The Latest From Grant Palmer

[Tramper]

In about 8 or 9 minutes in his talk Palmer mentions his contact with the MP and he hints the story of a doubting member of the First Q of S. It is an ongoing story. I would say that Palmer probably sincere about it.

[mfbukowski]

If Grant Palmer actually wrote this, and did so in seriousness, then his mental state is alarming...

One thing that struck me was that it takes a "new apostle" two to three years to figure out the Church is false... and that all the other apostles are unbelievers... Why so long? After all, if the twelve do all this talking among themselves... Oh, I forgot, it took Uchtdorf longer because he was an "outsider." Riiight...

GG

But here a GA comes over to his house to tell him that the church is not true!

I guess they think more of Palmer than new apostles.... They let them figure it out for themselves.

[Peppermint Patty]

This story is so ridiculous. The 12 Apostles all being bought for 1 million dollars? This is so preposterous, it reminds me of:

[cinepro]

This Palmer story really knocks me for a loop, and I think the Church needs to respond.

I've started a petition demanding that the members of the First Presidency and Q12 publicly stand and tell us exactly what they do and don't believe. Not just once, but repeatedly. At least twice a year should do it. Please join me and we can make them publicly take a stand after all these years.

They should also put something in writing too.

[why me]

I am sure. Grant wrote this piece. The story is not very new. In this video clip from his talk at the Exmormon Foundation you can hear the story from Palmer himself.

[media=]

It seems that when this talk was given, Grant is predicting the downfall of the church with droves leaving with the church becoming less vibrant. It seems that it is wishful thinking on his part. Also, this new blog post rehashing something that grant said a year ago according to this talk in the video is an attempt to bring up a subject that died long ago. At least grant is back in the spotlight.

[why me]

But here a GA comes over to his house to tell him that the church is not true!

I guess they think more of Palmer than new apostles.... They let them figure it out for themselves.

According to the video, Grant takes credit for people leaving in droves after reading his book. He brings himself up to the spotlight and allows it to shine on him---self glory.

[Tramper]

Grant is taking a huge risk here. If he is lying his reputation will be gone completely.

[bluebell]

Grant is taking a huge risk here. If he is lying his reputation will be gone completely.

Only if someone can prove he's lying.

[sethpayne]

I'm coming out as highly skeptical on this one.

Palmer's book is good in many respects but I'd hardly classify him as a renowned historian. He did a great job synthesizing the work of others into a consumable package. His trip into the Golden Pot, his one unique claim, was a disaster.

But, it has been confirmed that Palmer did write this. So he's either pulling a fast one on all of us or someone is fooling him. Grant always struck me as an honest guy so this whole thing is just bizarre.

[Duncan]

if this story was found to be true then what do you think the Church would do with him? Just release him quietly? I guess too if he really didn't believe then after getting released he can say whatever he wants to without fear of anyone or jeopardizing his calling

[why me]

But, it has been confirmed that Palmer did write this. So he's either pulling a fast one on all of us or someone is fooling him. Grant always struck me as an honest guy so this whole thing is just bizarre.

He also mentioned this claim at the exmormon conference a year ago I believe. But it had no legs and was forgotten. Why did he bring it up again is anyone's guess. I think that he will take a dive on this one. Listening to him at the exmo conference, I see a man who wanted to be relevant and enjoyed the adulation from the people who were present. But with this blog post, and without any proof to verify his claim, he will no longer be taken as serious as he used to be by the dissenting crowd.

[sethpayne]

if this story was found to be true then what do you think the Church would do with him? Just release him quietly? I guess too if he really didn't believe then after getting released he can say whatever he wants to without fear of anyone or jeopardizing his calling

What if it is actually the Twelve who are pranking Palmer?? I bet they will have a good laugh on Thursday.

[thesometimesaint]

You're misunderstanding. I'm saying that if a person wishes to resign yet the leadership, if they are dumb enough, wants to have an excommunication instead...that is violating the persons rights. The church can't say "No, you can't resign until you are punished for..." The church knows better than to pull a stupid stunt like this.

I agree that in most instances such would a dumb thing to do. However; I think that there are some instances where excommunication is in the best interests of the Church. IE; Embezzlement of Church funds, or other serious crimes. I'd throw in open public apostasy after instruction.

[why me]

if this story was found to be true then what do you think the Church would do with him? Just release him quietly? I guess too if he really didn't believe then after getting released he can say whatever he wants to without fear of anyone or jeopardizing his calling

We need to remember that many GAs left the church during Joseph's time. It was not unusual at all and the church survived. To have a seventy leave the church would not even create a stir in a herbal tea pot

Edited April 8, 2013 by why me

[sethpayne]

He also mentioned this claim at the exmormon conference a year ago I believe. But it had no legs and was forgotten. Why did he bring it up again is anyone's guess. I think that he will take a dive on this one. Listening to him at the exmo conference, I see a man who wanted to be relevant and enjoyed the adulation from the people who were present. But with this blog post, and without any proof to verify his claim, he will no longer be taken as serious as he used to be by the dissenting crowd.

Hi why me,

I agree. If/when it is shown that this story is incorrect -- or grossly misreported -- Grant will lose credibility.

What I want to know is what would motivate him to share this story, even if true? Does he not want to continue meeting with his GA/MP friends? If so, posting this story will certainly put and end to it.

Truly bizarre. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

seth

[Calm]

I had missed this before:

He would like to do more in getting the truth out besides raising a few questions when speaking and gifting my book to others when feeling comfortable.

