The Latest From Grant Palmer

[CASteinman]

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.

It is, of course, possible. I deal in statistics and probabilities and it is very difficult to make something "impossible".

On the other hand, possible does not mean probable. And what you have described is not a probable scenario.

For example, there are theories that Jesus never existed. Or that He did not die on the cross. Objectively, these are both possible. But they are not probable.

It is possible that our roles are reversed. That actually I am an apostate and you are a true believer and that we are both misrepresenting. It is objectively possible, but not probable.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[savedbygrace]

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?

Not a game, just a question, I am not LDS, but can't imagine the damage that would be done to ordinary individuals whose whole lives are the church, devastation I think is too small a word

[cdowis]

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.

I guess you find comfort in misstating our objections, the incredulity of Palmer and his story -- not just emotion but specific factual issues.

Just sit back and relax. Nothing we say should be disturbing to you.

[alter idem]

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?

Grant Palmer has made some outrageous claims--The logical way to approach this is to realize that simply making claims is not evidence. To even consider his claims, Palmer will have to identify his sources and they will have to come forward and show proof. Without that, Palmer could have made this claim about any church he disagrees with. How many people would have given any credence if Palmer had claimed the Pope and all the cardinals know their church is a lie and they've all been paid a million dollars to keep quiet. They'd all have scoffed at such an accusation! I expect Palmer's sympathizers would realize the man was deluded and think nothing of it--but because it is the LDS church and they want it to be true, they'll accept his outrageous claims without any corroborating evidence and completely ignore the biggest flaw in his claims--the obvious sincerity exhibited by lives of devotion and faith in the men he is maligning.

[savedbygrace]

I guess you find comfort in misstating our objections, the incredulity of Palmer and his story -- not just emotion but specific factual issues.

Just sit back and relax. Nothing we say should be disturbing to you.

Nothing you are saying is disturbubg me, it is just the same old almost hysterical, it's all lies, the man is mentally unstable, has a terrible track record, wrote a book full of lies, lie, lies......methink you protest too much

[savedbygrace]

Grant Palmer has made some outrageous claims--The logical way to approach this is to realize that simply making claims is not evidence. To even consider his claims, Palmer will have to identify his sources and they will have to come forward and show proof. Without that, Palmer could have made this claim about any church he disagrees with. How many people would have given any credence if Palmer had claimed the Pope and all the cardinals know their church is a lie and they've all been paid a million dollars to keep quiet. They'd all have scoffed at such an accusation! I expect Palmer's sympathizers would realize the man was deluded and think nothing of it--but because it is the LDS church and they want it to be true, they'll accept his outrageous claims without any corroborating evidence and completely ignore the biggest flaw in his claims--the obvious sincerity exhibited by lives of devotion and faith in the men he is maligning.

i absolutely agree that the individual should be named, but even journalists do not have to reveal their sources, I guess he has to take that tack, but not at all satisfactory.

[Scott Lloyd]

i absolutely agree that the individual should be named, but even journalists do not have to reveal their sources, I guess he has to take that tack, but not at all satisfactory.

But when journalists refuse to reveal their sources, their credibility, to one degree or another, takes a hit. It's a reality they must deal with when choosing not to disclose their sources. That's why it's relatively unusual in the journalism profession to use unnamed sources. Ordinarily, it's considered a mark of professionalism to attribute everything.

In this instance, Palmer's credibility is virtually non-existent to those with any background knowledge to speak of regarding the Church and its administrative councils.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

But when journalists refuse to reveal their sources, their credibility, to one degree or another, takes a hit. It's a reality they must deal with when choosing not to disclose their sources. That's why it's relatively unusual in the journalism profession to use unnamed sources.

In this instance, Palmer's credibility is virtually non-existent to those with any background knowledge to speak of regarding the Church and its administrative councils.

Hi Scott,

A bit of a derail but I was struck by your comment. I suppose I had always thought the refusal to reveal sources was seen as a virtue .. ala Woodward and Bernstein. There were a couple of examples from the Bush years -- IIRC the Scooter Libby incident -- when reporters did not reveal sources even under penalty of contempt of court. I kind of saw this as a badge of honor, of sorts.

But it seems like you are saying that no, refusing to give up sources is actually detrimental to the reporter. Good to know if a reporter ever asks me about anything!

Seth

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

A bit of a derail but I was struck by your comment. I suppose I had always thought the refusal to reveal sources was seen as a virtue .. ala Woodward and Bernstein. There were a couple of examples from the Bush years -- IIRC the Scooter Libby incident -- when reporters did not reveal sources even under penalty of contempt of court. I kind of saw this as a badge of honor, of sorts.

