Grant Palmer Is At It Again...

[cinepro]

Evidently, you don't get how remarkably insignificant and irrelevant to the workings of the restored gospel are obscure elements of church history.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just because something is obscure doesn't mean it's unimportant. To the subject at hand, if Joseph Smith did actually commit adultery (i.e. had full "intimate relations" with a woman he wasn't married or sealed to), such a fact might be understandibly "obscure" to members of the Church based on the Church's understandable reluctance to publicize it, but some might feel it was still pretty dang important.

Edited February 27, 2012 by cinepro

[wenglund]

Ok. Help me understand what are the workings of the restored gospel so that I can better understand how insignificant obscure elements of church history are to them.*

Since this is tangential to the topic of this thread, I will open a new thread to answer your request.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Just because something is obscure doesn't mean it's unimportant. To the subject at hand, if Joseph Smith did actually commit adultery (i.e. had full "intimate relations" with a woman he wasn't married or sealed to), such a fact might be understandibly "obscure" to members of the Church based on the Church's understandable reluctance to publicize it, but some might feel it was still pretty dang important.

I wasn't speaking to whether obscure historical data may be important or not per se, but rather whether it is significant or relevant in relation to the workings of the gospel. Feel free to join in on the potentially enlightening discussion in the thread linked above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 27, 2012 by wenglund

[cinepro]

I wasn't speaking to whether obscure historical data may be important or not per se, but rather whether it is significant or relevant in relation to the workings of the gospel.

If obscure historical data can be per se important, than it can also be significant or relevant in relation to the "workings of the gospel."

In fact, we should probably be more scrutinizing when it comes to the gospel workings, not less.

Edited February 27, 2012 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

I appreciate what you've said here, but there are nuances that need to get teased out. For example, there's a sense of what it is to be a prophet in which I'm perfectly happy accepting that Joseph Smith was a prophet. That sense, I take it, is not the sense you mean or Church authorities mean. On the sense I'm gesturing at one can revere Joseph Smith as a great prophet even if the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are, for example, not historical documents. But, Church authorities tacitly want members to accept Joseph as a prophet in part because he's a revealer of facts -- about what happened on this continent, or about Abraham's life, or whatever.

that's just not the LDS Church's position though. Why would one who doesn't hold the same view as a church wish to teach for that church? I could get on board with the notion that such a one would like to participate in the Church to some extent, but wishing to teach seems contradictory.

[jwhitlock]

Chapter heading for Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:

Check and mate, Grant Palmer. No foul. Game over.

Not hardly. While critics of the church often claim that we ignore some historical aspects of the church in "clinging" to our faith, that's a generalization that is not supported by either what the church history department does, or what many faithful members study. In reality, and Grant Palmer appears to be particularly guilty of this in his selective approach, it is critics who broadly dismiss evidence not supportive to their viewpoints against the church.

The FAIR website gives some additional insight into Palmer's selective approach.

I agree with what has been stated here about the dangers of basing one's lack of testimony concerning the church on selective historical items. Validity of the church's path, as Wade has mentioned, is not based primarily on rational secular evidence, but on faith based evidences. Historical facts can then be most accurately evaluated based on the proper perspective and context. It's just too easy to let our modern sound-bite mentality get in the way of an honest evaluation of church history, which is something our critics recognize and use to their advantage in picking off members.

Edited February 27, 2012 by jwhitlock

[Kenngo1969]

Not hardly. While critics of the church often claim that we ignore some historical aspects of the church in "clinging" to our faith, that's a generalization that is not supported by either what the church history department does, or what many faithful members study. In reality, and Grant Palmer appears to be particularly guilty of this in his selective approach, it is critics who broadly dismiss evidence not supportive to their viewpoints against the church.

The FAIR website gives some additional insight into Palmer's selective approach.

I agree with what has been stated here about the dangers of basing one's lack of testimony concerning the church on selective historical items. Validity of the church's path, as Wade has mentioned, is not based primarily on rational secular evidence, but on faith based evidences. Historical facts can then be most accurately evaluated based on the proper perspective and context. It's just too easy to let our modern sound-bite mentality get in the way of an honest evaluation of church history, which is something our critics recognize and use to their advantage in picking off members.

Maybe Palmer's one of those [bleeping] Utah [former] Mormons!

(Sorry; couldn't resist! Carry on!)

[jwhitlock]

Ok. Help me understand what are the workings of the restored gospel so that I can better understand how insignificant obscure elements of church history are to them.*

*That any such elements we might speak of are obscure is a point, I'm sure, upon which we disagree. Nevertheless, I just want to grant here that the historical elements at issue are obscure for the sake of the discussion. So, let's just set that aside.

