The Latest From Grant Palmer

[Calm]

But there is nothing intrinsic in his story that requires it to be a lie.

I think the dates he gives for the alleged GA's calling pretty much makes it obvious that at the very least some of the details he has given about the man's time and involvement in church leadership is a falsehood.

And the idea that somehow the best actors on earth have managed to be found among the LDS Apostles...I suppose that could be true.

[Calm]

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically implausible about what he said.

I must have read a different 'memo' than you did....

[CASteinman]

I must have read a different 'memo' than you did....

OK. What do you find intrinsically implausible?

[CASteinman]

I think the dates he gives for the alleged GA's calling pretty much makes it obvious that at the very least some of the details he has given about the man's time and involvement in church leadership is a falsehood.

There is a tight narrow window by which it is possible to stretch things and not be lying exactly but hiding things. In particular, this would be if the person were emeritus -- which is a group who are still considered to be "called" to the group but not active in it. This gives enough stretch to make things work. But it would be obfuscation -- which is not unlikely.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

And who decreed that?

One thing you quickly learn as a journalist is to double check what sources tell you. Or, as the old journalistic adage has it, "If your mother says she loves you check it out."

The reason for that is obvious: Ordinary people tend to be less careful with facts that do professional journalists. And that makes them less credible -- by any standard.

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

This is what you keep asserting, but you have yet to argue it persuasively.

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically implausible about what he said.

I can hardly improve on calmoriah's reply to this: "You must have read a different memo than I did."

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

As lies go, his is hardly a good one. Unless you are speaking in terms of the grandeur of its audacity.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

Ordinary people tend to be less careful with facts that do professional journalists. And that makes them less credible -- by any standard.

So... different standards.

I can hardly improve on calmoriah's reply to this: "You must have read a different memo than I did."

Well, maybe you can reply to my question then: What makes it so implausible?

As lies go, his is hardly a good one. Unless you are speaking in terms of the grandeur of its audacity.

We do not know it is a lie. I would not put it past him, but it could be true.

[Scott Lloyd]

So... different standards.

No, that's why I said "by any standard."

Well, maybe you can reply to my question then: What makes it so implausible?

The fervency of the witness repeatedly borne by the Brethren, the total dedication of lives, mind, body and soul to what they are doing, the stark difference between everything that they stand for and what Palmer is accusing them of, the sheer numbers of those who have served in high Church callings and the requirement that they all buy in to sustaining a vast and complicated conspiracy, the impact upon immediate and extended family members and friends and other acquaintances, some of whom surely would have blown the whistle by now.

I could go on, but I'm bored with this exercise.

We do not know it is a lie. I would not put it past him, but it could be true.

Apparently you are confusing the concepts of remote possibility and plausibility.

[CASteinman]

The fervency of the witness repeatedly borne by the Brethren, the total dedication of lives, mind, body and soul to what they are doing, the stark difference between everything that they stand for and what Palmer is accusing them of, the sheer numbers of those who have served in high Church callings and the requirement that they all buy in to sustaining a vast and complicated conspiracy, the impact upon immediate and extended family members and friends and other acquaintances, some of whom surely would have blown the whistle by now.

But Palmer is not the one accusing them of any of that. He is "retelling" a story from someone else.

We may not believe he actually is retelling a story -- that he is lying. BUT, there is nothing implausible about the idea of someone going nuts and saying weird things. Its not like this has never happened in the history of the Church.

There is, reportedly, a former member of the 2nd Quorum of Seventy who is saying such things. His name is known and he is, reportedly a bitter, bitter enemy of the Church. It is not the first time that people have said things like this.

So again, this is not that implausible.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[Nevo]

There is, reportedly, a former member of the 2nd Quorum of Seventy who is saying such things. His name is known and he is, reportedly a bitter, bitter enemy of the Church.

Where is this reported? This sounds implausible too.

[Scott Lloyd]

But Palmer is not the one accusing them of any of that. He is "retelling" a story from someone else.

We may not believe he actually is retelling a story -- that he is lying. BUT, there is nothing implausible about the idea of someone going nuts and saying weird things. Its not like this has never happened in the history of the Church.

There is, reportedly, a former member of the 2nd Quorum of Seventy who is saying such things. His name is known and he is, reportedly a bitter, bitter enemy of the Church. It is not the first time that people have said things like this.

So again, this is not that implausible.

