The Latest From Grant Palmer

[cdowis]

A personal visit is highly overrated.

The Lord teaches how and when the learning experience fits us best, and should not be dismissed.

Edited April 16, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

A personal visit is highly overrated.

The Lord teaches how and when the learning experience fits us best, and should not be dismissed.

Out of interest, if the Apostles receive their witness in a similar way to us, what makes it "special." They are certainly exceptionally talented and often outstandingly articulate individuals, on that level they are special people chosen as witnesses. But is their witness in some way special, or distinct from the general membership.

In light of the question of whether the Apostles (or members of the 70) could doubt or think it's all fake, do you think they rely on a similar testimony as we do? Or do they have an experience (whether visitation or not) that is genuinely distinct or special in comparison to what most of the rest of us experience?

[ERayR]

Actually I do that sometimes too. Mainly if I think I have no real point or insight -- just simply disagree.

I like your posting style. There is very seldom any ambiguities.

[Questing Beast]

what if God used that experience to show him the vision regardless of what you call it?

Makes no difference to me if the "vision" depicts literal history or something less factual. A "vision" is personal, you can think of it as God telling that individual something in a way that will achieve the desired effect upon their character and resulting behavior. That's all that "visions" are for, changing character and behavior for the better....

[Duncan]

Makes no difference to me if the "vision" depicts literal history or something less factual. A "vision" is personal, you can think of it as God telling that individual something in a way that will achieve the desired effect upon their character and resulting behavior. That's all that "visions" are for, changing character and behavior for the better....

I would go along with that! Thank you!

[Duncan]

Out of interest, if the Apostles receive their witness in a similar way to us, what makes it "special." They are certainly exceptionally talented and often outstandingly articulate individuals, on that level they are special people chosen as witnesses. But is their witness in some way special, or distinct from the general membership.

In light of the question of whether the Apostles (or members of the 70) could doubt or think it's all fake, do you think they rely on a similar testimony as we do? Or do they have an experience (whether visitation or not) that is genuinely distinct or special in comparison to what most of the rest of us experience?

I think that is what the Twelve and other leaders are trying to teach us, to get our own witness. I don't think their witness is any different then anyone else, some of them or most? have seen Christ I would say but maybe so have other members of the Church-isn't that one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost? We are all in this together. But we sustain them and not me (count your blessings) as leaders, even though my witness could be by the same means. Incidentally, the term "special witness" isn't scriptural. the term "especial witness" is and it relates to the 70 (DC107:25, 27:12) so i am guessing someone extrapolated or something and said well if the 70 are especial witnesses then the twelve are "higher" then them then they must be "special" witnesses (just a guess on my part)

Edited April 17, 2013 by Duncan

[Hamba Tuhan]

In light of the question of whether the Apostles (or members of the 70) could doubt or think it's all fake, do you think they rely on a similar testimony as we do? Or do they have an experience (whether visitation or not) that is genuinely distinct or special in comparison to what most of the rest of us experience?

I've been trying to imagine what kind of an experience could place a person outside the possibility of disbelief, but I can't come up with one. What did you have in mind?

Edited April 17, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Avatar4321]

I think the question of whether the church is going more mainstream is an interesting one. Possibly not for this thread, but I would suggest there's evidence of the church going more not less mainstream.

I humbly disagree. but as you are saying, it's a discussion for another thread.

[MormonMason]

I once was shown in vision both Christ's suffering in Gethsemane and his crucifixion. The artwork we often see makes the garden suffering seem so serene. It was anything but. Even the words "...caused me, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain..." do not do justice enough in describing to English readers what actually transpired there that evening.

[why me]

I think that the problem is one of belief. For example, although lds prophets and apostles have claimed visitions or visions, I am not sure just how the outside world would believe them. I think that Grant would claim that it is all a gimmick or trick to get the faithful more on board with the program. We see this is how people interpret the statements of the witnesses. I have heard critics claim that these witnesses were deluded and tricked and products of their own superstitions for their cultural time frame.

And so, it is up to the believer to judge these visions or visitations and see the bigger picture of what is the church.

[Robert F. Smith]

Elder David B Haight - "I was shown a panoramic view of His earthly ministry: His baptism, His teaching, His healing the sick and lame, the mock trial, His crucifixion, His resurrection and ascension. There followed scenes of His earthly ministry to my mind in impressive detail, confirming scriptural eyewitness accounts. I was being taught, and the eyes of my understanding were opened by the Holy Spirit of God so as to behold many things."