Perhaps a question that could be asked in return would be "What historical evidence would be overwhelming enough to constitute rock-solid evidence that the claims of divine origin for the church are NOT true?"

I think that the bar is generally set far too low by critics of the church. For instance (and I don't know your background or current belief system), one cannot accept the Bible as divine, and then condemn the LDS church historically without applying a double standard for making that judgment. Any organization of any age or size will invariably attract accusations, some true, some false, and some taken out of context without regard to circumstances. The whole of human existence is rife with good people making terrible choices at times, and being judged far after the fact when much of the context has been lost. While I don't deny that some things can appear problematic, it seems that too many people are too willing to accept National Enquirer type evidence as having validity just because it is so loudly trumpeted.

All great men do things that are considered by many to be unacceptable. Whether they really are unacceptable or not is many times in the eye of the beholder.

[Pahoran]

Not hardly. While critics of the church often claim that we ignore some historical aspects of the church in "clinging" to our faith, that's a generalization that is not supported by either what the church history department does, or what many faithful members study. In reality, and Grant Palmer appears to be particularly guilty of this in his selective approach, it is critics who broadly dismiss evidence not supportive to their viewpoints against the church.

The FAIR website gives some additional insight into Palmer's selective approach.

I agree with what has been stated here about the dangers of basing one's lack of testimony concerning the church on selective historical items. Validity of the church's path, as Wade has mentioned, is not based primarily on rational secular evidence, but on faith based evidences. Historical facts can then be most accurately evaluated based on the proper perspective and context. It's just too easy to let our modern sound-bite mentality get in the way of an honest evaluation of church history, which is something our critics recognize and use to their advantage in picking off members.

Actually I read Cinepro's post as saying that Palmer was wrong. Since the Church openly acknowledges the historical evidence of pre-1843 polygamy, the claim that this has been suppressed is defeated.

Although it's possible I didn't understand Cinepro's intent.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Actually I read Cinepro's post as saying that Palmer was wrong. Since the Church openly acknowledges the historical evidence of pre-1843 polygamy, the claim that this has been suppressed is defeated.

Although it's possible I didn't understand Cinepro's intent.

Regards,

Pahoran

You may, of course, be absolutely correct. Perhaps cinepro can clarify his intent for me.

[cinepro]

You may, of course, be absolutely correct. Perhaps cinepro can clarify his intent for me.

Obviously, the wording in the section header for 132 is about as vague as you can get, but it does extend the historical window for polygamy (at least in theory) back to 1831, so any claimed "unions" between Joseph and WOTE (Women Other Than Emma) after 1831 can at least be argued as falling under that principle.

Based on that header, the logical response to Palmer is to thank him for, to the degree to which they actually happened, giving us additional insight into the formation period of Joseph's polygamous practices.

[jwhitlock]

Obviously, the wording in the section header for 132 is about as vague as you can get, but it does extend the historical window for polygamy (at least in theory) back to 1831, so any claimed "unions" between Joseph and WOTE (Women Other Than Emma) after 1831 can at least be argued as falling under that principle.

Based on that header, the logical response to Palmer is to thank him for, to the degree to which they actually happened, giving us additional insight into the formation period of Joseph's polygamous practices.

Since that particular piece of information is nothing new, why should we thank Palmer for it?

[Stargazer]

The sad dilemma for somebody like me is that I have great respect for the birds-eye-view project of the restoration - elevate humanity, facilitate experiences of the divine through religious practice, increase charity, etc. And, I'd like to participate in Mormonism (teach classes, go to the temple, etc). But, despite my admiration for the praxis of Mormonism, I cannot, unless I'm dishonest, engage in the full Mormon praxis unless I assent to certain Mormon dogma, and I cannot assent on the basis of the best available evidence to me.

Also, I think if you think that people like Palmer or myself are hung up on one or two little obscure elements of Church history, then you haven't taken care to understand our position.

I don't pretend to know how many obscure elements of church history you and others may be hung up on. My point is, to the extent that you are hung up on Church history, obscure or otherwise, you don't really get how the restored gospel works. That doesn't make you a bad person or unintelligent. It just means that you worship different things and in different ways than how Christ set up his Church. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

He states that he has a problem with certain elements of Mormon dogma (doctrine?), and you respond that you don't know how many obscure elements Mormon history he is hung up on.

Talking past each other a tad, aren't you? Either that, or it is the history elements that prevent him from assenting to the dogma. A little unclear to me, at least.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Stargazer

[why me]

I think that we are missing the point. I know of no other church that loses members over their church's history. For example, today's catholics do not leave their church over the inquisition. Nor do they leave over the behavior of past popes or the behavior of past nuns or priests. They leave because of what is happening in the present. This would also be true for other faiths. It is only in the lds faith do I see past history as being important for their belief.

