The Latest From Grant Palmer

[CASteinman]

Ardis Parshall addressed some of your concerns in this blog post.

I appreciate the link. And one little bit of it showed some value. But this is really not my problem. I am not complaining about the quality of the work. I am saying "Why do we have to dwell on this at all?" Of course if we are going to do it, we should do it well. But how does this help someone be a better person?

[teddyaware]

You are a sly fox Ted, you have deliberately ignored the last part of the sentence.

There's no denying you admitted the theology and doctrines of the Latter-day Saints "seem to make sense." The second part of the sentence in question does not at all negate the fact that you said our teachings do seem to make sense. The qualifying second part of the sentence merely stipulates that just because something "makes sense" doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Rhetorically, I was within my rights to make the comment. There was no intended unfairness nor slyness on my part.

When I say the beliefs of the Mormons make sense, I mean to say they really make sense! For example, what could possibly put the charater of God in a better, more merciful, more loving light than the following from the Doctrine & Covenants:

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.

33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,

34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138)

And so from the above we learn God really is a God of love. What could possibly be more delicious to the soul of man than this? These wonderful teachings are like a pool of cool, clear water discovered by a man dying of thirst in the meciless desert heat They are like an abundant feast of nutricious delicacies offered to a man nigh unto death for want food. I love these teachings; I need these teachings; I could not be a happy man without the beautiful, logical, inspiring, oh-so-fair and peace of mind promoting doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited April 19, 2013 by teddyaware

[ALarson]

However, the fact remains that what Palmer claimed regarding the one million dollar payout to GA's, and/or the 12 being "let in" on the idea that the whole gospel is a scam, and buying into furthering that scam, is a BALD FACED LIE.

And, the fact remains that no one can be sure where that statement came from (regarding the million dollars). Did it originate with someone who told it to the 70? Did the 70 come up with it? Or, did Palmer just add it to the other claims he made?

I actually do not even have a problem with someone being offered money when they become an apostle. How many of them were independently wealthy at the time they were called (I know some were, but not all)? These men are asked to give up their livelihood and dedicate the rest of their lives in service to the church.

I do highly doubt that a specific amount is "given" to each man called. I would imagine that it would be on a case to case basis after asking them what they needed to straighten out any debts, financial obligations, etc. so they could completely devote themselves to the church and be free from any financial issues.

I cannot imagine that any church member would have issues with this. Do they honestly believe these men just live off of their savings or investments? Many of them are called at quite a young age and would still need a source of income, I would think.

[CASteinman]

I actually do not even have a problem with someone being offered money when they become an apostle. How many of them were independently wealthy at the time they were called (I know some were, but not all)? These men are asked to give up their livelihood and dedicate the rest of their lives in service to the church.

Strange coincidence. Just before this article I was thinking about how people are called to be apostles. I thought to myself, "Maybe they only pick guys who are already well off -- who have been blessed in multiple ways. But what if someone were qualified in all ways but financially? They should pay his debts and buy him a house."

Then I read this and I thought.. I hope that is true.

[teddyaware]

You are a better man than I am, Ted.

Fact is, if I were today the Ted I was 30 years ago, I would have been permanently banned from this board almost immediately. Within the first two hours of the start of my participation here, I would have set the threads ablaze with white-hot polemical heat and crushing insults. At least in my case, with the passing of the years there has come a certain mellowing of emotions. I've leaned life is more fun when you're not tied up in a perpetual emotional knot.

Edited April 19, 2013 by teddyaware

[savedbygrace]

One doctrinal or theological point at a time, let's have a dialogue about what you believe are the false beliefs of the LDS Church, okay? You bring up one issue at a time and we'll a nice discussion. By the way, thanks for your frank admission that the doctrines and theology of the Latter-day saints "seem to make sense." With that, I believe the first point scored in our discussion belongs to me. Speaking as a man, the fact that LDS teachings make so much darn good sense is one of the many reasons why I'm a an eternally committed Latter-day Saint.