You remember that this experience occurred when he was bent over the bathtub in extreme pain while the paramedics were coming? And afterward when he had lost consciousness? it was a METAPHYSICAL vision, not an empirical visit. I believe that all such visions/visitations are metaphysical. They cannot be otherwise, since a heavenly being appearing empirically would "fry" any mortal eyes in their sockets, etc. So "whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell" remains core: and it is always out of the body, but afterward is so real that the memory feels as if it had occurred in the body....

Something may be fried all right, but maybe just metaphysically.

However, the first question that occurs to me when I hear some visionary account like that (say reports from NDEs and such) is to have them describe for me the details. For example, Elder Haight might not know much about the archeological background and culture of 1st century Palestine. A description from him might tell us just how authentic such a vision might have been. One knows, for example, that Caucasians tend to imagine a Caucasian Jesus, and other races or ethnic groups a Jesus which looks very much like them, while the archeologist would expect a typical Jewish appearance and garb, the surrounding bldgs and countryside to be in accord with 1st century Palestine. The Crucifixion itself would present an acid test, since it is never depicted as it almost certainly happened to the many thousands that Rome crucified. So, Beast, would you know what to look for in an authentic crucifixion? Had we a videocam and time travel, what would our camera crew obtain from the Crucifixion of Jesus that would both shock and traumatize viewers? Archeologists already know what to look for without time travel.

Likewise, if someone died on the operating table and then was revived and later described his ascent to a heavenly realm, what would pique your interest in his description of that event? Suppose someone had placed a photo or other object on top of a high locker or shelf (which the patient could not see without a ladder). Would it be convincing to you if that patient could describe for you that photo which he saw while suspended up high watching the doctors and nurses below, before going off through the tunnel toward the light and perhaps meeting kinfolk, and then being sucked back into the body. PhDs at serious institutions such as the Menninger Clinic have done extensive research on such questions. They don't take your apriori approach.

[cdowis]

Having read visions in the scriptures, I find that that "authentic details" is not an essential aspect of those visions.

As the Lord has said, He fits the language of the receiver, which would include visual effects. I would think authentic details would distract from the message.

Edited April 17, 2013 by cdowis

[Questing Beast]

Something may be fried all right, but maybe just metaphysically.

However, the first question that occurs to me when I hear some visionary account like that (say reports from NDEs and such) is to have them describe for me the details. For example, Elder Haight might not know much about the archeological background and culture of 1st century Palestine. A description from him might tell us just how authentic such a vision might have been. One knows, for example, that Caucasians tend to imagine a Caucasian Jesus, and other races or ethnic groups a Jesus which looks very much like them, while the archeologist would expect a typical Jewish appearance and garb, the surrounding bldgs and countryside to be in accord with 1st century Palestine. The Crucifixion itself would present an acid test, since it is never depicted as it almost certainly happened to the many thousands that Rome crucified. So, Beast, would you know what to look for in an authentic crucifixion? Had we a videocam and time travel, what would our camera crew obtain from the Crucifixion of Jesus that would both shock and traumatize viewers? Archeologists already know what to look for without time travel.

Likewise, if someone died on the operating table and then was revived and later described his ascent to a heavenly realm, what would pique your interest in his description of that event? Suppose someone had placed a photo or other object on top of a high locker or shelf (which the patient could not see without a ladder). Would it be convincing to you if that patient could describe for you that photo which he saw while suspended up high watching the doctors and nurses below, before going off through the tunnel toward the light and perhaps meeting kinfolk, and then being sucked back into the body. PhDs at serious institutions such as the Menninger Clinic have done extensive research on such questions. They don't take your apriori approach.

I believe in NDE's. They are always metaphysical as well. No reliable, that is to say, replicable NDE's are possible, of course, since they are "once off" events. But a collection of observations is growing. And yes, some of them are very intriguing in their details. Children's NDE's are the most interesting because most children do not have a lifetime of media input to give them preconceived notions as to details.

You bring up the issue of physical details from visions such as Elder Haight's. I wouldn't know what details are bogus. I thought that Gibson's portrayal was as authentic in details as anyone could put into a film. What about "Passion of the Christ" did you find historically inaccurate?

I doubt your assertion that archaeologists "know what to look for". They know some things, but there is obviously far more that they do not know than that they think they already know....