I find it highly unlikely that someone from the 1st Seventy Quorum was going around doing either of these without being noticed.

[KevinG]

Funny how these little episodes always seem to coincide with General Conference. You would almost think someone was trying to boost book sales with free publicity?

[Duncan]

Let's see the time frame given the dates provided by Palmer and from when this exmormon conference were

http://exmormonfound...erence2012.html

Oct 19-21-he broke this story at this conference

he says that the first meeting was on one website was Oct. 3 and on another site it says Oct. 23

"In mid-October 2012, a returned LDS Mission President contacted me to arrange a meeting. Several days later, he called again and said that a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy also wished to attend" Mid Oct. sounds like you know the middle, like the 15th or something, or just days before this exmo conf. I don't know about anyone else but how could he break a story a few days before he first heard it?

"We first met on Tuesday, October 3, 2012 " who? Palmer and the GA? the 3rd was just a few days before conference and I would imagine the GA was kinda busy

To me the dates are all goofed up, how can he first have met the GA on Oct.23 but break the story a few days before? if he met on Oct. 3, then why does he say he first met in mid Oct.? Mid Oct. isn't the 3rd

FWIW, Oct. 3, 2012 wasn't even a tuesday it was a Wednesday

Edited April 8, 2013 by Duncan

[jwhitlock]

I think Grant understands the principle - just like the National Enquirer - that the bigger and more sensational a story is, the more people you'll get reading it. It doesn't have to be true, just sensational.

Frankly, the story is utterly ridiculous. Sensational claims need to be backed up by rock solid evidence, which he hasn't done in this case. I think it can be safely dismissed by anyone who can think critically enough to see the contradictions in it that have been pointed out.

Unfortunately, the second principle Grant probably understands is that you can fool some of the people most of the time. There are enough non-thinkers out there that he can be reasonably sure of getting some to accept his story without questioning it. I guess it's just another way of weeding out the wheat and tares.

[Calm]

To me the dates are all goofed up, how can he first have met the GA on Oct.23 but break the story a few days before?

And the GA would keep meeting with him after he 'broke the story'? Yeah, right.

[Calm]

Unfortunately, the second principle Grant probably understands is that you can fool some of the people most of the time. There are enough non-thinkers out there that he can be reasonably sure of getting some to accept his story without questioning it. I guess it's just another way of weeding out the wheat and tares.

One only has to read the comments here and there to find people who state that they believe him....though many more don't, even those who don't believe in the Church's truth claims itself.

If it played well at the ExMormon Conference, I can understand how he might think it would be beneficial to spread it even further.

[Calm]

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

And if he had done something criminal such as child abuse or murder?

[Daniel Peterson]

A well-connected (but non-General-Authority) friend makes some good points in a note to me:

I believe this is pure fiction. Anyone who has interacted with the apostles or other general authorities will not find any of this that rings true and will see it as utter nonsense. For example, to say that the 12 are isolated from the 70 is so completely detached from reality as to be laughable. The 12 nearly always travel with at least one 70 on every assignment. The day to day affairs of the Church are conducted in close, daily collaboration with and between the 12 and the 70. If anything, the 12 likely spend much more time with members of the 1^st and 2^nd quorums of the 70 than they do with each other. To make the claim that men like Dallin Oaks, Jeff Holland, David Bednar, Todd Christofferson and all the others who, independent of their Church assignments, are held in high esteem in their professions outside of the Church could be bought off and then spend their lives living a lie is utterly ridiculous. Also, what general authority could possibly see Grant Palmer as a legitimate scholar? Palmer is delusional and self-serving. For me this is additional evidence that he is a man without integrity who must find a way to constantly stir the pot of dissent in order to sell his book and keep his name in public view.

This is certainly consistent with my experience with the General Authorities. Members of the First Quorum of the Seventy are constantly meeting with members of the Twelve. I can't count the number of committee meetings I've had with members of the Twelve in which one or more members of the Seventy have also been present. The notion that there's very little contact between the two quorums is simply silly. Completely false.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[Peppermint Patty]

Let's see the time frame given the dates provided by Palmer and from when this exmormon conference were

http://exmormonfound...erence2012.html

Oct 19-21-he broke this story at this conference

he says that the first meeting was on one website was Oct. 3 and on another site it says Oct. 23

"In mid-October 2012, a returned LDS Mission President contacted me to arrange a meeting. Several days later, he called again and said that a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy also wished to attend" Mid Oct. sounds like you know the middle, like the 15th or something, or just days before this exmo conf. I don't know about anyone else but how could he break a story a few days before he first heard it?

"We first met on Tuesday, October 3, 2012 " who? Palmer and the GA? the 3rd was just a few days before conference and I would imagine the GA was kinda busy

To me the dates are all goofed up, how can he first have met the GA on Oct.23 but break the story a few days before? if he met on Oct. 3, then why does he say he first met in mid Oct.? Mid Oct. isn't the 3rd

FWIW, Oct. 3, 2012 wasn't even a tuesday it was a Wednesday

Nice detective work, Duncan!

It looks like Grant would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids (that's a reference to Scooby Doo in case you are younger than 25).

[Damien the Leper]

I agree that in most instances such would a dumb thing to do. However; I think that there are some instances where excommunication is in the best interests of the Church. IE; Embezzlement of Church funds, or other serious crimes. I'd throw in open public apostasy after instruction.

But this does not negate a person's wish to resign. If they want to resign, then the church can't step in and say "No. We're going to excommunicate you instead."