Looking forward to our dialogue,

All the best, Ted

A dialogue with you, wouldn't really be a dialogue as you see it merely as a point scoring excercise. You have already shown your patronising attitude by alluding to a nice discussion as though I need humouring. Your lack of integrity is evidenced by the fact that you have taken one sentence, or part of it and twisted its meaning in order to score a point. You presume that I have a need/desire to discuss mormon doctrine which I do not as I feel that it has been done to death. If I have a question on any point of doctrine I will post it on the forum so that anyone can comment, at this momnet in time I do not. I joined this thread because it wasn't about doctrine, but about the issues raised by the ? Grant Palmer article. That I do not believe in the LDS church is true, and it is better to be honest about that, IMO

[Scott Lloyd]

A dialogue with you, wouldn't really be a dialogue as you see it merely as a point scoring excercise. You have already shown your patronising attitude by alluding to a nice discussion as though I need humouring. Your lack of integrity is evidenced by the fact that you have taken one sentence, or part of it and twisted its meaning in order to score a point. You presume that I have a need/desire to discuss mormon doctrine which I do not as I feel that it has been done to death. If I have a question on any point of doctrine I will post it on the forum so that anyone can comment, at this momnet in time I do not. I joined this thread because it wasn't about doctrine, but about the issues raised by the ? Grant Palmer article. That I do not believe in the LDS church is true, and it is better to be honest about that, IMO

It is becoming increasingly clear "savedbygrace" is not interested in two-way give-and-take but rather one-way sermonizing and assertion.

Thus it has ever been with anti-Mormons of the Evangelical stripe.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Fact is, if I were today the Ted I was 30 years ago, I would have been permanently banned from this board almost immediately. Within the first two hours of the start of my participation here, I would have set the threads ablaze with white-hot polemical heat and crushing insults. At least in my case, with the passing of the years there has come a certain mellowing of emotions. I've leaned life is more fun when you're not tied up in a perpetual emotional knot.

Not that there is anything wrong with the new Ted, but I should like to have encountered the old one. He sounds interesting.

[teddyaware]

A dialogue with you, wouldn't really be a dialogue as you see it merely as a point scoring excercise. You have already shown your patronising attitude by alluding to a nice discussion as though I need humouring. Your lack of integrity is evidenced by the fact that you have taken one sentence, or part of it and twisted its meaning in order to score a point. You presume that I have a need/desire to discuss mormon doctrine which I do not as I feel that it has been done to death. If I have a question on any point of doctrine I will post it on the forum so that anyone can comment, at this momnet in time I do not. I joined this thread because it wasn't about doctrine, but about the issues raised by the ? Grant Palmer article. That I do not believe in the LDS church is true, and it is better to be honest about that, IMO

You presume too much. Perhaps you're projecting some of your own behavioural traits onto me? I wasn't trying to humor you. Rather, I was being sincere because I really would like to have a nice, friendly discussion with you. You will find I'm a amiable, engaging and energetic partner in dialogue. My offer for a cordial debate still stands. Let's give it a try! If it turns out my conduct is as you fear it will be, we can always call it quits. Tell you what: I will strictly hold myself to the rule of adhering to polite and civil discourse, but will allow you the liberty of being as sarcastic, caustic and uncivil as you would like to be. I'll even petition the moderators to let you go at it anyway you wish. But if you would rather join with me in a kind and friendly approach, all the better. I think our dialogue could be informative, stimulating and fun. What do you say? What have you got to lose?

[teddyaware]

Not that there is anything wrong with the new Ted, but I should like to have encountered the old one. He sounds interesting.

But the problem is I wouldn't have lasted on this board for more than a couple hours. Then the moderators would have siced the FBI on me!

[Hestia]

saved by grace is out of this topic.

[jwhitlock]

You actually do not know that it is pure nonsense, no-one on these boards does, you cannot prove that it is a lie, and if the person who made these claims does not have the courage to come right and say so, it cannot be proved as true....but it may be. That Christ is alive is my faith, that the LDS church is true is a falsehood. The LDS church is not the one true church on earth, in fact the fundamentalist momon groups are closer to the original LDS church than the modern church to which you belong...but the root is the same so they are no nearer being the true church of Christ either.