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe in NDE's. They are always metaphysical as well. No reliable, that is to say, replicable NDE's are possible, of course, since they are "once off" events. But a collection of observations is growing. And yes, some of them are very intriguing in their details. Children's NDE's are the most interesting because most children do not have a lifetime of media input to give them preconceived notions as to details.

The first book on the subject that I am aware of was a personal account by a professor of psychiatry, Dr. George Ritchie, Return from Tomorrow. In the book, Ritchie recalls that at age 20 he was inducted into the Army and sent for training to Texas, where he died of pneumonia. Of course, he recovered and went on to medical school, etc. But for the time he was dead he had an extraordinary experience as NDE accounts go. Can't recall one quite like it. He traveled rapidly across country, stopping at places along the way which were completely unfamiliar to him, including a bar in which he could observe spirits which were trying in vain to drink booze or smoke cigarettes -- obviously still addicted to the same things as in physical existence. It was Xmas-time and he arrived at home in the Carolinas I think, where he got a chance to see his step-mother as she really was, and not in the negative way he had previously done. He then traveled through the air back to Texas in time to reenter his body and fully recover. Later he was able to verify that some of the places he visited in the spirit actually existed. Does that fit the verification principle of logical positivism?

See http://death.free-books.biz/Return-from-Tomorrow-PDF-1.html for a free download of Return from Tomorrow. It's a good read.

You bring up the issue of physical details from visions such as Elder Haight's. I wouldn't know what details are bogus. I thought that Gibson's portrayal was as authentic in details as anyone could put into a film. What about "Passion of the Christ" did you find historically inaccurate?

I did see "The Passion," even though most people missed it -- for the best, perhaps, due to the extraordinary violence, which went far beyond what a scourging would likely have been like. However, Gibson, right-wing Roman Catholic that he is, wanted to create a moving crucifix, and in that he succeeded. His version of Satan, a young woman moving smoothly and eerily behind the crowd on rollers, was probably out of place.

Mel Gibson did consult with experts on the mise en scene and even had the script translated into Aramaic, Latin (including street Latin for the soldiers), and a bit of Hebrew. The actors generally looked right, although Jesus should have been played by an Israeli Jew selected for the role. Can you imagine Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" being played by Max von Sydow?

Frankly, I preferred Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," but would not recommend it to any but scholars. It is based on the novel by Kazantzakis, which I read as a teenager. Scorsese also used a female Satan to tempt Jesus while he was on the Cross. She used a dream sequence (his last temptation) showing what his life could have been like if he married, had children, etc. Of course, Jesus doesn't buy into all that and completes his Atonement.

I doubt your assertion that archaeologists "know what to look for". They know some things, but there is obviously far more that they do not know than that they think they already know....

You have no idea what you are talking about, Beast. You could consult James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006), or consult any number of beautiful illustrated atlases of NT times. That would help you get a grip on reality, which Hollywood seldom cares about. Your version of 1st century Judaism and Christianity is undoubtedly no more real than the Hollywood cowboy movies we saw as kids -- or the Spaghetti westerns we saw later.

As I said, if someone had a vision of the Crucifixion, it would not take too long to figure out whether his description was authentic. That would only get us past the falsification stage, because such a person might have done research on crucifixion. But it would at least weed out the sheer invention of the creative human mind in giving us a false version of the Crucifixion, and that would be most of them.

[Robert F. Smith]

Having read visions in the scriptures, I find that that "authentic details" is not an essential aspect of those visions.

As the Lord has said, He fits the language of the receiver, which would include visual effects. I would think authentic details would distract from the message.

An interesting take on the question of verisimilitude. Does that make God no more than another creative Hollywood director? Does that mean that an East Indian Christian would be shown a vision which looks like the Mahabharata? A Jesus who looks and behaves like a Brahman? All because reality might distract one from the message? So McLuhan was right or wrong to suggest that the medium is the message?

Perhaps roles in a play or movie in that sense are only ritual characters and history itself only a dramatic ritual?

[Questing Beast]

...

You have no idea what you are talking about, Beast. You could consult James Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006), or consult any number of beautiful illustrated atlases of NT times. That would help you get a grip on reality, which Hollywood seldom cares about. Your version of 1st century Judaism and Christianity is undoubtedly no more real than the Hollywood cowboy movies we saw as kids -- or the Spaghetti westerns we saw later.

As I said, if someone had a vision of the Crucifixion, it would not take too long to figure out whether his description was authentic. That would only get us past the falsification stage, because such a person might have done research on crucifixion. But it would at least weed out the sheer invention of the creative human mind in giving us a false version of the Crucifixion, and that would be most of them.