I also believe that if one reads an official catholic position of the Inquisition, one may not get a very balanced view nor would person get a balanced view from catholic apologetic sites. But for some reason, it is different for the lds church. What I do know is: no matter what interpretation the lds church gives for controversial issues, the critics will not let it go. They will hammer away with their own versions attempting to lead people away from the lds church because that is their goal. It has very little to do with honesty.

[Cobalt-70]

I am a non-believer who slowly is moving toward my old lds faith again. In the past I have been provocative here but that is history. It is wonderful to be a believer again. I spoke at the sacrament meeting today for the first time in five years.

What is really sad is the negative campaigning against the LDS church and especially the slandering of the founding prophet.

The latest character assassination comes from Grant Palmer. It is about sexual allegations.

You will find it here. http://mormonstories.org/?p=2518

I would be grateful if you could refer me to any good information that I can use to refute his allegations. It would mean a great deal for me. These attacks are to me evidence that the church is really true.

BTW I am truly sorry for earlier disrespectful behavior on my behalf.

Bravo on your return to faith.

I think the best interpretation of these allegations is that they are either misunderstandings, or the result of a conflict between traditional 19th century morality and Joseph Smith's jarringly-unconventional views about the intersection between sex and religion. Frankly, to a typical 19th century American, any act of polygamy on Smith's part, or even discussions with women in contemplation of polygamy, would have been a scandalous breach of virtue. Moreover, Smith was a handsome man, kind of a rock star, young women adored him, and his household sometimes hired young women as servants, which could easily lead to situations that look bad on the surface, even if nothing actually happened. He did apparently consummate a relationship with Fanny Alger, but I think the best evidence in my view is that this relationship was accompanied by marital formalities.

I disagree with Palmer's inference that Smith could not have introduced an early form of polygamy before 1836 because he had not yet claimed to introduce the sealing power of Elijah. As early as 1835, if not before, Smith claimed an absolute religious power to perform priesthood marriages, which had nothing to do with Elijah, and nothing to do with the law of Ohio.

[Darth_Bill]

Well, since I've purposefully avoided any polygamy discussions but since I'm taking things off the shelf...might as well listen. I poked around here and I didn't see any countering interpretation to D&C 132:51. Is there an explanation of what this could possibly mean other than what is presented by Grant?

I'm also kind of bummed that the only response seems to be "This is old stuff." Yeah, maybe, so I guess we've all turned lazy in apologetics, other than saying the issue is old. I did take a look at the initial links and I think the common apologetic is a lot of this is second and third hand info, which is a valid argument, but this isn't a court of law and also I'm open to the idea that all people lie. Evidently so did many of the 12 back then when they repudiated polygamy....or is it only lying taken from a certain point of view (which is something I accepted for a long time, but not so much anymore).

[Monster]

Many want to dismiss Gran Palmer for various reasons but what if what he is saying is acurate. What does that mean?

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Grant Palmer, the various reasons that I dismiss him (I reviewed his "Insider's book on Amazon) are based on my observation that what he was saying was frequently far from accurate. For the "if" to be relevant, I'd have to suppose that first hand, contemporary, eye-witness accounts should be ignored in favor of late, anomalous, second or third hand accounts chosen for their sensational value, and that careful scholarship that pays attention to relevant context and that weighs all sources can safely be dismissed as "apologetic" and that responsible LDS thinkers should trust their case to the objectivity of the prosecution.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Darth_Bill]

Thanks Kevin. Of course, that attitude leaves out a lot of world history, not just what Palmer might say. Much of religion would have to be dismissed, including the gospels. I'm not sure where that leaves me in relation to church history. I had a pretty narrow view once too, but really, that definition leaves out so very much of what is going on in the world.

[robuchan]

Regarding Grant Palmer, the various reasons that I dismiss him (I reviewed his "Insider's book on Amazon) are based on my observation that what he was saying was frequently far from accurate. For the "if" to be relevant, I'd have to suppose that first hand, contemporary, eye-witness accounts should be ignored in favor of late, anomalous, second or third hand accounts chosen for their sensational value, and that careful scholarship that pays attention to relevant context and that weighs all sources can safely be dismissed as "apologetic" and that responsible LDS thinkers should trust their case to the objectivity of the prosecution.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Do you choose to ignore all of it, or just the parts that might be speculative?

When I read Fawn Brodie or Grant Palmer, I take the same approach I do when I read faithful LDS historians. I look at the research as it is presented, weighting different parts of it heavier or lighter based on the validity of the source material. I take note of the analysis and the commentary, but never take it as fact, choosing the connect the dots myself. Some of what Grant Palmer threw out there in the podcast might have been on the speculative side of things, but there is enough troubling information there that is validated through multiple sources that it seems unreasonable to completely ignore it.

