Grant Palmer Is At It Again...

[Tramper]

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.

[Daniel Peterson]

Glad to hear that you're moving back toward the Church. That's great news.

I haven't heard Grant Palmer's latest, but here are some good things on the general issue of Joseph Smith and early Mormon plural marriage:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2&id=721

http://www.josephsmithdna.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Polygamy-Joseph-Origins-Mormon/dp/193490113X

[Nevo]

I would be grateful if you could refer me to any good information that I can use to refute his allegations.

Congratulations on your sacrament meeting talk. I haven't listened to the podcast yet, so I am not sure what specific allegations Palmer discusses. I see from the link that they relate to the Prophet's early years.

Two good sources on this are:

— Brian C. Hales, "Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith’s Pre-Nauvoo Reputation," Journal of Mormon History 35, no. 4 (2009): 112-190. Click here to download the entire issue.

— Gregory L. Smith, "George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20, no. 2 (2008): 37-123; see esp. his discussion of Joseph Smith's alleged liaisons with Eliza Winters and Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde. You can access an online version of the article here. [Edit: I see Dr. Peterson beat me to it. Well, great minds think alike I guess ]

Edited February 26, 2012 by Nevo

[Tramper]

Thanks for the article. I will read them shortly.

You will find the article written by Palmer here. It is basically the same as you will hear in the podcast.

http://mormonthink.com/grant6.htm

And yes, it is fine to be back in the church.

[jwhitlock]

As usual, the FAIR website is a good starting point for reviews of Palmer's book and its problems. It looks like Palmer is simply recycling anti-Mormon material concerning sexual allegations against Joseph that have already been addressed.

Personally, I wasn't particularly impressed by Dehlin's rather glowing comparison of Palmer with Brodie as being able to delve into things; Brodie (at least in my mind) was thoroughly debunked as any kind of accurate historian after her Jefferson book fiasco.

Reading the comments, the "I hate Mormonism" crowd seems to really like Palmer.

Also glad to hear that you're on the way back.

[Duncan]

I had heard he Palmer resigned his membership which is his perogative to do so. One thing with history is to have one foot back then and one foot here and now and both hands firmly on the Temple

[wenglund]

My response to the Grant Palmers of the world is: I have found that there is an inverse relationship between really getting what the restored gospel is about, and the importance one places on obscure elements of Church history.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

I am happy for you, Tramper. But, don't envy you giving a talk! That was never my favorite thing about the church.

I listened to a little of Grant Palmer's podcast. The information is not new.

I gave up on LDS history, awhile ago. It is incredibly difficult to sort truth from fiction or hearsay from fact.

If your heart (the Spirit) leads you into the LDS Church, then that is where you belong.

[Storm Rider]

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.

Tramper, God bless you as you grow in truth and light; may the Holy Spirit guide you always and that you may always recognize the still small voice.

Mormon History is such a fascinating study. As with all history research I take it with an understanding that we are researching the past and we will never have all the facts. What we produce is a picture much like a shattered mirror that provides but glimpses on the lives of others. Judgment and purpose are just as important to apply to these men and women as it is when we look at life today. We have even less understanding of context and less knowledge of the individuals than we do of our own contemporaries. It is not logical to assume that we "know" everything about them. If history is interesting to you, enjoy it, but guard yourself and seek after those things that reflect the teaching of the 13th Article of Faith. Take the rest with a grain of salt.

It is interesting how Church is a lightening rod for all types of criticism. If it were honest criticism, it would be one thing, but so much of it is distorted, twisted, and not even close to the teachings of the Church. Continued blessings upon you and your family.

[why me]

I gave up on LDS history, awhile ago. It is incredibly difficult to sort truth from fiction or hearsay from fact.

If your heart (the Spirit) leads you into the LDS Church, then that is where you belong.

one reason for this is because when it comes to lds history it is difficult to find a neutral position. It seems that everyone has a position that has its opposite at the other pole. I think however that Don Bradley will be doing a good job in his research about some controversial aspects of lds history. And I think that he will take a very good research position as a believer turned critic who is now a believer again. I look forward to his upcoming work.

[why me]

Mormon History is such a fascinating study. As with all history research I take it with an understanding that we are researching the past and we will never have all the facts.

I think that the problem has to do with the biasness that existed from the moment the church began. It was a polarizing institution that was either loved or hated. And everyone had an interpretation. When we look at the critics they tend to go with second hand accounts from people who left the lds church. It becomes difficult to get to the truth with such accounts because some are based on heresay and others want to paint a negative impression of the church leaders. It is no different today with modern day critics.

[Libs]

Yes, that should be interesting.

I guess I am not a very good historical researcher. I mean, how do you know how to weigh the various pieces of evidence? How do you know they are even authentic? It's very confusing for an amateur. And, an absolute hay-day for critics, who love to quote-mine.

