Grant Palmer Is At It Again...

[Darth_Bill]

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be snarky. Most scholars don't accept that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, correct? At least, Luke wasn't. If I only took eyewitness accounts, I would have to at least toss Luke as being unreliable. Most of history is written by non-eyewitnesses. (No, I don't have a percentage.) I would have to toss most history texts and references as unreliable.

And by narrow, I mean, only accepting eyewitness accounts. I can accept that Palmer jumps to conclusions or uses sources too far removed to be reliable. I'm not so sure I could dismiss hearsay in all accounts though. Sometimes that is all we have, and, like I said, this isn't a court of law. Sometimes smoke does mean fire and preponderance (is that the correct word?) of the evidence is good enough for civil actions.

[Rivers]

Chapter heading for Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:

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

I've heard in church that this revelation came about during the translation of the Bible while Joseph was reading about the polygamy of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Is Is this a credible assertion?

[LeSellers]

I've heard in church that this revelation came about during the translation of the Bible while Joseph was reading about the polygamy of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Is Is this a credible assertion?

Given the way Joseph received all (or most, at least) of the revelations from God, yes.

He approached God asking a question. God answered him usually with far more than he'd asked in the first place (e.g., The First Vision was barely about which church to join, Moroni's visitation included more than an assurance that he was still the prophet of the Restoration).

Reading about polygyny in the Bible would have led, very naturally, to a question about the practice. God, as was His habit, answered the question the way I answer my grandchildren: going well beyond what they asked about (although, in my defense, I always say something like, "That's a good question. The answer is very long. Are you ready to listen to the whole thing?" Last night, one of our 10-year-old grandsons and I had a ten-minute discussion about asparagus).

And, then, there's this.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

And see, particularly, verse 7.

Lehi

Edited February 29, 2012 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

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.

This is a fascinating question. Are we doing something right, or wrong?

For example, does this point to a problem with how we teach people about early Church leaders? When I was on my mission, the First Discussion went from God, to Jesus, to Joseph Smith. Here's what we would teach them on our first visit:

JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET OF GOD

Through this and other experiences, Joseph Smith was called as a prophet. He was much like Moses and other biblical prophets. They also saw God and were called to preach his message.

JOSEPH IS A WITNESS OF CHRIST

Because he saw and talked with the resurrected Savior, Joseph Smith is a powerful witness of Jesus Christ. Through him, God revealed the truths of the plan of salvation, including the divine mission of Jesus Christ.

TESTIFY: Express your feelings about—

• Joseph Smith’s vision of the Father and the Son.

• The importance of Joseph Smith’s divine call as a witness of Christ.

• Joseph Smith’s calling to restore the truth about the plan of salvation.

FIND OUT—

How the investigators feel about your instruction on Joseph Smith.

People who grow up in the Church aren't taught much differently. Is there something about the nature of our teachings about Church leaders, or the attitude and expectations we are taught to have, that leads people to disillusionment that isn't found in other churches? Or is it something inherent in our teachings about restoration and authority?

[Rivers]

Given the way Joseph recieved all (or most, at least) of the revelations form God, yes.

He approached God asking a question. God answered him usually with far more than he'd asked in the first place (e.g., The First Vision was barely about which church to join, Moroni's visitation included more than an assurance that he was still the prophet of the Restoration).

Reading about polygyny in the Bible would have led, very naturally, to a question about the practice. God, as was His habit, answered the question the way I answer my grandchildren: going well beyond what they asked about (although, in my defense, I always say something like, "That's a good question. The answer is very long. Are you ready to listen to the whole thing?" Last night, one of our 10-year-old grandsons and I had a ten-minute discussion about asparagus).

And, then, there's this.

Lehi

Joseph probably wished that he had not asked that question.

[Rivers]

In John Dehlin's interview with Palmer, he extended an invitation to anybody who wants to come on the podcast and give a different perspective. I would really enjoy such a podcast. Anybody got any ideas of who would be best for the job?

[Rivers]

This is a fascinating question. Are we doing something right, or wrong?