[Duncan]

I think that we are missing the point. I know of no other church that loses members over their church's history. For example, today's catholics do not leave their church over the inquisition. Nor do they leave over the behavior of past popes or the behavior of past nuns or priests. They leave because of what is happening in the present. This would also be true for other faiths. It is only in the lds faith do I see past history as being important for their belief.

I also believe that if one reads an official catholic position of the Inquisition, one may not get a very balanced view nor would person get a balanced view from catholic apologetic sites. But for some reason, it is different for the lds church. What I do know is: no matter what interpretation the lds church gives for controversial issues, the critics will not let it go. They will hammer away with their own versions attempting to lead people away from the lds church because that is their goal. It has very little to do with honesty.

Catholics have left over the sex abuse scandal and how many of them actually go to church?

[Nevo]

I'm also kind of bummed that the only response seems to be "This is old stuff." Yeah, maybe, so I guess we've all turned lazy in apologetics, other than saying the issue is old. I did take a look at the initial links and I think the common apologetic is a lot of this is second and third hand info, which is a valid argument, but this isn't a court of law and also I'm open to the idea that all people lie.

You said you thought the links you read presented a "valid" rebuttal to Palmer's allegations, but you still find them unsatisfactory. Not sure I understand. What are you looking for exactly?

[Darth_Bill]

It seemed that it was along the lines of Kevin, that the problem was 2nd and 3rd hand. By valid, that might be a valid apologetic, not that I necessarily accept that view. In this discussion, nothing other than "it is old news" which is kind of a bummer. I still haven't seen anything about what 132:51 is talking about. Honestly, in the past few months, 132 has completely taken on a different character.

If the true apologetic, one that I should accept, is that this is 2nd and 3rd hand info and consequently is false or can be dismissed, as Kevin mentioned, then that is that.

[Kevin Christensen]

Thanks Kevin. Of course, that attitude leaves out a lot of world history, not just what Palmer might say. Much of religion would have to be dismissed, including the gospels. I'm not sure where that leaves me in relation to church history. I had a pretty narrow view once too, but really, that definition leaves out so very much of what is going on in the world.

I'm missing some key logical steps here, between how I approached Palmer's book, and the subsequent logical consequence that I should dismiss much religion, including the gospels.

Narrow, eh. Interesting.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Do you choose to ignore all of it, or just the parts that might be speculative?

By taking the time to review Palmer's book at Amazon, I think I demonstrated that I did not choose to ignore it. Quite the opposite. I read it carefully. I also listened to the Dehlin's early interview.

My reaction to the book largely falls from my continuous observation that he ignored so much that I deemed relevant. For instance, Palmer on page 230, claimed that in 1834 that the angelic priesthood restoration stories "were retrofitted to an 1829—30 time period to give the impression that an impressive and unique authority had existed in the church from the beginning." In his review, Steven C. Harper observed:

Palmer obliquely asserts that the only significant reference to "authority from angels" before 1835 was the 22 September 1832 reference that is now Doctrine and Covenants 84:28. Palmer keeps silent regarding Joseph's testimony written that same year:

An account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough forth and established by his hand he receiving the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c.

Joseph's own account of "the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time" establishes the "reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels" as a crucial step in the restoration of the fulness of the gospel. Palmer is aware of this source; he quotes it extensively in his discussion of Joseph Smith's first vision (pp. 236—37), censoring conspicuously the passage quoted above.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=512

Harper shows that in dealing with related late accounts that he cites in relation to earlier accounts by the same witnesses that: "These statements were among the seventy priesthood restoration documents published by BYU Studies in 1996, but readers seeking a reliable account based on relevant early documents will not find them in An Insider's View. Palmer rejects early eyewitness evidence, instead exclusively using late documents produced by men clearly engaged in an effort to recast early Latter-day Saint history. Palmer favors these late accounts of not hearing of angelic priesthood restoration over early, consistent, eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery."

Based on the personal attention that I have given Palmer's work in relation to sources with which I am familiar, I'm not impressed. Based on my reading of carefull scholars with far more familiarity, I am even less impressed.

Back to robuchan:

When I read Fawn Brodie or Grant Palmer, I take the same approach I do when I read faithful LDS historians. I look at the research as it is presented, weighting different parts of it heavier or lighter based on the validity of the source material. I take note of the analysis and the commentary, but never take it as fact, choosing the connect the dots myself. Some of what Grant Palmer threw out there in the podcast might have been on the speculative side of things, but there is enough troubling information there that is validated through multiple sources that it seems unreasonable to completely ignore it.

Based on my experience with Palmer and his highly selective use of sources, I think it unreasonable to expect that he has changed his spots. I don't advocate ignoring him. I advocate checking sources and context. Good history is the best response to bad.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA