The Latest From Grant Palmer

[Scott Lloyd]

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).

You mean people younger than 25 won't get that? Now I really feel old.

Seriously, we've been raising our kids showing them Scooby Doo, and the eldest is only 16.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I pity the poor man. So consumed with apostasy he can't even be coherent.

[juliann]

After I read this, all I could think of was the reptilian take over story. Only it was more believable.

[Duncan]

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).

I wish I was younger then 25! but I am 34 but people think I still qualify for "teenager tuesdays" at the local barber shop! Thank you for the kind words!

Edited April 8, 2013 by Duncan

[bluebell]

You mean people younger than 25 won't get that? Now I really feel old.

Seriously, we've been raising our kids showing them Scooby Doo, and the eldest is only 16.

Nah, my kids are 8 and 11 and they watch Scooby Doo weekly, and that quote is still used at the end of every episode. There is hope yet!

[Calm]

Seriously, we've been raising our kids showing them Scooby Doo.....

It is so very sad when you think you know someone so well and then find out something so reprehensible.

[mercyngrace]

So I just wasted 20 minutes of my evening reading the article and a series of comments by admittedly anti/ex church members. It's a conspiracy theorist's fantasy land. Several posters just happened to be former bishops who just happened to know all the GAs and who just happen to have given them advice on scripture and had private chats with them during which (lowering my voice here in case my TFH* is faulty) "doubts were revealed".

Maybe it's just because I grew up near a hog farm and I'm sensitive to the odor but the nonsense I just read smells unmistakably like pure pig ----.

That GAs can go through faith crises, I have no doubt.

That they might leave the church over them, no question.

That the church provides a stipend to free up those who serve full time, well, duh.

That doubting GAs go to Grant Palmer for super secret squirrel meetings to discuss the church's truth claims and their willful abuse of authority over the church and misleading of church members... yeah... NO.

Seriously, where are we? The Meadows?

[media=]

*Tin Foil Hat

Edited April 8, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Daniel Peterson]

It's possible, by the way, that a naïve, non-scholarly General Authority might believe that Grant Palmer is a "renowned historian." But no serious historian thinks he is.

He was a CES teacher. He never delivered papers at scholarly historical conferences, and Insider's Guide was his first publication. His only "renown" is in narrow ex-Mormon circles.

The description of him as a "renowned historian," along with the notion that, when the Church collapses, members are going to need to turn to him to help them put things back together, is pure wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Many years ago, I read and enjoyed the novel Hadrian the Seventh, by "Baron Corvo.". There may be some parallels here.

.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[alter idem]

From the blog:

The GA said the church is like a weakened dam. At first you don’t see cracks on the face; nevertheless, things are happening behind the scenes. Eventually, small cracks appear, and then the dam will “explode.” When it does, he said, the members are going to be “shocked” and will need scholars/historians like me to educate them regarding the Mormon past.

IF we are to believe Palmer, the leaders are pulling a huge conspiracy of fraud over on the members--however, they are going to need Grant Palmer and his book to help 'educate' the members? Why? For what purpose? To keep them as members in a fake church? How is 'educating' them with Grant's help going to do that? I think this is evidence Palmer is delusional and desperate to promote his book and make himself 'relevant'.

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. Perhaps this is why he has reached out to me.

Again with the book--why would someone who claims the church is a fraud want to 'gift' Palmer's book to members? It makes no sense, except if you figure that Palmer wants to be 'relevant' and wants people to see his book as a great work.

The GA is a man of integrity and very loving.

Given what he's claimed, how can Palmer even suggest this? If he's a man of integrity, why did he take the 1 million and why does he continue to promote a religious scam? Why does he sneak around in secret meetings with Palmer and continue to lie to the members? If he was a man of integrity he'd publicly admit his claims, provide proof of his accusations and not just tell them to Palmer in secret, then tell the world in an anonymous blog; with an effort to promote the sale of his book. If we are to believe Palmer, this GA is not a man of integrity--but Palmer is oblivious to the contradictions in his claims--IMO--because he is delusional and really ought to seek a mental health evaluation.

[rpn]

Bro. Peterson, I read his claim to be that most of the contact nowadays is between individual 70's and apostles (rather than quorum meetings), permitting these personal talks that allow him to know all these other things about what apostle believe even while admitting he's never heard them say what he claims they believe. And that fits with your description (except I wonder how many of those meetings are 1:1 things).

And the idea of a payoff is really over the top ---- most of these guys came from careers where $1 million wouldn't even be a big payoff.

And Palmer didn't say that the 70 had been given a million---- just that newly called apostles were.

Edited April 9, 2013 by rpn

[Calm]

however, they are going to need Grant Palmer and his book to help 'educate' the members? Why? For what purpose?

To help them adjust to the real world? The one where Grant Palmer is a renowned historian? Edited April 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Even with my new found skepticism on some things, this gets a HUGE DEMERIT from me. Gossipy juice like this swill is just not digestible. I will say the same thing to him as I am saying to all religious thinking people, SHOW THE FRICKIN EVIDENCE, not just assertion and gossip. Sheesh! I haven't read Palmer's book, and now I'm not gonna waste my time unless I am forced into it somehow.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Kerry A. Shirts

[Pahoran]

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."

Well yes, as a matter of fact, it can.

You are dogmatically asserting a popular apostate article of unfaith as if it were an established fact.

It is not.

And contrary to what you've been told, unbelievers aren't the only people with rights.

The famous Guinn case is irrelevant. The church in question (1) had no mechanism for members to withdraw and (2) included direct public announcements of excommunicated members' names and offenses. These were the salient facts upon which the ratio decidendi was based, and they do not apply to the Church of Jesus Christ; yet the apostate clique keep right on clinging to this straw as their sole source of comfort.

Excommunicating a person who is trying to duck out of their obligations is in no sense "ecclesiastical abuse." I'm aware that that phrase is a popular bumper-sticker among the apostate crowd, but it is meaningless. Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

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

Good job man.

If your work is correct, it would be really really good if Palmer's story and this timeline discrepancy could get wide sweeping coverage.

[Calm]

Even with my new found skepticism on some things

If one is going to be a skeptic, one should be an equal opportunity skeptic in my view....not just skeptical about things once accepted. Edited April 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I guess John Dehlin has confirmed this is authentic (he spoke to Palmer himself).

I can't believe Palmer would write this and make it public without the permission from the seventy and mission president. Until names are given, I have doubts regarding the accuracy of the information. But, is Palmer making this up or just repeating what he's been told?

Source please (dehlin's confirmation) - not questioning it, just wanted to see what John says

[canard78]

You mean people younger than 25 won't get that? Now I really feel old.

Seriously, we've been raising our kids showing them Scooby Doo, and the eldest is only 16.

Don't worry, Scooby Doo is still on TV. My kids watch it. They make new episodes so they now have mobile phones and search engines to do their research instead of old newspapers at the library.

But even a 25year whipper-snapper should get the reference

[MormonMason]

But if a member decides to resign rather than be part of a disciplinary council, they have that right to withdraw. If there is a moral issue involved or not and a person wishes to resign, the church must honor it. IOW, "You want to resign and you committed a sin? No way! We are going to excommunicate you first", doesn't fly. That is ecclesiastical abuse.

Yes, as I said, the last time I read from the CHI was a number of years ago. I checked and was informed by someone I know that this is no longer done. They annotate your record with a report of the transgression, remove your name from the general Church rolls, and pursue the matter after any request for readmission. A future Bishop can then deny a request for readmission unless and until evidence of sincere repentance is put forth.

On the other hand, if they are really serious transgressions involving a child, well then leaders are encouraged to comply with the name removal request but I believe that there still is that little obligation of notifying the authorities that has been in place for a number of years. So, you would be free and clear but still potentially face the authorities afterward.

[DonBradley]

In the early days of the Church, many of the General Authorities apostatized, with some of them entirely losing faith in the Restoration. And in the 20th century it appears that B. H. Roberts at least seriously entertained questions on Book of Mormon historicity.

Other General Authorities in recent times have fallen away in other ways. In the 1940s an apostle, Richard R. Lyman, was caught in a long-term relationship outside of his marriage. And George P. Lee, while a Seventy, turned against the First Presidency and the Twelve and, according to later court action, made inappropriate advances on a young girl.

If these things can happen, it's by no means unbelievable that one among the Church's approximately 100 General Authorities could lose faith. Though one would hope it would take something much stronger than An Insider's View of Mormon History to raise questions in a General Authority's mind!

Some of Grant's specifics, however, make no sense to me. I have trouble imagining a longtime General Authority who has worked closely with the Twelve characterizing them as "evil." If he believed that, surely he would resign his position or make up some excuse to ask to be released?

And why would the General Authority meet with Grant monthly after Grant discussed him at the Ex-Mormon Conference. Seems a tad risky, doesn't it?

If Grant's story is even mostly true, then the General Authority in question would have to be exceedingly reckless, and I can't help but think that at least some of what has been filtered through Grant is distorted in his memory.

Don

[Calm]

If these things can happen, it's by no means unbelievable that one among the Church's approximately 100 General Authorities could lose faith.

I have no problem with the idea that a GA, even one of the 12 might come to a place where they lost faith in the gospel.

It is the conspiracy aspects of the memo that I don't buy and it is so extreme I find it hard to believe there is any real foundation to it.

[Calm]

After I read this, all I could think of was the reptilian take over story. Only it was more believable.

And it has actual evidence...

http://truthaboutmormonz.wordpress.com/

[CASteinman]

I have no problem with the idea that a GA, even one of the 12 might come to a place where they lost faith in the gospel.

It is the conspiracy aspects of the memo that I don't buy and it is so extreme I find it hard to believe there is any real foundation to it.

Oh you are right about that. The story was fishy in that regard all along. I thought that there was about a 100% chance that Palmer was lying but I was not as certain that he was lying about everything.

That there could be 1 GA who had some problem -- that is actually reasonably plausible, especially with so many now.

That there could be 3 or so in some cabal -- that is actually very unlikely.

That they said Teach us -- or whatever -- is ridiculous.

But I thought that there was about a 25% chance that there could be a kernel of truth that some parts of his story were connected to things that really happened -- it could be that 1 MP and 1 GA were tore up about something, possibly really thought some bad things of the 12 and were backbiting. THAT is (sadly) all too human. (still dastardly though).

But of course if the timeline that Duncan laid out is right, that is now down to essentially zero. I am grateful (maybe too eager to be grateful) that is just Grant Palmer -- lying again.

[teddyaware]

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'.

Is it improper on this board for one to opine that this story is purely wishful thinking on Palmer's part? That he's concocted a narrative he fervently wishes was true, but is telling it as if it were true so as to be able to bemusedly observe the reactions of faithful member's? Could it be that he imagines the average member of the Church is so insecure in his or her testiomony that he believes propagating this falsehood will cause those supposed insecurities to bubble to the surface? And could it be that in Palmer's perfect world this fantasy is an example of how things ought to be, so he feels perfectly justified in disseminating a lie, the ends justifying the means because he "knows for sure" the Church is a fraudulent enterprise? And could it also be that in publishing this fantasy he knows there are many embittered ex-members and anti-mormons who have itching ears, people who will gullibly swallow like honey any slander that puts the Church in a bad light? After all, all's fair in love, in war, and in any and all attempts to undermine those 'deluded' "Mormons."

Edited April 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Is it improper on this board for one to opine that this story is purely wishful thinking on Palmer's part? That he's concocted a narrative he fervently wishes was true, but is telling it as if it were true so as to be able to bemusedly observe the reactions of faithful member's? Could it be that he imagines the average member of the Church is so insecure in his or her testiomony that he believes propagating this falsehood will cause those supposed insecurities to bubble to the surface? And could it be that in Palmer's perfect world this fantasy is an example of how things ought to be, so he feels perfectly justified in disseminating a lie, the ends justifying the means because he "knows for sure" the Church is a fraudulent enterprise? And could it also be that in publishing this fantasy he knows there are many embittered ex-members and anti-mormons who have itching ears, people who will gullibly swallow like honey any slander that puts the Church in a bad light? After all, all's fair in love, in war, and in any and all attempts to undermine those 'deluded' "Mormons."

You may have just nailed it. He may feel the Saints are doomed and he had to take drastic measures. Especially if he's hanging around some EV's like those on MRM or UTLM. Edited April 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

You mave have just nailed it. He may feel the Saints are doomed and he had to take drastic measures. Especially if he's hanging around some EV's like those on MRM or UTLM.

Either that or he's trying to play the role of a phony hero. You know the type: Fraudulent Vietnam War "veterans" who work the VFW and American Legion lecture circuits, telling tall tales of their daring and heroic battle exploits, while with feigned humilty they proudly display their medals and decorations of "valor."