For example, does this point to a problem with how we teach people about early Church leaders? When I was on my mission, the First Discussion went from God, to Jesus, to Joseph Smith. Here's what we would teach them on our first visit:

People who grow up in the Church aren't taught much differently. Is there something about the nature of our teachings about Church leaders, or the attitude and expectations we are taught to have, that leads people to disillusionment that isn't found in other churches? Or is it something inherent in our teachings about restoration and authority?

I think you have a great point. We certainly put our leaders on higher pedestals than the Catholics do with past popes.

[Nevo]

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.

I haven't listened to the Palmer interview yet. I am doing so now. I'll offer my take on the historical background of D&C 132:51 when I'm finished the podcast. I must say, though, that you could hardly find worse guides to walk you through LDS history than Dehlin and Palmer.

[LeSellers]

Joseph probably wished that he had not asked that question.

That may not have been the only time.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Last night, one of our 10-year-old grandsons and I had a ten-minute discussion about asparagus.

BTW, eating asparagus has largely cleared up his Tourette's syndrome. It was a revelation to another of our sons who has a definite gift of healing.

Lehi

[mathilde]

I haven't listened to the Palmer interview yet. I am doing so now. I'll offer my take on the historical background of D&C 132:51 when I'm finished the podcast. I must say, though, that you could hardly find worse guides to walk you through LDS history than Dehlin and Palmer.

Who would be considered the best, most reliable guides to walk someone through LDS history?

[Duncan]

Who would be considered the best, most reliable guides to walk someone through LDS history?

anyone with a doctorate in the subject neither of which dehlin and palmer have. Danel Bachman is the Sarge in charge of Joseph Smith Polygamy

[Duncan]

I haven't listened to the Palmer interview yet. I am doing so now. I'll offer my take on the historical background of D&C 132:51 when I'm finished the podcast. I must say, though, that you could hardly find worse guides to walk you through LDS history than Dehlin and Palmer.

I agree that they don't have much of a grasp of the subject

[Gervin]

anyone with a doctorate in the subject neither of which dehlin and palmer have. Danel Bachman is the Sarge in charge of Joseph Smith Polygamy

I don't think that, generally, a doctorate in a subject necessarily guarantees the ability to commununicate the subject matter. Shelby Foote was a great historian of the Civil War and he didn't stick around at UNC long enough to get an undergraduate degree. I started listening to the podcast, but 15 minutes into part one the host was still rambling on and on ... I could tell he wasn't working from an outline or even a modicum of sense about the subject matter. Whatever value the guest might have brought to the interview wasn't worth having to wade through the host's interminable blathering.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Gervin

[why me]

Who would be considered the best, most reliable guides to walk someone through LDS history?

This is rather difficult to say. But I would think that someone who doesn't have an axe to grind. The problem is that it is very difficult to find a neutral party. When the lds church comes out with its own version, it will be immediately attacked by critics who will still claim dishonesty over interpretation.

[Kevin Christensen]

In John Dehlin's interview with Palmer, he extended an invitation to anybody who wants to come on the podcast and give a different perspective. I would really enjoy such a podcast. Anybody got any ideas of who would be best for the job?

Greg Smith. Daniel Bachman. Todd Compton.

[Duncan]

I don't think that, generally, a doctorate in a subject necessarily guarantees the ability to commununicate the subject matter. Shelby Foote was a great historian of the Civil War and he didn't stick around at UNC long enough to get an undergraduate degree. I started listening to the podcast, but 15 minutes into part one the host was still rambling on and on ... I could tell he wasn't working from an outline or even a modicum of sense about the subject matter. Whatever value the guest might have brought to the interview wasn't worth having to wade through the host's interminable blathering.

true but knowledge of and communicating it are two different things

[why me]

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

You are correct. I must also say that critics rely heavily on second hand or third hand accounts that would be rather sensational from former members who had a sole axe to grind against the church. But here is what we do know about JS's polygamy: no women that he was sealed to ever complained that he was in it for lust and because he was horny. No one spoke an evil word about him and considering the amount of women he was married to, that is quite a feat, especially since some of these women went on to do other things after he was murdered. And that says much about Joseph's dealings with his wives.