So apparently you're bracketing what Palmer was allegedly told (which, apparently, you acknowledge is outlandish) from whether or not Palmer is really meeting with somebody who is telling him these things, and that Palmer's informant might be the one who is lying.

What about the fact that Palmer says the man is a currently serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy? Are you saying Palmer, despite his claim of "insider" knowledge is too ignorant to know who is in the First Quorum right now or is incapable of checking it out from any of a variety of sources that are only a Google search away?

I still say it's implausible.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[CASteinman]

Where is this reported? This sounds implausible too.

It is reported somewhere on the net. I do not recall. It is an account by a friend of his. There is no evidentiary contradiction.

Part of the statement is that he had an affair with his secretary at some point and took her as a "second wife". However, it is confirmable that he is no longer in the company of his wife and has not been for a pretty long while while he is regularly in the company of another woman. Although that is not conclusive, it fits the rest of the story and there is nothing specific to contradict it.

But because the individual in question has not publicly come out about it, I feel it would be wrong to name him. After all, there is a chance it might not be true or that some things may be stated in a way that is unkind. But, I believe it is true and suspect the information is accurate.

[CASteinman]

So apparently you're bracketing what Palmer was allegedly told (which, apparently, you acknowledge is outlandish)

No, I am not saying that what Palmer said is outlandish. I am saying it is plausible. What I have said is implausible is the story the "GA" is telling.

from whether or not Palmer is really meeting with somebody who is telling him these things, and that Palmer's informant might be the one who is lying.

Let me put it this way -- the person telling this story (if it is not Palmer) may not be lying. He may be darkened and in the grasp of satan. In ways that most people on this board cannot really understand. This means that he could well be telling dark vicious lies -- and not be aware of it.

Or he might be a creep and lying.

By the way, I do not consider lying to be a telling of things that are false. I consider it to be a knowing deception. If you do not know you are deceiving people, you are wrong, and you could even be bad, but you are not necessarily lying.

What about the fact that Palmer says the man is a currently serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy? Are you saying Palmer, despite his claim of "insider" knowledge is too ignorant to know whose in the First Quorum right now or is in

capable of checking it out from any of a variety of sources that are only a Google search away?

No. I am saying that he is probably stretching things to obscure this person's identity -- if this person exists at all.

[teddyaware]

teddyaware,

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

Palmer's narrative is the ultimate anti-Mormon fantasy; a spooky, lurid scenario straight out of a Hollywood sci-fi flick (think Invasion of the Body Snatchers). In our movie plot, we have what appear to be the most honorable, virtuous, sincere, kind, wise and spiritually enlightened men on the face of the earth, but in earth-shattering reality we are shocked as we view the silver screen to be let in on the secret that they are the most dishonorable, corrupt, cynical. insincere, base, cunning and malevolent humans the world has ever known.

The people who come up with this stuff are secretly terrified the LDS Church might actually be true after all. They watch General Conference with trepidation, because they know in their heart of hearts that there can only be two possilble explanations for the engaging, deeply spiritual men they see on their TV screens: They are either the holy prophets, seers and revelators it is said they are, or the quorums of the First Presidency and of the Twelve Apostles are the adversary's greatest masterpieces of deception in all the history of the world.

By making these fantastic claims, Palmer is unwittingly admitting he is deeply impressed with the brethren; unintentionally acknowledging that in light of the fact these men so wonderfully represent the Restored Church of Christ before the world, the only possibe explanation that makes any sense is that the Church leaders are filled to overflowing with some kind of extraordinary, supernatural power. Not being at all disposed to acknowledge the most obvious and reasonable explanation (i.e., these men are true prophets of God) they opt to cling to the scenario based on campy, cheesy, reworked versions of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or (even better) 1953's "Invaders from Mars"

By signing on to the "sci-fi scenario," Palmer accomplishes two things: First, by the dissemination of these falsehoods, he encourages and emboldens the ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon crowd to "stay the course" and he, then, becomes their unlikely hero. Second, by the inevitable spreading of these tall tales, the adversary probes for cracks and fissures of doubt within the minds and hearts of those Church members who's faith and testimonies are not yet fully grounded and developed. Even so, "it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad." (2 Nephi 2:9)

Edited April 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

But Palmer is not the one accusing them of any of that. He is "retelling" a story from someone else.

We may not believe he actually is retelling a story -- that he is lying. BUT, there is nothing implausible about the idea of someone going nuts and saying weird things. Its not like this has never happened in the history of the Church.

