The Latest From Grant Palmer

[Stargazer]

When I was considering resignation a few years ago, I met with my bishop and stake president on several occasions. On one occasion, I met with the stake presidency all together. The 2nd Counselor, a man I had grown up knowing, and I never really got along too well because, to him, my beliefs were too radical and divergent. He often had the attitude of believe and obey when we would discuss issues. Any way, I had made the decision to resign and I informed both the bishop and the stake president. Now, this is a rumor I had heard but I'm not sure the 2nd Counselor would be stupid enough to try this crap but I was told that he had proposed excommunication to the stake president. My resignation was received and we parted ways on good terms.

If a member of the church is choosing to resign then the church should honor that choice without taking the low road and excommunicating someone instead. That would just be ridiculous.

I agree totally.

Your situation where the counselor was proposing excommunication, if that were correct, wow. Just wow. I can't think of too many more vindictive and heartless acts.

However, if a member has been involved in a serious transgression (quite aside from just not believing any longer), I don't think that a resignation letter written in order to short-circuit the disciplinary council should be permitted to so short-circuit it.

[CASteinman]

ANALYSIS OF GRANT PALMER TIMELINE

I have re-examined the timeline data that Duncan looked at. I think that there was a flaw in Duncan's methodology.

The most critical bit of data that Duncan had that threw off the timeline was:

• "he says that the first meeting was on one website was Oct. 3"
  
• "We first met on Tuesday, October 3, 2012 "
  

I believe this is a cut and paste error. Most sources say "We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012" I note that if you remove the "2" you get just a "3" and that October 3 was a Wednesday not a Tuesday.

So I reviewed all of the statements. Here are my findings:

Statement 1

(At Exmo Conference - about 8:30 into the Video)

Saturday October 20 he says: “Earlier this week I had a phone call from return mission president and he said he read my book and he knew the Church was not true. “ Then he mentions that it is a GA (1^st Quorum of 70) who gave him the book – and who “wants to get in on the act”

Point: That would make it about the 15^th, 16^th or 17^th of October when he got that first phone call.

Point: By the 20^th he is aware that the GA wants to “get involved”

Statement 2

(from the Internet Article)

"In mid-October 2012, a returned LDS Mission President contacted me to arrange a meeting. Several days later, he called again and said that a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy also wished to attend."

Point: Mid October is in line with 15^th, 16^th and 17^th.

Point: “several days later” than “mid October” the Mission President calls to get the GA involved. That would have been the 17^th, 18^th or 19^th.

Statement 3

(from the Internet Article)

"We have at this writing met three times. We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and again February 14, 2013 at my house. On March 26, 2013 we convened at the GAs house"

Point: First Meeting was October 23.

SUMMARY AND ESTIMATED DATES

October 15 – Mission President Calls him (first time). Mentions GA and Book and wants to set up meeting. (Stmt1 & 2)

October 18 – Mission President calls him again (2^nd time) and mentions GA wants to come to meeting. (Stmt 2)

October 20 – Grant tells the story about the Mission President and says that a GA wants to get involved (Stmt 1)

October 23 – they meet for the first time (Stmt 3)

February 14 - meet again on Valentines day(!) (Stmt 3)

March 26^th – Met at GA’s house. (was wife there?) (Stmt 3)

CONCLUSION: These dates are all consistent. None of the comments contradict. There is nothing in this timeline that makes the story questionable. Given other (former) GA's that are "problematic" it may be possible that Palmer was relaying at least some correct information. I suspect it may be an emeritus GA though -- because for some reason that is when others seemingly went off the rails.

[CASteinman]

Is this GA in contact with him because of doubts or because of friendship and fellowship? Are you saying that a GA is coming to Grant because of his doubts and wants Grant to confirm his doubts?

There is a GA Emeritus who appears to be off the rails. He is at the very least -- in contact -- with Grant.

[Stargazer]

I agree that the church might be liable for a civil suit... but what I did not know was that there was a court ruling that made this subject to State Regulation.

I am amazed at what the Courts can do sometimes.

Like I said, the case in question is quite limited, to start with it doesn't apply outside Oklahoma, and in the second place it has little or nothing to do with membership. It has to do with breach of privacy.