[Nevo]

Who would be considered the best, most reliable guides to walk someone through LDS history?

Well, let's see. Richard Bushman, Claudia Bushman, Richard Turley, Ronald Walker, James Allen, Ronald Esplin, Grant Underwood, Jill Derr, Kathleen Flake, William Hartley, Steven Harper, Alexander Baugh, Richard Jensen, Robin Jensen, Mark Ashurst-McGee, Patrick Mason, Spencer Fluhman,... those are just a few off the top of my head.

[why me]

People who grow up in the Church aren't taught much differently. Is there something about the nature of our teachings about Church leaders, or the attitude and expectations we are taught to have, that leads people to disillusionment that isn't found in other churches? Or is it something inherent in our teachings about restoration and authority?

What do you think perspective catholics learn at RCIA? They are not learning all the nastiness in catholic history. How many catholics know their history? And who is teaching them history? I think that anyone is teaching them history at all. It is not important for them.

[why me]

I think you have a great point. We certainly put our leaders on higher pedestals than the Catholics do with past popes.

I think that critics can only attack the lds church on one issue: its history. It should be a mute point but they have made it into a holy grail. No other church gets its history picked apart like the lds church. The only way to fight it is to attack it. Meet the critics on their field and begin to score points. It is offense not defense that needs to be played. And I think that within the next couple of years, the church will begin to play football with the critics.

[Darth_Bill]

You are correct. I must also say that critics rely heavily on second hand or third hand accounts that would be rather sensational from former members who had a sole axe to grind against the church. But here is what we do know about JS's polygamy: no women that he was sealed to ever complained that he was in it for lust and because he was horny. No one spoke an evil word about him and considering the amount of women he was married to, that is quite a feat, especially since some of these women went on to do other things after he was murdered. And that says much about Joseph's dealings with his wives.

I think that is because of the environment. If you feel that you received confirmation of the request, you aren't going to complain all that much. If you say "No", well, then you have an "axe to grind" and are dismissed as not being objective. There are no middle roads in the church, it seems, at least, not on this board. And considering the number of wives might be a testiment as to what the libido might be doing also....I don't know. Polygamy isn't something I concerned myself with until recently. I do know that JS died indirectly because of polygamy. I am not sure it was dealt with honestly, or with what I consider honesty. Having grown up in a society where all religious leaders that fall, seem to fall because of their libido, it gives me a large deal of pause.

[why me]

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

This is all in the present. I no of noone who leaves over past history. The critics can only attack the lds church by bringing up the past as a way to prove the lds church false. The lds church needs to play offense and come up with its own versions for controversial aspects of history. It is unfortunate because no church receives criticism over past history as the lds church does. But then, again, the critics certainly cannot offer much criticism over the present state of affairs. It must look into the past to cast doubt and not the present.

[Darth_Bill]

I think that critics can only attack the lds church on one issue: its history. It should be a mute point but they have made it into a holy grail. No other church gets its history picked apart like the lds church. The only way to fight it is to attack it. Meet the critics on their field and begin to score points. It is offense not defense that needs to be played. And I think that within the next couple of years, the church will begin to play football with the critics.

I don't know. I think some may point to me being a critic, but my disaffection didn't start with church history, which I've always known was a minefield. Mine started with finding an intelligible reason to believe in the atonement other than an emotional response to the story of the crucifixion. I haven't found one yet, and it has caused my wife and I a great deal of emotional trauma that I don't wish upon anyone.

As to history, if I was a potential convert, the LDS Church history would keep me from joining, and if I leave the LDS Church, I wouldn't join the RCC because of their history. If I was catholic, I just wouldn't go because of their history.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[Cobalt-70]

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 think that Palmer's explanation is a bit fanciful, but it is well known that polyandry was a part of early Mormon polygamy. Smith married women who were already married to other men. That Smith might have considered including Emma in a polyandrous arrangement with William Law is not inconsistent with the early practice of Mormon polygamy.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Cobalt-70