There is, reportedly, a former member of the 2nd Quorum of Seventy who is saying such things. His name is known and he is, reportedly a bitter, bitter enemy of the Church. It is not the first time that people have said things like this.

So again, this is not that implausible.

where did you hear this? I hope it isn't some Area Authority 70

Edited April 18, 2013 by Duncan

[Buzzard]

But Palmer is not the one accusing them of any of that. He is "retelling" a story from someone else.

We may not believe he actually is retelling a story -- that he is lying. BUT, there is nothing implausible about the idea of someone going nuts and saying weird things. Its not like this has never happened in the history of the Church.

There is, reportedly, a former member of the 2nd Quorum of Seventy who is saying such things. His name is known and he is, reportedly a bitter, bitter enemy of the Church. It is not the first time that people have said things like this.

So again, this is not that implausible.

I say this in the most humble attitude possible, but...CFR. I have not been able to find reference to this anywhere else.

[Calm]

I found a reference on an anti site (not just a critical site, but a full blown anti just in case you prefer not to go there). If you really feel the need to know do a search on "2nd quorum of the seventy" "second wife". It is the fifth hit down on my hit list and the thread contains other claims without documentation that are meant to shock as much as Palmer's. The thread is full of many joyous declarations about this being just the thing need to shock people to their senses (in my words, not theirs) as well as wishes actual documentation could be provided...though all appeared to be convinced that everything stated was undoubtedly true.

As far as I could tell, the person presenting this info did not give his real name though perhaps he had elsewhere on the board. He said, IIRC, that his father had contacted this former GA and had been told about his dislike for the Church, etc. And he had gathered other damaging info about the Church from other family sources.

Edited April 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I found a reference on an anti site. If you really feel the need to know do a search on "2nd quorum of the seventy" "second wife". It is the fifth hit down on my hit list and the thread contains other claims without documentation that are meant to shock as much as Palmer's.

As far as I could tell, the person presenting this info did not give his real name though perhaps he had elsewhere on the board. He said, IIRC, that his father had contacted this former GA and had been told about his dislike for the Church, etc. And he had gathered other damaging info about the Church from other family sources.

I can't find it!!!! ack! I need ice cream!

Correction. I found it!

Edited April 18, 2013 by Duncan

[Calm]

I can't find it!!!! ack! I need ice cream!

Correction. I found it!

You'll need ice cream to take the taste out of your mouth...

[CASteinman]

By making these fantastic claims, Palmer is unwittingly admitting he is deeply impressed with the brethren; unintentionally acknowledging that in light of the fact these men so wonderfully represent the Restored Church of Christ before the world, the only possibe explanation that makes any sense is that the Church leaders are filled to overflowing with some kind of extraordinary, supernatural power. Not being at all disposed to acknowledge the most obvious and reasonable explanation (i.e., these men are true prophets of God) they opt to cling to the scenario based on campy, cheesy, reworked versions of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" or (even better) 1953's "Invaders from Mars"

I like your vision of things. But I think Palmer is more pathological than this. And when I say that, I do not mean to imply that he must be lying. What I mean is that he has cast this story with himself as the Savior Enlightener and Teacher of lost General Authorities and by extension, to the Church at Large.

Its a sort of megalomania.

But that does not mean his basic story is false. Though I would not put it past him.

[ERayR]

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

As my old grandfather used to say You are either incredibly gullible or incredibly foolish.

[teddyaware]

I like your vision of things. But I think Palmer is more pathological than this. And when I say that, I do not mean to imply that he must be lying. What I mean is that he has cast this story with himself as the Savior Enlightener and Teacher of lost General Authorities and by extension, to the Church at Large.

Its a sort of megalomania.

But that does not mean his basic story is false. Though I would not put it past him.

If his motivations are pathological and not simply malevolent, his is a tragic story rather than one of evil.

Edited April 18, 2013 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

You'll need ice cream to take the taste out of your mouth...

true, true! I wonder if it's true? I guess time will tell!

[CASteinman]

If his motivations are pathological and not simply malevolent, his is a tragic story rather than one of evil.

It could be both you know. There are pathologies that are evil in their nature and produce malevolence.

[Duncan]

Thing is too though with a lot of Seventies, once they are released, you never really hear about them until sadly they pass away and get mentioned in the Church Almanac or an online obituary

[Calm]

Thing is too though with a lot of Seventies, once they are released, you never really hear about them until sadly they pass away and get mentioned in the Church Almanac or an online obituary

Kind of like Stake Presidents....unless they get called to a GA position.