to buy any copies of FARMS reviews.

Now that's a surprise! I'm still picking myself up off the floor from sheer amazement.

Of course, the reviews of Palmer's book are up on the Web -- most of them, I think, are accessible even to non-subscribers -- and they can be accessed via the following links:

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

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...ume=16&number=1

According to the response from Signature, FARMS isn't even credible by mainstream scientists' standards

And Signature Books, of course, being the obviously partisan publisher of Grant Palmer's book, is an entirely objective judge of the matter. Ron Priddis, the author of the Signature release and Signature's paid publicist, is merely a disinterested observer, whose word should be taken on the topic without question. Unlike those biased professional historians -- James Allen (Ph.D., University of Southern California), Louis Midgley (Ph.D., Brown University), Mark Ashurst-McGee (Ph.D. candidate, Arizona State University), Steven Harper (Ph.D., Lehigh University), and Davis Bitton (Ph.D., Princeton University), along with the entire faculty and staff of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University -- who lack even a shred of professional credibility. Got it.

What I don't get, though, is what any of this has to do with "mainstream scientists' standards." That's a bit mysterious to me. If Grant Palmer said anything at all about cosmology, or biochemistry, or astrophysics, or plant physiology, or geology, or metallurgy, or neurophysiology, I confess that I must have missed it.

[Guest Just Curious]

Hmmm I see our counterpart DCP is back on the board...I think he set a record for the shortest resignation in history (LOL) I knew he couldn't stay away...glad to have you back even though we rarely see eye to eye...

[A Random Catholic]

Hmmm I see our counterpart DCP is back on the board...I think he set a record for the shortest resignation in history (LOL)  I knew he couldn't stay away...glad to have you back even though we rarely see eye to eye...

Not even close!

Edward 10/20/04 6:20 PM (4th post from the bottom of page one)

I have requested my removal from this forum because of such comments. I will not associate with evil. I command thee Satan to depart from me. I will hear no more of your lies. The sooner I am removed from this forum the better because I will be able to be free from the evil influence that Satan has over this board and some of the members of it.

Go right ahead and go over to Iraq, and kill some more people. I am sure the father of lies will be grateful for your efforts.

Edward 10/20/04 6:22 PM (2nd post from the bottom of page one)

Blah, blah, blah, Republicans burn in Hell, blah, blah, blah...

[Bill Hamblin]

BTW, I don't intend to buy any copies of FARMS reviews. According to the response from Signature, FARMS isn't even credible by mainstream scientists' standards, so I think I will pass until the FARMS motto is something along the lines of: "In the pursuit of truth, no matter what the truth may turn out to be".

Medical alert: we have another outbreak of virulent Invincible Ignorance on the FAIR Message Board.

It is one thing to be ignorant; we are all ignorant on many topics. It is quite another to make no attempt to learn and expand one's horizons. But it is the height of arrogance to boast of one's intentional self-inflicted ignorance, and militant refusal to read other views and interpretation while proclaiming the universal lack of credibility of precisely those authors whom one refuses to read. (All because a publicist, trying to unload his inventory of an unsold book that has been widely panned in academic reviews, proclaims that all the bad reviews are not credible.) But the most astonishing thing of all is that this is not untypical of anti-Mormons.

There is nothing like militant ignorance to aid one on the path to knowledge and wisdom.

[Calm]

Medical alert: we have another outbreak of virulent Invincible Ignorance on the FAIR Message Board.

Dang! Just when I got that Hazmat gear finally stowed away. It's such a royal pain to clean up and get all the folds and gear tucked up just right. Not to mention trying to do up the zipper in the back when I'm the only one home.

[wenglund]

I would like to thank everybody here and expecially FARMS for turning me on to this book. Grant Palmer seems to have a refreshingly honest and secular (and yet at the same time informed from the inside) view on key issues of mormonism.

I'm only a few chapters into it, and I'm already loving it. Thank you for the recommendation!!!!

I am interested to learn what specific FARMS criticism mysteriously endeared you to Palmer's book?

Was it the fact that Palmer's "Gold Pot" theory was shown to be born of Palmer's belief in the verity of the Salamander Letter, which was subsequently demonstrated to be a Hoffman fraud?

Was it the fact that Palmer's Gold Pot theory was shown to be based on a series of demonstrable mis-readings and faulty comparisons.

Was it the fact that Palmer's uncritical treatment of the Kinderhook question was highly selective and jumped to falacous conclusions contravined by historical facts?

Was it the fact that Palmer was shown to be dishonest with his employers?

Critical minds want to know.

I am but a simple person. I desire to know the truth, and straightforward honest approaches to seemingly complicated issues are of importance to me.

Your banal behavior thus far on this thread suggests otherwise. But, here is your chance to back up your self-declaration (assuming that is possible) by rationally engaging the FARMS criticism here.

I have yet to get to this "golden pot" thing that seems to be cause for such an uproar

Your failure to grasp the significance of this foundational element of Palmer's theory explains much about your vacuous and dismissive comments thus far, and your odd attraction to Plamer's debunked assertions.

BTW, I don't intend to buy any copies of FARMS reviews. According to the response from Signature, FARMS isn't even credible by mainstream scientists' standards, so I think I will pass until the FARMS motto is something along the lines of: "In the pursuit of truth, no matter what the truth may turn out to be".

Yes, I suppose burying your head in the arid sands of Signature, and fallaciously dismissing FARMS' reasoned analysis, is necessary for you to maintain your tenuous position. So much for your "desire to know the truth," and your own willingness to pursue the truth no matter where it may be found, and no matter what it may turn out to be. How ironic?

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bammer]

SOME THOUGHTS BY BAMMER

WENGLUND WROTE:

Was it the fact that Palmer was shown to be dishonest with his employers?

BAMMER RESPONDS:

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

DANIEL PETERSON WROTE:

. . . James Allen (Ph.D., University of Southern California), Louis Midgley (Ph.D., Brown University), Mark Ashurst-McGee (Ph.D. candidate, Arizona State University), Steven Harper (Ph.D., Lehigh University), and Davis Bitton (Ph.D., Princeton University), along with the entire faculty and staff of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University . . .

BAMMER RESPONDS:

1Corinthian 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

1Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

PSEUDOPIGRAFIX WROTE:

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

BAMMER REPLIES:

You request makes me yawn and won't be answered. Not because "FARM facts" are necessarily off, but because the inferred intent connected to their facts are regarding Brother Palmer. Here is where FARMS is so insidious. Their corporate mentality toward fairness is simply sick. To provide you with a laundry list of items where FARMS is errant would only lengthen this thread with your vacuous verbiage. BOTTOM LINE: Grant Palmer put a book together that needs to be read by every Latter-day Saint and FAIR and FARM supporters hate it because it speaks the truth from the inside - in other words, one of their own finally spoke the truth about the whole fabricated history. THANK YOU GRANT PALMER!

DANIEL PETERSON WROTE:

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.

BAMMER RESPONDS:

What?! What is this stuff? Rhetoric to re-direct? Good old boy speak to laughingly throw readers off topic? A very political and suave attempt.

"Give sudden and seemingly impetuous insights into your personal life," said Machiavelli, "and maybe, just maybe, the masses won't see the truth writhing on the floor before them." This is such a fine show we're watching.

[Bill Hamblin]

To provide you with a laundry list of items where FARMS is errant would only lengthen this thread with your vacuous verbiage.

Read: he can't produce a single example.

[Daniel Peterson]

SOME THOUGHTS BY BAMMER

WITH ACCOMPANYING REFLECTIONS FROM A SERVANT OF THE GREAT DECEPTOR

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

This from the very fellow who opened this thread with the accusation that "FARMS and people like Daniel Peterson . . . are, in my opinion, professional deceivers in the employ of the Great Deceptor." The same fellow who, in this very post, pronounces FARMS "insidious" and denounces "their corporate mentality toward fairness" as "simply sick."

Three syllables. Begins with an "h." Second letter "y."

DANIEL PETERSON WROTE:

. . . James Allen (Ph.D., University of Southern California), Louis Midgley (Ph.D., Brown University), Mark Ashurst-McGee (Ph.D. candidate, Arizona State University), Steven Harper (Ph.D., Lehigh University), and Davis Bitton (Ph.D., Princeton University), along with the entire faculty and staff of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History at Brigham Young University . . .

BAMMER RESPONDS:

1Corinthian 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.

1Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Ron Priddis, the full-time professional publicist for Signature Books (who, if memory serves, holds a bachelor's degree in food science and nutrition), evidently dismisses all of the persons listed above as having no credibility as "scientists" -- which is, apparently, Mal-speak for "historians." A short hand way of suggesting that Mr. Priddis's Olympian verdict may not merit instant and unquestioning acceptance is to note some of the credentials possessed by the historians he denigrates and Mal dismisses.

PSEUDOPIGRAFIX WROTE:

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

BAMMER REPLIES:

You request makes me yawn and won't be answered.

Wow. First Mal astonishes us, and now Bammer drops a totally unexpected bombshell. Who would ever have imagined that, having nonjudgmentally accused FARMS of deception, Bammer would be unwilling to supply a single solitary example of it. Not I. Never in a million billion trillion years. I am completely flummoxed. Mesmerized with amazement. Transfixed by the sheer wonder of it all.

Not because "FARM facts" are necessarily off, but because the inferred intent connected to their facts are regarding Brother Palmer.

I think I'll wait for the English translation of that sentence.

To provide you with a laundry list of items where FARMS is errant would only lengthen this thread with your vacuous verbiage.

It's not as if Bammer was engaged in bearing false witness or anything. Surely not. He has lots and lots and lots of examples. He simply can't be bothered to share them. Nonjudgmental accusations of deception are, after all, no really big deal. Assaulting the integrity of others -- in a nonjudgmental way, of course -- is a trivial thing that doesn't require supporting evidence.

BOTTOM LINE: Grant Palmer put a book together that needs to be read by every Latter-day Saint and FAIR and FARM supporters hate it because it speaks the truth from the inside - in other words, one of their own finally spoke the truth about the whole fabricated history.  THANK YOU GRANT PALMER!

Anybody want to bet that Bammer's familiarity with the FARMS reviews is roughly on a par with Mal's?

[Daniel Peterson]

It appears, incidentally, that the servants of The Great Deceptor who work at the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History have scored something of a triumph for the forces of darkness, having hoodwinked the peer reviewers at the National Endowment for the Humanities in Washington DC:

http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=archive04/Oct/NEH

Those incompetents at NEH don't appear to be nearly as savvy as Signature's publicist, Mr. Ron Priddis, to say nothing of the perspicacious Bammer and Mal. Of course, unlike the FAIR Boards' dynamic duo, the NEH reviewers were working under the considerable disability of having actually read something. So what would they know?

[Pahoran]

Dan,

you wrote:

Those incompetents at NEH don't appear to be nearly as savvy as Signature's publicist, Mr. Ron Priddis, to say nothing of the perspicacious Bammer and Mal.  Of course, unlike the FAIR Boards' dynamic duo, the NEH reviewers were working under the considerable disability of having actually read something.  So what would they know?

Indeed. Facts seem to be something of a hindrance in certain quarters, when it comes to forming "correct" opinions about the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm forcefully reminded of "Sir" James White, who consistently refers to the Mesoamerican macuahuitl as "a club with sharp rocks in it." Some may think this misreprentation to be disingenuous, but "Sir" James can't possibly be wrong. Unlike the Spaniards, who called them "swords," Mister White is not labouring under the disadvantage of having actually fought hand-to-hand against people who knew how to use them.

Likewise, Bammer and Mal (whose last name may not really be Feasance) are much too astute to let anyone confuse them with anything as crass as facts.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Dr. Shades]

Ron Priddis, the full-time professional publicist for Signature Books (who, if memory serves, holds a bachelor's degree in food science and nutrition), evidently dismisses all of the persons listed above as having no credibility as "scientists" . . .

Perhaps he meant their apologetics have [has?] no credibility among scientists.

Beyond that, did Ron Priddis say anything else which was in any way incorrect?

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps he meant their apologetics have [has?] no credibility among scientists.

First of all, why on earth would Mr. Priddis be talking about "scientists"? (Or is that, perhaps, just a Malapropism? It's been a while since I read Mr. Priddis's little essay.) What does "science" have to do with Grant Palmer's book? I don't remember seeing a single page in it devoted to geophysics, astronomy, microbiology, or anything of the sort,

And how would he know? Has he done a survey of Bitton and Allen's and Ashurst-McGee's and Harper's and Midgley's scholarly peers to determine their attitudes? Have you? Has that survey been published? (Perhaps in tandem with your path-breaking scholarly work on Internet and Chapel Mormons?) No? Then on what basis does Mr. Priddis arrive at his judgment? On what basis would you support or dispute it?

Beyond that, did Ron Priddis say anything else which was in any way incorrect?

Yes. Quite a number of things, as I recall. And, no, I'm not going to go through the hoops for you simply because you've troubled yourself to ask a question that could take an hour of my time for a reply.

[aznative]

Yea!!!! The Peterson boss is back!!!!!!!! Rah rah ree kick him in the knee! Rah rah ras kick him in the............

[mormon fool]

Ron Priddis, the full-time professional publicist for Signature Books (who, if memory serves, holds a bachelor's degree in food science and nutrition), evidently dismisses all of the persons listed above as having no credibility as "scientists" . . .

Perhaps he meant their apologetics have [has?] no credibility among scientists.

Beyond that, did Ron Priddis say anything else which was in any way incorrect?

Here's a list of errors:

1) "The most recent FARMS Review (15:2)"

Actually the most recent is 16:1.

2) "the reviewers sling insults directed not only at the authors, but . . .average LDS church members . . ."

I think insulted "average LDS" only exist in Ron's mind.

3) "chiasm as evidence of a Hebraic setting for the Book of Mormon

[Dr. Shades]

Dr. Peterson writes:

First of all, why on earth would Mr. Priddis be talking about "scientists"?  (Or is that, perhaps, just a Malapropism?  It's been a while since I read Mr. Priddis's little essay.)  What does "science" have to do with Grant Palmer's book?  I don't remember seeing a single page in it devoted to geophysics, astronomy, microbiology, or anything of the sort,

Because at that point he was referring to FARMS in general, not its reviews of Palmer. It appears as though he was referencing the fact that FARMS' DNA/Lamanite musings aren't accepted by non-LDS scientists.

And how would he know?  Has he done a survey of Bitton and Allen's and Ashurst-McGee's and Harper's and Midgley's scholarly peers to determine their attitudes?  Have you?  Has that survey been published?  (Perhaps in tandem with your path-breaking scholarly work on Internet and Chapel Mormons?)  No?  Then on what basis does Mr. Priddis arrive at his judgment?  On what basis would you support or dispute it?

I think that's a red herring. Oh, I'm sure all those luminaries in the FARMS constellation are nothing short of brilliant in their secular fields; it's when they venture off the deep end into lobotomopologetics that Priddis' observations apply. (In other words, just like the separation of church & state is a good idea for politics' sake, perhaps the separation of academics & apologetics is a good idea for objectiveness' sake.)

[Drevan]

Please satisfy my A.D.D. Who is Grant Palmer and what is this thread about....i dont really feel like reading 10 pages.