But it seems like you are saying that no, refusing to give up sources is actually detrimental to the reporter. Good to know if a reporter ever asks me about anything!

Woodward and Bernstein have pretty much been vindicated by subsequent events, and history looks kindly upon them.

If you're old enough to recall the Watergate saga, as I am and do, and if your were paying attention to current events at the time, you'll remember that Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post were roundly criticized, by the Nixon administration and others, for their refusal to reveal their sources. They didn't take on superstar status and popularity until the beginning of Nixon's downfall.

In those days and later, some journalists using unnamed sources were viewed as heroes, but it was only after the courts tried to compel them to disclose their sources and they refused to do so, being willing to go to jail instead. They were standing for the principle of reporter privilege (which, by the way, most legal jurisdictions do not recognize even today) and people tended to admire that, recognizing that if they were denied the ability to keep sources confidential, there might be a chilling effect on whistle blowing in government and in the private sector.

In the journalism profession, it is axiomatic that it is never -- let me repeat that for emphasis, never -- a good idea to keep identity of sources confidential unless their is a compelling need to do so. Even then, you can expect your credibility to suffer.

We have a recent example from this very board from a few weeks ago. There was a thread that opened up here citing Peggy Fletcher Stack's Salt Lake Tribune story reporting that women for the first time would be praying in general conference. Some people posting to that thread criticized Stack's use of an unnamed source and for that reason expressed skepticism over the veracity of her report. I know her well enough to recognize she probably wouldn't be reporting this without something fairly solid to go on, but I could understand very well why others were skeptical. Her story would have been far more credible had she attributed the information to someone by name.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cdowis]

del

Edited April 18, 2013 by cdowis

[savedbygrace]

But when journalists refuse to reveal their sources, their credibility, to one degree or another, takes a hit. It's a reality they must deal with when choosing not to disclose their sources. That's why it's relatively unusual in the journalism profession to use unnamed sources. Ordinarily, it's considered a mark of professionalism to attribute everything.

In this instance, Palmer's credibility is virtually non-existent to those with any background knowledge to speak of regarding the Church and its administrative councils.

I agree, credibility, I guess depends on attribution, however, if this information was given in trust, and the consequences in naming that person might be terrible for them, surely that ties your hands. However, my feeling is in that case is that the conversation should not be alluded to at all.

[CASteinman]

Palmer is not a journalist. These are his friends apparently. Different standards.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Buzzard]

Not a game, just a question, I am not LDS, but can't imagine the damage that would be done to ordinary individuals whose whole lives are the church, devastation I think is too small a word

I'm not a statistician, but perhaps a little probability exercise is in order. Let's assume that each newly called apostle, even though they have shown in their previous professional lives to be intelligent and honest, when confronted with Palmers assertion that they realize the church is not true, has a 75% chance that they keep their mouth shut. I would not give it near that high of a probability, but to do so makes the exercise even more out there. For all 15 current members of the Quorum and the FP to possess that knowledge and not disclose it, the calculation would be .75 to the 15th power, which yields an answer of: 1.3% chance that none of the current apostles speak up. Since I am sure Mr. Palmer would assert that this charade has been going on for at least the last several decades, that would mean that all the former members of the quorum going back since ??? would have had to maintain the same silence. If we assume that the last 30 apostles all were "bought off" and never decided to come forward, with the same 75% probability for each of them individually, the likely-hood of this happening drops to .017%, or slightly less than two chances in a thousand. Not exactly betting mans odds.

If you want to claim that the leadership of the church is mistaken, even deluded, I do not agree, but I can understand your case. But if you state that it's all a conspiracy, and that they are all in on it, and not one-NOT ONE-has been or is willing to come forward and blow the whole thing up, well, whether you are Grant Palmer or savedbygrace, you just look kind of silly.

[Scott Lloyd]

Palmer is not a journalist. These are his friends apparently. Different standards.

Standards of credibility are the same, no matter who you are.

[CASteinman]

I'm not a statistician, but perhaps a little probability exercise is in order. Let's assume that each newly called apostle, even though they have shown in their previous professional lives to be intelligent and honest, when confronted with Palmers assertion that they realize the church is not true, has a 75% chance that they keep their mouth shut. I would not give it near that high of a probability, but to do so makes the exercise even more out there. For all 15 current members of the Quorum and the FP to possess that knowledge and not disclose it, the calculation would be .75 to the 15th power, which yields an answer of: 1.3% chance that none of the current apostles speak up. Since I am sure Mr. Palmer would assert that this charade has been going on for at least the last several decades, that would mean that all the former members of the quorum going back since ??? would have had to maintain the same silence. If we assume that the last 30 apostles all were "bought off" and never decided to come forward, with the same 75% probability for each of them individually, the likely-hood of this happening drops to .017%, or slightly less than two chances in a thousand. Not exactly betting mans odds.