With these kinds of breathless rationalizations, I can see why you'd want to give Palmer's story credibility.

[jwhitlock]

AS far as I recall this post was about certain assertions attributed to Grant Palmer and his unknown informant, for want of a better word. These assertions have neither been proved true or false. I don't think there have been any real faith positions put forward to discuss. There have the constant stream of abuse towards GP, and the whole thing generally thrown to one side as a lie, but no-one actually knows that, my questions have been around what would happen if they were proved to be true. And once again the cry of lies, lies has gone up added to which the predictable testimonies that the church is true, a view to which I do not subscribe and have said so, and will continue to say so. That is my position, and I make it clear, so I will ask you, what if the claims made in the OP turn out to be true? That was and is my question

It does need to be pointed out that this is blatant misrepresentation of what has been posted on this thread. There has been plenty of evidence given that Palmer's story is most likely false, and yet here we have someone who wants to toss this all aside, with these baseless claims that we're all just saying it's a lie, and then present Palmer's story as being equally possibly true or false.

Pretty shallow reasoning.

[Calm]

My offer for a cordial debate still stands. Let's give it a try! If it turns out my conduct is as you fear it will be, we can always call it quits. Tell you what: I will strictly hold myself to the rule of adhering to polite and civil discourse, but will allow you the liberty of being as sarcastic, caustic and uncivil as you would like to be. I'll even petition the moderators to let you go at it anyway you wish. But if you would rather join with me in a kind and friendly approach, all the better. I think our dialogue could be informative, stimulating and fun. What do you say? What have you got to lose?

Teddy, if you want to have a successful conversation with savedbygrace, perhaps the best approach would be to do it in the Focused Discussions forum where only those who are invited can post and where moderators insist on keeping on topic. I for one...even though I can post in that forum...will be happy to stay out of the topic to help you two get a chance to discuss things of substance. I would be very interested to see such a conversation as that is one of the main reasons I enjoy this board (hearing of others' beliefs and perceptions in depth as opposed to shallow dismissals). Since savedbygrace is out of the topic and thus unable to read it, you will need to either use the PM system or start another thread in the forum for an invitation though you might want to ask the moderators first if you can run a focused discussion using the standards you have suggested where savedbygrace will not be held to the usual strict standards of that forum.

If the moderators prefer that forum not to be put to that use, then it would be very interesting imo to still attempt another thread in this forum (it would have been off topic in this one anyway) and see how it proceeds including how many are able to restrain themselves from jumping in if you decide to attempt to limit the conversation to you and savedbygrace....I would suggest encouraging people to stay out by allowing them the option of posting in the thread after either of you have decided to end the conversation and bowed out.

[jwhitlock]

Teddy, if you want to have a successful conversation with savedbygrace...

I dunno, cal. Good suggestions, but I really don't know if a successful conversation is possible in this case. I miss some of the people like rhinomelon that you could really get into it with; even folks like cksalmon, who were frustrating at times, could generate interesting conversations. I don't get the sense that this one has any particular respect towards the church or its members, which is necessary as a basis for any real dialogue.

[Calm]

I don't get the sense that this one has any particular respect towards the church or its members, which is necessary as a basis for any real dialogue.

I don't either...as should be obvious from my previous remarks and the unusualness of them.

However, I am willing to be pleasantly surprised and think this is most likely under such circumstances.

At the very least this will demonstrate if savedbygrace is interested in more than essentially telling us we are fools and/or liars and we are going to hell for believing in false prophets.

Edited April 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

Teddy, if you want to have a successful conversation with savedbygrace, perhaps the best approach would be to do it in the Focused Discussions forum where only those who are invited can post and where moderators insist on keeping on topic. I for one...even though I can post in that forum...will be happy to stay out of the topic to help you two get a chance to discuss things of substance. I would be very interested to see such a conversation as that is one of the main reasons I enjoy this board (hearing of others' beliefs and perceptions in depth as opposed to shallow dismissals). Since savedbygrace is out of the topic and thus unable to read it, you will need to either use the PM system or start another thread in the forum for an invitation though you might want to ask the moderators first if you can run a focused discussion using the standards you have suggested where savedbygrace will not be held to the usual strict standards of that forum.