[why me]

I need to also say that grant's intention may not be pure. I have found that critics crave the spotlight and when that spotlight no longer shines on them, they need to publish something else to regain the light. Maybe this is the case here since it seems that he is bringing nothing new to the table. However, he now did do a podcast and more podcasts will be forthcoming from the exmo crowd. And he will be the talk of exmormon boards as he is the talk of this board now. So, he is back in the spotlight.

[Libs]

I wouldn't want to judge his motivation. I always try to give people benefit of doubt, in that regard. I think most critics (and I have been one, myself!), and most especially ex-LDS, have sincere and sometimes very deeply held, concerns. It can become consuming, but it is very real for most of us, and often very painful.

[Darth_Bill]

I hear you Libs. The motivation just might be money. It might be a sincere attempt of presenting the information. I know I put a lot about polygamy on my "shelf" because I simply didn't want or care to deal with it. Now I'm taking things off the shelf. In the past, I haven't given GP the time of day, and I still might not. However, I can say that I am troubled by the way it was handled back in the day. I don't see it as much of a reflection on today's church.

[Brade]

My response to the Grant Palmers of the world is: I have found that there is an inverse relationship between really getting what the restored gospel is about, and the importance one places on obscure elements of Church history.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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.

[stemelbow]

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 get that its not an easy place for you at all, but at some point you've got to decide--faith or secularly devised conclusions. I'm not saying that makes it easy for you, even after you decide, but I don't see any other option. If you can't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the weaknesses he demonstrated, then so be it. If you can accept him as a prophet because you have faith the Church is true, the BoM, D&C, and PofGP are scripture, then so be it. Or, if you prefer, you can't accept the BoM as scripture because of its weaknesses, then so be it. If you can accept it as scripture because you have faith it is, essentially, from God even though it has weaknesses, then so be it.

in theory your position isn't as hard as it seems. in practice I realize it can be much harder than that and for that I sympathize.

[stemelbow]

Thanks for the article. I will read them shortly.

You will find the article written by Palmer here. It is basically the same as you will hear in the podcast.

http://mormonthink.com/grant6.htm

And yes, it is fine to be back in the church.

It seems to me the majority of what is relied on for the position he holds regarding Joseph smith amounts to hearsay and inuendo. 'somebody accused Joseph of getting close to a 16 year old girl, whom that somebody seemed to have known'

my goodness..

[Buzzard]

Congratulations on your sacrament meeting talk. I haven't listened to the podcast yet, so I am not sure what specific allegations Palmer discusses. I see from the link that they relate to the Prophet's early years.

Two good sources on this are:

— Brian C. Hales, "Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith’s Pre-Nauvoo Reputation," Journal of Mormon History 35, no. 4 (2009): 112-190. Click here to download the entire issue.

— Gregory L. Smith, "George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20, no. 2 (2008): 37-123; see esp. his discussion of Joseph Smith's alleged liaisons with Eliza Winters and Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde. You can access an online version of the article here. [Edit: I see Dr. Peterson beat me to it. Well, great minds think alike I guess ]

I enjoyed Brother Hales article quite a bit, even though it consumed about half of my Sunday evening. It is interesting how almost all these "allegations" come down either to a third party recalling something someone supposedly said thirty years ago, or the repetition of a rumor by someone digging for dirt on Joseph. Even Fanny Alger, the one woman for which a lot of evidence of a sealing/marriage to Joseph exists, when visited by a critic in her old age, long after she had disafilliated, refused to talk.

But of course, refusal to accept these innuendos on face value is proof of our blind devotion to a lie, since they are all brought forward in perfect objectivity and Christian love and concern for our souls...

[wenglund]

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-

Edited February 27, 2012 by wenglund

[Brade]

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-

Help me understand how the restored gospel works? What element of the restored gospel do you believe I don't understand?

[Brade]

I get that its not an easy place for you at all, but at some point you've got to decide--faith or secularly devised conclusions. I'm not saying that makes it easy for you, even after you decide, but I don't see any other option. If you can't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the weaknesses he demonstrated, then so be it. If you can accept him as a prophet because you have faith the Church is true, the BoM, D&C, and PofGP are scripture, then so be it. Or, if you prefer, you can't accept the BoM as scripture because of its weaknesses, then so be it. If you can accept it as scripture because you have faith it is, essentially, from God even though it has weaknesses, then so be it.

in theory your position isn't as hard as it seems. in practice I realize it can be much harder than that and for that I sympathize.

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.

[wenglund]

Help me understand how the restored gospel works? What element of the restored gospel do you believe I don't understand?

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-

[cinepro]

Chapter heading for Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:

Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

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

[Brade]

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-

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.