[Duncan]

ANALYSIS OF GRANT PALMER TIMELINE

I have re-examined the timeline data that Duncan looked at. I think that there was a flaw in Duncan's methodology.

The most critical bit of data that Duncan had that threw off the timeline was:

• "he says that the first meeting was on one website was Oct. 3"
  
• "We first met on Tuesday, October 3, 2012 "
  

I believe this is a cut and paste error. Most sources say "We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012" I note that if you remove the "2" you get just a "3" and that October 3 was a Wednesday not a Tuesday.

So I reviewed all of the statements. Here are my findings:

Statement 1

(At Exmo Conference - about 8:30 into the Video)

Saturday October 20 he says: “Earlier this week I had a phone call from return mission president and he said he read my book and he knew the Church was not true. “ Then he mentions that it is a GA (1^st Quorum of 70) who gave him the book – and who “wants to get in on the act”

Point: That would make it about the 15^th, 16^th or 17^th of October when he got that first phone call.

Point: By the 20^th he is aware that the GA wants to “get involved”

Statement 2

(from the Internet Article)

"In mid-October 2012, a returned LDS Mission President contacted me to arrange a meeting. Several days later, he called again and said that a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy also wished to attend."

Point: Mid October is in line with 15^th, 16^th and 17^th.

Point: “several days later” than “mid October” the Mission President calls to get the GA involved. That would have been the 17^th, 18^th or 19^th.

Statement 3

(from the Internet Article)

"We have at this writing met three times. We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and again February 14, 2013 at my house. On March 26, 2013 we convened at the GAs house"

Point: First Meeting was October 23.

SUMMARY AND ESTIMATED DATES

October 15 – Mission President Calls him (first time). Mentions GA and Book and wants to set up meeting. (Stmt1 & 2)

October 18 – Mission President calls him again (2^nd time) and mentions GA wants to come to meeting. (Stmt 2)

October 20 – Grant tells the story about the Mission President and says that a GA wants to get involved (Stmt 1)

October 23 – they meet for the first time (Stmt 3)

February 14 - meet again on Valentines day(!) (Stmt 3)

March 26^th – Met at GA’s house. (was wife there?) (Stmt 3)

CONCLUSION: These dates are all consistent. None of the comments contradict. There is nothing in this timeline that makes the story questionable. Given other (former) GA's that are "problematic" it may be possible that Palmer was relaying at least some correct information. I suspect it may be an emeritus GA though -- because for some reason that is when others seemingly went off the rails.

touche but En garde Pret Allez! I think you may have missed a later comment I made about my speculation Palmer was by the 20th passing on a rumour which hadn't been confirmed yet by the first meeting on the 23rd. Why pass off a rumour as a fact? I got the 3rd from a website that has since been updated. According to this website

http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htm "Grant waited 6 months before releasing this report to the public because he wanted to make sure this is what the GA believed." Sounds like he waited a few days, if that, before passing on the information

about the GA

How do you know emeritus GAs tend to go off the rails?

Edited April 11, 2013 by Duncan

[Storm Rider]

When I read some of the comments it is clear that the perspective of the individual is everything. When someone has dug themselves into a deep, dark pit the only thing they have is their own thoughts, their own view....of nothing. It is all in their heads. The oft repeated myth of the First Presidency and the Q of the 12 living life in luxury when nothing could be further from the truth. The myth of the Church being able to "control" individuals. As was stated above, having been a member for decades I have never been controlled by anyone. In fact, there has never been a single instance where I did not choose to do something. The Church and its leaders may ask, but it is incapable of taking away each individual's right to choose. Myths abound and are given wing when an individual lives only in their own thoughts and does not look at reality. Blinders and darkness lead to a highly skewed, mythological perspective that resides solely in one's mind while possessing no relationship to reality.

[CASteinman]

touche but En garde Pret Allez! I think you may have missed a later comment I made about my speculation Palmer was by the 20th passing on a rumour which hadn't been confirmed yet by the first meeting on the 23rd.

I did miss that. Can you clarify? I did not hear anything on the 20th that he would not have known from the phone calls on the 15th and 18th.

How do you know emeritus GAs tend to go off the rails?