If the moderators prefer that forum not to be put to that use, then it would be very interesting imo to still attempt another thread in this forum (it would have been off topic in this one anyway) and see how it proceeds including how many are able to restrain themselves from jumping in if you decide to attempt to limit the conversation to you and savedbygrace....I would suggest encouraging people to stay out by allowing them the option of posting in the thread after either of you have decided to end the conversation and bowed out.

Dear Cal,

Good suggestions, but tonight is date night for me and my gal. I'll get to work on the above as soon as I have the time to do so.

All the best, Ted

[Robert F. Smith]

It is becoming increasingly clear "savedbygrace" is not interested in two-way give-and-take but rather one-way sermonizing and assertion.

Thus it has ever been with anti-Mormons of the Evangelical stripe.

Where is the fearless Rob Bowman when we need him?

[Robert F. Smith]

It does need to be pointed out that this is blatant misrepresentation of what has been posted on this thread. There has been plenty of evidence given that Palmer's story is most likely false, and yet here we have someone who wants to toss this all aside, with these baseless claims that we're all just saying it's a lie, and then present Palmer's story as being equally possibly true or false.

Pretty shallow reasoning.

Yes, and tantamount to asserting that Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, Calif, or even Billy Graham for all those years, were imposters and unbelievers behind their masks of sincerity. In fact I don't ever recall hearing such absurd claims. Not from evangelicals, not from Catholics, nor from Mormons. Only someone touched by evil would insinuate such a thing, thus baring the true nature of his soul for all to see.

[Stargazer]

Not remotely the same. Wanting/praying for help out of a dire circumstance and having a rescuer show up is not the same as being in heaven, wanting to be like higher beings (GtF and Mother), and being told that it is only possible if our favorite Sibling goes through hell first. Innocence is no justification for agreeing to the suffering of Another before the fact. Innocence is being taken advantage of in that case by those who already know what is being offered. I no longer hold that innocent ignorance, I am educated by "being there" (here). And I will not stand by watching while Jesus Christ gets his flesh flayed away to "save" me. If the universe was set up that way, and I had the power, I'd destroy it and start over....

I don't know why you still don't get this. You say you see it clearly, yet if this were so you could not possibly reject it.

Jesus isn't waiting for you to accept Him so that He can go under the gun, so to speak, one more time, for you especially.

He already did it. It's done. It's over. He was so scared of it, that he begged to be released from the necessity if it could be avoided, but since there was only the one way to accomplish what needed to be done, he did it, and he did it voluntarily. And now that it is done, He is exultant that it is finished and because of His sacrifice he is able to offer all those who repent a way out, that they don't need to suffer for their sins, if they simply accept the work that He did. You cannot stop the suffering and death of Christ because you don't agree with the necessity of it. All you have to do is accept His sacrifice on your behalf. The reason why His sacrifice can be efficacious on your behalf is because He did not deserve to be punished, but suffered it anyway, thus earning the Right to allow as many others who would do what He said bypass the punishment. And the qualification for that privilege of avoiding the suffering is that you make yourself as much like Him as you can.

And by the way, the physical torture of the cross and what preceded it is not the true suffering that made Him into the Christ. It was the suffering that we couldn't see because it was hidden. And that was to the crucifixion what the crucifixion was to a mosquito bite. And you are all caught up in the mosquito bite, QB.

The reason why every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is the Christ, is not because they will get punished if they don't, but because by that time they will recognize who He is and their respect will be natural. But this occurs AFTER they have passed through the gate of immortality and have either been magnified or been made to suffer for their sins because they rejected His sacrifice. And to make it clear, those who refuse to accept Christ's suffering on their behalf will still have to suffer for their own sins -- but it will not involve getting flogged and beaten, so don't worry about that part, which, as I said, is a mosquito bite.

If you can't see it now, I hope that you are able to rid yourself of your pride and blindness later.

[Stargazer]

It is becoming increasingly clear "savedbygrace" is not interested in two-way give-and-take but rather one-way sermonizing and assertion.

Thus it has ever been with anti-Mormons of the Evangelical stripe.

At long last, i think I finally have a candidate for me to put on "Ignore".

[Questing Beast]

I don't know why you still don't get this. You say you see it clearly, yet if this were so you could not possibly reject it.

The concept of a required Savior is puny compared to the concept of "God" that makes each of us individually connected to that Necessary Cause, in fact part OF that Necessary Cause, not separated, as we are in Mormon cosmology. The requirement of a "Savior" is almost inescapable in the typical Judeo-Christian cosmology, because we are individuals cut off from God; and in Mormon cosmology we never were connected to God in the first place, other than a shared nature as uncreated intelligences. So when God the Father gets all of uncreated existence together, and works up a plan, it is the "first plan", and OUR GtF inherits the same plan and so on and so on, forever. That makes each of us dependent upon the Savior to make up for the lack in ourselves, for no one but the Savior has the power to attain unto eternal life and exaltation; without the Savior and the atonement worked out by him there would be no change, we would all remain in levels of "less than godhood" forever, as we were before the plan was on offer for us.

So yes, I "get it", I see it all clearly. And the concept I hold is at the same time more simple and infinitely more vast than the LDS concept of the plan of salvation (which is just a variant of the Judeo-Christian plan of salvation).

Jesus isn't waiting for you to accept Him so that He can go under the gun, so to speak, one more time, for you especially.

I never said that is what I believe. Of course his atonement covers all creation before the fact of its individual parts (people) encountering mortality. All who lived before and after Christ's own mortality are covered. He worked out the atonement for all. My objection is the realization that this plan is asserted to be in place because it is inevitable, it is the only way, it is how it has always been done. And I find the "necessity" of it fallacious. To make it this way deliberately is disgusting and inexcusable. I would not do it this way, and I cannot see God as less charitable and sympathetic than I am! If there was nothing "made" about it, and God the Father is simply locked into a "system" that works and has always worked and always been done this way, then GtF is a puny god reacting to already uncreated existence. I want to commune with the Necessary Cause, with Existence Itself, not someone who has inherited some plan that requires a deliberate acceptance of another's suffering so that I can gain advantage I would otherwise have to forgo. It doesn't matter that the suffering already occurred. I find my ignorance before the fact hideous. If Christ and his Father cannot answer my questions, I guess I will have to seek them alone. That's what I have been contending with for years.

He already did it. It's done. It's over. He was so scared of it, that he begged to be released from the necessity if it could be avoided, but since there was only the one way to accomplish what needed to be done, he did it, and he did it voluntarily. And now that it is done, He is exultant that it is finished and because of His sacrifice he is able to offer all those who repent a way out, that they don't need to suffer for their sins, if they simply accept the work that He did. You cannot stop the suffering and death of Christ because you don't agree with the necessity of it. All you have to do is accept His sacrifice on your behalf. The reason why His sacrifice can be efficacious on your behalf is because He did not deserve to be punished, but suffered it anyway, thus earning the Right to allow as many others who would do what He said bypass the punishment. And the qualification for that privilege of avoiding the suffering is that you make yourself as much like Him as you can.

Maybe I don't want to be like him then. I can't ID with that mentality. Yes, sacrifice to help another is good, noble even. But to put up ignorant children to the plan to get "ahead" through suffering, then to allow them to see what suffering really is, does not make me more grateful, it makes me feel manipulated.

And by the way, the physical torture of the cross and what preceded it is not the true suffering that made Him into the Christ. It was the suffering that we couldn't see because it was hidden. And that was to the crucifixion what the crucifixion was to a mosquito bite. And you are all caught up in the mosquito bite, QB.

No, I am not. To be clear: the "mosquito bite" (hideous flogging and crucifixion, etc.) conveyed via the film Passion of the Christ awoke me to the awful truth that something is askew with my imagination. I had always before imagined that my imagination was of a somewhat above average potency. That film thrashed that notion. I have no imagination compared to "God's". So the "mosquito bite" that I/we can see is, as you say, nothing compared to what an "infinite atonement" must be. And as I would not submit, now, to any plan that required a gorgeous man to have his back flayed to the bone, in order to advance myself, far less would I submit to any plan that required infinitely worse agony to advance myself.

The reason why every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is the Christ, is not because they will get punished if they don't, but because by that time they will recognize who He is and their respect will be natural. But this occurs AFTER they have passed through the gate of immortality and have either been magnified or been made to suffer for their sins because they rejected His sacrifice. And to make it clear, those who refuse to accept Christ's suffering on their behalf will still have to suffer for their own sins -- but it will not involve getting flogged and beaten, so don't worry about that part, which, as I said, is a mosquito bite.

If you can't see it now, I hope that you are able to rid yourself of your pride and blindness later.

Yes, it comes down to you assuming that I have some kind of prideful "me do it meself" complex. I must not want any help, so having to accept help is automatically offensive to me. That is mistaken. In this life the single most aspect defining my attitude is one of wanting help, all, the, time. I've never been physically brave, or ambitious or competitive. I want a simple life, with the creature comforts always there, and even for free if possible. I think that everyone deserves the creature comforts. If you want glitz and glamour and elite status, then go for it, fight and claw your way to the top or as far as you can, I don't care, that was never something I wanted. I want this life to be comfortable and unscary, that's all. And I want everyone else to have at least as much as I have, that seems reasonable and fair. So my being offended by the concept of a needful "atonement" of another to "pay" for some assumed "sin" or deficiency is now a natural feeling attitude: it answers my nature, which abhors suffering in myself and all others, to believe that "God" only suffers through us but is otherwise not one of us, because "God" caused us. To require that "God" MUST suffer in order for us to get out of our suffering, is only acceptable to me if it is an illustration, a story, a role, not a destiny repeated forever. In the paradigm that I am trying to hold in my mind "God" is as outside of suffering as the Void is outside of the world. "God" is as outside of Joy and pleasure as the Void is outside of the world. Yet creation places all contrasts and opposites together, so that Existence has definition and is not merely Void. The evidence Is that "God" prefers it this way, else there would only be Void and no creation. We exist individually, egocentrically, separate from each other but not from "God", of whom we are each (singularly) a part. There is no requirement for an "atonement" for the world that "God" is responsible for. Each one of us suffers according to both our capacity and our need, and only "God" knows how much or how long that is for, in order for us to comprehend (not merely apprehend) JOY. It is no source of wonderfulness to me to imagine that "God" had to go through all of that atonement stuff in order for me to become joyful forever. If that is the case, then "God" is a perverse god, making me too sympathetic to enjoy existence anymore, with that memory, that comprehension, of what "he" went through for me. I'd rather not exist at all, thank you....

Edited April 22, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, you have certainly established one thing for sure, Beast,

You haven't got a clue about Mormon cosmology or theology. You're either making it all up as you go along, or you're just having fun with stream of consciousness, imaginary talk about nothing, but just determined to talk and fill empty time. Reminds me of a Far Side cartoon, which I won't describe here, but which is pathetically on point.

Have you ever considered becoming a cartoonist? You can get paid for creating an imaginary world where anything might be true. The wierder the better. Right?

[Questing Beast]

Well, you have certainly established one thing for sure, Beast,

You haven't got a clue about Mormon cosmology or theology. You're either making it all up as you go along, or you're just having fun with stream of consciousness, imaginary talk about nothing, but just determined to talk and fill empty time. Reminds me of a Far Side cartoon, which I won't describe here, but which is pathetically on point.

Have you ever considered becoming a cartoonist? You can get paid for creating an imaginary world where anything might be true. The wierder the better. Right?

I've learned from experiencing your responses to discount your use of superlatives. Of course I have a "clue" about both Mormon cosmology and theology. I just don't agree with either, finding both too limiting and illogical. YMMV and in your case and mine it certainly does.

I considered cartooning at one point, but I lack the imaginative input of limitless humor. I can draw them, I just can't come up with enough plots and punchlines to carry a cartoon career....