If you want to claim that the leadership of the church is mistaken, even deluded, I do not agree, but I can understand your case. But if you state that it's all a conspiracy, and that they are all in on it, and not one-NOT ONE-has been or is willing to come forward and blow the whole thing up, well, whether you are Grant Palmer or savedbygrace, you just look kind of silly.

I believe the correct way to calculate this is to use the binomial probability distribution.

Under your scenario, and using the binomial probability distribution, the probability that out of 15 men at least 1 or more of them would "spill the beans" is 98%.

The probability that all 15 would remain silent is thus 2%. Well, actually: 1.3363461010158062%.

In order to have a 50-50 chance that all 15 would remain silent, you must assume that the probability that each of them will become corrupt is 95.5%.

Here is an online calculator to play with where I got these numbers:

http://www.vassarsta...ok/ch5apx.html?

I am not sure how applicable it is but Milgram's experiments on obedience showed that up to 65% of ordinary respondents would be fully obedient but that among that group a very large number would suffer serious observable mental or emotional challenges.

If we were to assume that the 65% number was too low but cut the difference in half, we would find the percentage to be 83%. Under those conditions (83% of people being corruptible) , we would expect the average number of the 15 who would defect would be about 3.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Standards of credibility are the same, no matter who you are.

I do not agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not agree.

Explain.

[CASteinman]

Explain.

Reporters are not expected to have first hand knowledge of things but rather to investigate them and then report their findings. In a sense they are expected to be "objective observers".

Individuals with first hand knowledge are not generally expected to be either objective nor to be aggressively investigating what they have actually observed or witnessed to determine whether it actually happened.

These are different standards of expectation that we place on people.

We also do not expect friends to openly gossip about their personal acquaintances, at the same time, we DO expect Reporters to openly reveal their conversations and information. Hence information given to individuals who are not reporters is given under a different set of rules than information given to reporters.

In government, this is well known enough that reporters are actually told how to attribute information that they receive and there are a variety of standardized levels and definitions for attribution as permitted by knowledgeable sources. Examples are "on Background", "on Deep Background", "off the record", "on the record", etc. These are not synonyms for similar types of attribution but are different distinct levels. ("Off the Record" is sometimes not well understood).

Such things are not expected of ordinary people.

There are so many ways the standards are different.

[teddyaware]

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?

Grant Palmer has painted himself into a rhetorical corner. In order to remain relevant and popular with the anti-Mormon crowd, he's concocted this ridiculous story, knowing the anti's are gullible enough, cynical enough, and foolishly hopeful enough to believe just about anything negative concerning the LDS Church their itching ears can absorb. It's true, these bitter critics of the Mormons just love to have their itching ears scratched with any juicy rumor that comes down the pike, no matter how far fetched, outlandish and improbable those rumors might be. In the end his claims will have no more substance attached to them than does Mark Hofmann's infamously forged piece hogwash called the Salamander Letter. I don't worry about what effects his supposed "information" might have on the LDS faithful if it turns out to be true, because it is untrue and I know it.

One thing I've noticed since I've been on this board is that critics and bitter opponents of the Restored Church try to get the LDS members on this board to entertain and answer "what if" questions about what their reactions will be if it turns out the Church isn't true. This subtle polemical technique reminds me of the kinds of questions the Saviour was taunted with at the end of his forty day fast in the wilderness (if you are the Son of God?). I won't even consider answering the following question: "if it were true, where would that leave the faithful LDS, such as your selves?" and why won't I answer? because I already know the Church is true and that Palmer's story is untrue. The others on this board can choose to answer your "what if" question if they want, but as for yours truly, I won't take the bate. I see right through the ploy immediately every time it's tried.

I pity Grant Palmer and truly feel very sorry for him. I hope someday he will summon the courage to admit to his false narrative, accusing the Lord's living prophets, seers and revelators of being something other than what they and the Spirit claim them to be.

Edited April 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Scott Lloyd]

Reporters are not expected to have first hand knowledge of things but rather to investigate them and then report their findings. In a sense they are expected to be "objective observers".

Not all journalism is or is intended to be objective. Some of it is opinion or analytical writing. Regardless, it is more credible when named, as opposed to unnamed, sources are used.

Individuals with first hand knowledge are not generally expected to be either objective nor to be aggressively investigating what they have actually observed or witnessed to determine whether it actually happened.

These are different standards of expectation that we place on people.

We also do not expect friends to openly gossip about their personal acquaintances, at the same time, we DO expect Reporters to openly reveal their conversations and information. Hence information given to individuals who are not reporters is given under a different set of rules than information given to reporters.

But we are talking credibility here. We might be lenient in understanding why somebody doesn't want to rat out his friend, so to speak, but regardless of how understanding we might be, we are still apt to find his account less credible if he doesn't disclose the source of his information.

In government, this is well known enough that reporters are actually told how to attribute information that they receive and there are a variety of standardized levels and definitions for attribution as permitted by knowledgeable sources. Examples are "on Background", "on Deep Background", "off the record", "on the record", etc. These are not synonyms for similar types of attribution but are different distinct levels. ("Off the Record" is sometimes not well understood).

True. And the underlying theory as to why this is so is that journalists prize credibility. They safeguard it because they know that their professional reputations depend on it. And they know that to be credible, a person, whether he is a professional journalist or not, must attribute the information he receives so that readers/viewers/listeners know he is not inventing the information out of whole cloth.

Such things are not expected of ordinary people.

To the extent that is true, "ordinary people" are less apt to be viewed as being as credible as good journalists who live up to professional standards.

There are so many ways the standards [of credibility] are different.

Then let me know when you come up with a persuasive illustration.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cdowis]

teddyaware,

Interesting comments. Makes me wonder if Palmer sees this as an "what if" exercise, an experiment.

Edited April 18, 2013 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

To the extent that is true, "ordinary people" are less apt to be viewed as being as credible as good journalists who live up to professional standards.

Then let me know when you come up with a persuasive illustration.

If you will remember, the original comment was that journalists are held to the same standard as regular folk. I said that I do not agree. You asked for an explanation. Which I gave -- And now you agree that there are different standards. But you are also asking me for something more persuasive?

I am not actually trying to persuade you, but if you agree with what I said, I would think I met the standard you wanted.

I did not comment on the relative credibility of any one individual who cited a source vs not citing a source. Of course, naming names if not only more fun but also more credible. But I did not comment on that. My point was: Palmer should not be held to journalistic standards. And that was the standard he was being held to.

I do not put it past him to lie. But there is nothing intrinsic in his story that requires it to be a lie.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Calm]

Nothing you are saying is disturbubg me, it is just the same old almost hysterical, it's all lies, the man is mentally unstable, has a terrible track record, wrote a book full of lies, lie, lies......methink you protest too much

And if that was known to be all true, would it still be protesting too much?

If you are claiming the entire story as possible, you need to go look at the work that has been done on isolating the possibilities of whom the GA could be. That parts of it might be true and others not is certainly possible, but I don't think it is a stretch or protesting too much to point out that the story in total is most likely hogwash.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you will remember, the original comment was that journalists are held to the same standard as regular folk.

Not exactly. The original comment was mine, and it was this:

Standards of credibility are the same, no matter who you are.

I was speaking of credibility. I was saying that standards of credibility are the same regardless of who you are. I stand by that. I feel I have made a good case for it and you have not made a good case for the contrary.

I said that I do not agree. You asked for an explanation. Which I gave -- And now you agree that there are different standards.

What are you talking about? I have maintained steadfastly that the standard of credibility is the same no matter who you are.

But you are also asking me for something more persuasive?

You contradicted my statement that the standard of credibility is the same for everybody. And no, you have not given a persuasive argument to the contrary.

I am not actually trying to persuade you, but if you agree with what I said, I would think I met the standard you wanted.

I don't agree with what you said. See above.

I did not comment on the relative credibility of any one individual who cited a source vs not citing a source.

Then we are talking past each other, because that was what I was referring to when you contradicted me.

Of course, naming names ... [is[] more credible.

Yes! Yes! That is what I've been saying all along.

But I did not comment on that. My point was: Palmer should not be held to journalistic standards.

Why not? If he is to be regarded as credible, he needs to do those things that would give him credibility, whether he is a journalist or not.

I do not put it past him to lie. But there is nothing intrinsic in his story that requires it to be a lie.

Other than glaring, absurd implausibility, you mean?

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

I was speaking of credibility.

There are different standards between journalists and private people regarding credibility. At least there should be among reasonable people.

Why not? If he is to be regarded as credible, he needs to do those things that would give him credibility, whether he is a journalist or not.

Because he is not a journalist, different standards should apply.

Other than glaring, absurd implausibility, you mean?

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically implausible about what he said.

That does not mean he is not lying. Good lies are plausible.