The very few that I believe I am aware of -- it was after emeritus as far as I can tell.

[why me]

The very few that I believe I am aware of -- it was after emeritus as far as I can tell.

However, we do have the problem with none of the apostles believing and receiving a million euro payout to keep the farce going, at least according to Palmer. See the problem? If it were a GA or a MP, know one would really care. It is the other parts of the story that create a problem. Also, Palmer puts his book right in the middle and mormonthink too. This seems to be a great plug for his book and for the site. Since Grant and the site are interlinked, it seems rather good luck to have them both in the middle of the story. Also, Grant claims to my recollection that the apostles and this GA know that the church is not true. How can one know the church is not true based on MormonThink and Grant's book? What is the basis for their 'knowing'?

I think that the GA should have read Bushman's book. It was published right after Grant's book. If a GA can suddenly come to the conclusion that the church is not true based on Grant's book, it would seem that his faith was rather weak from the beginning. A book is just a book, a pile of paper inside a binding with the interpretations of one person based on accumulated data and facts. Likewise for Bushman's book RSR.

This is what I know: what makes the book of mormon so compelling are the witnesses to the book of mormon. And the people who were involved in the process. No one recanted their experiences...the witnesses testified on their deathbeds about what they saw and experienced. And emma, even during her darker days with polygamy, did not give it all up and spill the beans. Something extraordinary happened at that time. What that was will remain a mystery until we die and discover the truth.

Edited April 11, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

ROFLMBO! That was one of the best pieces of humor literature I have read. Oh wait...the person was being serious?

As I said earlier in the thread, to quote Twain:

"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."

Have you seen the trailer for the new 'conspiracy documentary?' Sirius I think it's called. About UFO technology being harnessed, Masonic power and a 6-inch E.T.

Absolutely barmy of course. But he's as convinced he's right as you are.

"This really is the greatest story never told," Greer said. "Once people understand that classified projects have figured out how UFOs operate, they will realize we no longer need oil, coal and nuclear power. This is the truth that has driven the secrecy."

http://www.ibtimes.com/tiny-alien-humanoid-claimed-exist-steven-greers-upcoming-documentary-sirius-photo-video-1181439

I guess if Palmer turns up with a decomposing 6-inch general authority we'll have to believe him.

[canard78]

However, we do have the problem with none of the apostles believing and receiving a million euro payout to keep the farce going, at least according to Palmer. See the problem? If it were a GA or a MP, know one would really care. It is the other parts of the story that create a problem. Also, Palmer puts his book right in the middle and mormonthink too. This seems to be a great plug for his book and for the site. Since Grant and the site are interlinked, it seems rather good luck to have them both in the middle of the story. Also, Grant claims to my recollection that the apostles and this GA know that the church is not true. How can one know the church is not true based on MormonThink and Grant's book?

If some of the claims in MT and Palmers book remain asked and unanswered then they could.

You only need to pay a quick visit to FAIR to get a lot of them dealt with, but even then there are some that are not fully answered and can leave a shred of uncertainty.

GAs and MPs are not impervious.

[canard78]

I did miss that. Can you clarify? I did not hear anything on the 20th that he would not have known from the phone calls on the 15th and 18th.

The very few that I believe I am aware of -- it was after emeritus as far as I can tell.

So to clarify yours and Duncan's conversation - it's: "GAs who go off the rails tend to do so once emeritus" not "Emeritus GAs tend to go off the rails."

[CASteinman]

So to clarify yours and Duncan's conversation - it's: "GAs who go off the rails tend to do so once emeritus" not "Emeritus GAs tend to go off the rails."

Yeah, if I said it the other way, it was probably just the bong water....

[canard78]

Yeah, if I said it the other way, it was probably just the bong water....

That's a great expression. What does it mean (I'll be really sad if it just just an iPhone autocorrect gone wrong)?

[CASteinman]

That's a great expression. What does it mean (I'll be really sad if it just just an iPhone autocorrect gone wrong)?

Smoke marijuana in a bong --you get sort of dirty water in the bong. -- its "messed up" and so are you...

[Nevo]

Just a quick clarification regarding terminology. A General Authority is a senior leader of the Church—that is, a member of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, or the Presiding Bishopric.