I saw Passion of the Christ when it first came out. It shattered me. Specifically the flogging scene you mention as overdone, probably. That scene was so horrific that it destroyed my belief in the preexistence, "Mormon-style". I cannot believe that God would put us up to that kind of choice: remain disembodied "angels" forever, or allow Jesus Christ to take all the blows for us so that we can become "gods". No, freaking, way! If I agreed to it in ignorance, I recant, here and now, and will accept total, permanent annihilation rather than accept even one blow of that flagellum on God's back so that I can become a "god". I would rather die, here and now, than allow any person to take that in my place. Yet, I am physically a coward. If I were in a literal situation where the flogging was about to be put onto me, and Jesus Christ stepped between them and me and offered himself instead, so that I would not have to be flogged, there is no way that I would refuse that deliverance, and be forced to watch him get flayed to the bones and bleed into the cobblestones, etc. and etc. And I would hate myself and my weakness for the rest of eternity. I would not be grateful to have to live with that reminder each second of my immortal life. SO! I did NOT agree to any such travesty as the Judeo-Christian atonement asserts, not in any preexistence, and I do not agree with it now. God is not that manipulative nor that powerless.

I find your judgment to be in error, and ascribe it to the weakness of attained knowledge. No doubt you worked, and work, hard for the facts that are put into your brain. You find anyone like me an affront to your long years of hard work. Yet you know me not at all. You have no idea how hard I work at what I try to know. All you have done in the end is point out that Haight's "vision" is entirely lacking in the first details. He could have just as well been recalling a 3D version of the crucifixion in Ben Hur or any "spaghetti swords and sandals" epic. I do not view the "wild west" through the eyes of the cinema or what Medía has offered to me over the years. I look at original pictures and read original sources when I want a picture of the old west as it was, as close as any of us can get to "seeing" it, now that all eyewitness participants are gone forever. The "old west" is as accessible as the Norman Conquest, which is to say, not very, aside from the more abundant source material; but it is all reduced to source material, and that means reduced to interpretation, which is always in the end an individual matter, irrevocably tied to the metaphysical (egocentric) world, and no two of us share the same one....

[savedbygrace]

Grant Palmer wrote:

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. Upon entering my home for the first meeting the GA said, “We are here to learn.” I recognized him. He has been a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for a number of years. He has served in several high profile assignments during this period. The following are the more important statements made by the GA during our first three meetings. We now meet monthly.

He said that each new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is given one million dollars to take care of any financial obligations they have. This money gift allows them to fully focus on the ministry. He said that the overriding consideration of who is chosen is whether they are “church broke,” meaning, will they do whatever they are told. He said the senior six apostles make the agenda and do most of the talking. The junior six are told to observe, listen and learn and really only comment if they are asked. He said that it takes about two to three years before the new apostle discovers that the church is not true. He said it took Dieter F. Uchtdorf a little longer because he was an outsider. He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church. When the Mission President voiced skepticism and named ___ as one who surely did believe, The GA said: “No, he doesn’t.” The one million dollar gift, plus their totally obedient attitude makes it easy for them to go along when they find out the church is not true. For these reasons and others, he doesn’t expect any apostle to ever expose the truth about the foundational claims.

http://journeyofloya...m/2013/04/06/6/

This is just a part of what he is now claiming. The writing seems to have been verified as being from Grant Palmer. If so, I found his take on it quite unbelievable. I think that he needs to name names if he is posting such 'information'.

Hello, I have just read the article, and some of the responses here, my question is, although it is shocking, it does not mean it is untrue, and if it were true, where would that leave the faithful LDS, such as your selves?

[Hamba Tuhan]

If it were true, where would that leave the faithful LDS, such as your selves?

Where did Judas's apostasy leave the early Christians?

[Questing Beast]

Hello, I have just read the article, and some of the responses here, my question is, although it is shocking, it does not mean it is untrue, and if it were true, where would that leave the faithful LDS, such as your selves?

The world view of Mormonism would change to being led by "philosopher/priest kings". The literalness of "priesthood authority" would probably take a fatal hit. Any surviving doctrines would be far less dogmatic. People would look more to each other to get things done, instead of seeking advice for every little facet of their spiritual lives....

[ERayR]

Hello, I have just read the article, and some of the responses here, my question is, although it is shocking, it does not mean it is untrue, and if it were true, where would that leave the faithful LDS, such as your selves?

Taking into account Palmer track record the odds are infinitesimally small that it is true. So infinitesimally small, given my own spiritual manifestations, that it is a total waste of time to consider ge you the ramifications you suggest. However, to indulge you, it would be devastating.

There now I played your game do I get a sucker?

[Calm]

People would look more to each other to get things done, instead of seeking advice for every little facet of their spiritual lives....

I will grant that there are some who do this, but very few in my personal experience.

[Duncan]

I saw Passion of the Christ when it first came out. It shattered me. Specifically the flogging scene you mention as overdone, probably. That scene was so horrific that it destroyed my belief in the preexistence, "Mormon-style". I cannot believe that God would put us up to that kind of choice: remain disembodied "angels" forever, or allow Jesus Christ to take all the blows for us so that we can become "gods". No, freaking, way! If I agreed to it in ignorance, I recant, here and now, and will accept total, permanent annihilation rather than accept even one blow of that flagellum on God's back so that I can become a "god". I would rather die, here and now, than allow any person to take that in my place. Yet, I am physically a coward. If I were in a literal situation where the flogging was about to be put onto me, and Jesus Christ stepped between them and me and offered himself instead, so that I would not have to be flogged, there is no way that I would refuse that deliverance, and be forced to watch him get flayed to the bones and bleed into the cobblestones, etc. and etc. And I would hate myself and my weakness for the rest of eternity. I would not be grateful to have to live with that reminder each second of my immortal life. SO! I did NOT agree to any such travesty as the Judeo-Christian atonement asserts, not in any preexistence, and I do not agree with it now. God is not that manipulative nor that powerless.

I find your judgment to be in error, and ascribe it to the weakness of attained knowledge. No doubt you worked, and work, hard for the facts that are put into your brain. You find anyone like me an affront to your long years of hard work. Yet you know me not at all. You have no idea how hard I work at what I try to know. All you have done in the end is point out that Haight's "vision" is entirely lacking in the first details. He could have just as well been recalling a 3D version of the crucifixion in Ben Hur or any "spaghetti swords and sandals" epic. I do not view the "wild west" through the eyes of the cinema or what Medía has offered to me over the years. I look at original pictures and read original sources when I want a picture of the old west as it was, as close as any of us can get to "seeing" it, now that all eyewitness participants are gone forever. The "old west" is as accessible as the Norman Conquest, which is to say, not very, aside from the more abundant source material; but it is all reduced to source material, and that means reduced to interpretation, which is always in the end an individual matter, irrevocably tied to the metaphysical (egocentric) world, and no two of us share the same one....

interestingly enough in the 19th section of the DC Christ doesn't even mention the flogging part and tauntings, he talks about how painful it was to bear the sins and infirmities of all of us

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19?lang=eng

[Questing Beast]

interestingly enough in the 19th section of the DC Christ doesn't even mention the flogging part and tauntings, he talks about how painful it was to bear the sins and infirmities of all of us

http://www.lds.org/s.../dc/19?lang=eng

Precisely. The flogging was mere preparatory "overkill". That says something infinitely worse about the suffering he "really" undergoes for each of us, so that we can be spared a "flogging" and become "gods". No, thank, you, I won't be buying "godhood" with some else's suffering....

[savedbygrace]

I have never seen that. But I have heard of it being done but not in a very aggressive way.

I was excommunicated years ago, but at that time I'm not sure there was any other way to leave. At any rate I was summoned to a bishops court for apostasy and that was what happened, but it was all very civilised, they were even kind. I think they truly regretted the situation, but I could not retreat from my position, and total conviction that the church is not true, and Joseph Smith was a fraud, so I suppose they had no choice. As for me, I have never regretted it, and truly could not have remained in the church paying lip service, which is of course the GA's must be doing if the OP has any truth in it. But the general concensus that this is all a lie is equally unfounded and based upon emotion. That people cannot conceive that rich men can be tainted by avarice, or that they could not bare to lose their positions, and station in Mormon society, and be part of a collective lie is nonsense. Of course they can, look where they are and where they would be if they were honest, and this all turned out to be true, think of the devastation within their own families and the wider church in general, $1,000,000 is probably small compensation, for what would be a lifetime of falsehood, or on the other hand reward for the same.

[savedbygrace]

Where did Judas's apostasy leave the early Christians?

Where did Judas's apostasy leave the early Christians?

We're not talking about the early Christians, it is the integrity of the LDS that would be at stake, and its claims to truth seriously harmed.