The term does not apply to Area Seventies. So, for example, an Area Seventy released in 2005 is not an "emeritus GA" since that person was never a General Authority and did not receive emeritus status (which is only given to members of the First Quorum of the Seventy who reach the age of 70).

To be clear, Grant Palmer's claim is that he is meeting with a currently serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy who has been a member of that quorum for "a number of years" and served in "several high profile assignments," who concluded that the Church was not true after reading An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose anything is possible.

-------

By the way, the claim that David O. McKay did not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon has now been removed from Palmer's "report" on the MormonThink website (http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htm). Hmm. I wonder if Greg Prince had anything to do with it.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

In my opinion, if this alleged Seventy has truly gifted Palmer's book to other people, I would say that is virtually impossible that this story could have remained secret with no one leaking it. Additionally, since this mystery person admits that he has never heard an apostle deny the truth claims of the Church, how can he possibly know, with such detail, that none of the twelve actually believe, including the alleged fact that Elder Uchtdorf took longer to break. How would he know these things? And, why would he know and no one else?

This is an excellent point.

There appears to be a contradiction here in the story I didn't notice before.

How COULD he know these things?

[mfbukowski]

http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htm "Grant waited 6 months before releasing this report to the public because he wanted to make sure this is what the GA believed."

He would only wait 6 months if there was some reason to believe that "what the GA believed" was NOT what the GA had originally told him.

Under what circumstances might we doubt that what someone tells us is really "what they believed"??

Perhaps the GA going "off the rails" indicates that the GA's story itself is highly suspicious and perhaps inconsistent. If this individual is "going off the rails" as well, could it be that it is the GA who has some kind of mental impairment?

[CASteinman]

Just a quick clarification regarding terminology. A General Authority is a senior leader of the Church—that is, a member of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, or the Presiding Bishopric.

You are right... I sometimes make a mistake like that and call them all GA's but that is not correct. Sorry!

[CASteinman]

How COULD he know these things?

I have observed a phenomenon among people who become enemies of the Church. They become somewhat clairvoyant with regard to the motives of the Apostles and perhaps some of the members.

Interestingly enough, I have observed some of the exmormons loathing their former selves -- lumping who they were with the Good Men of the Church. It is, for me, a newly detected pathology.

[Marmonboy]

I would like to know who it is that has "gone off the rails." I don't expect to find out, but I would like to know.

[why me]

Interestingly enough, I have observed some of the exmormons loathing their former selves -- lumping who they were with the Good Men of the Church. It is, for me, a newly detected pathology.

It is my observation that the most adamant exmos were most likely 110 percenters whent they were in the church and they regret their time in the church. But i think that their conflict comes from needing to disbelieve in the church and in the negation of all their spiritual experiences that they had in the church.

On the boards, these exmos can be the most miserable and treat believers aggressively. I have my own personal experience on the postmormon site, the new order site, the catholic site and the other board. Posters were aggressive and intolerant when I posted a positive about the lds church.

[why me]

I would like to know who it is that has "gone off the rails." I don't expect to find out, but I would like to know.

Maybe no one. No name, no proof. Just his word on it with his book in the middle of it all. I find it interesting that his book played such a role and it is good luck for him since now maybe sales will pick up a little.

[KevinG]

I would like to know who it is that has "gone off the rails." I don't expect to find out, but I would like to know.

Why- I'm sure he's no different than half of my High Priests group (including myself). Is there inherant value in knowing someone is losing their mortal faculties in making judgements about the truthfullness of the Gospel?

[KevinG]

I have observed a phenomenon among people who become enemies of the Church. They become somewhat clairvoyant with regard to the motives of the Apostles and perhaps some of the members.

Interestingly enough, I have observed some of the exmormons loathing their former selves -- lumping who they were with the Good Men of the Church. It is, for me, a newly detected pathology.

Not only do they develop the ability to read minds but they also develop the ability to do so accross time and space. It must be cool knowing what Brother Joseph and Brother Brigham were really thinking 150+ years ago.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Like I said, the case in question is quite limited, to start with it doesn't apply outside Oklahoma, and in the second place it has little or nothing to do with membership. It has to do with breach of privacy.

To avoid derailing this thread, this topic was discussed here: