mercyngrace Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Sorry...I can't edit yet, but it should state above, "IF you'll read...."No worries. Sometimes the level of pure absurdity that I read online just pushes my buttons. Such is definitely the case with the ludicrous chatter about this particular tall tale.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) 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'.I am not for sale, so I am having a hard time that these many men who have already given their lives to the Church are better men than me.Great anti-Mormon hit piece. But I guess it is what it has come too. Has the site becomes a clearing house for such nonsense. Edited April 10, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee
emarkp Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Is there any confirmation that this really came from Palmer? I've seen no confirmation other than the blogger's claim. (On a blog that has one post? Isn't that pretty much guaranteed to be false?) From my reading of his claims, I don't agree with Palmer and find him to not be an honest broker of information, but there are lots of dishonest people out there would could have falsified this story (or falsely attached Palmer's name to it, etc.).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'.I certainly would like to see how it's been "verified" as being from him. I really dislike anonymous, unsourced claims.
why me Posted April 10, 2013 Author Posted April 10, 2013 I certainly would like to see how it's been "verified" as being from him. I really dislike anonymous, unsourced claims.I believe that it has been verified by John Dehlin.
Avatar4321 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 I imagine it's like MLM. At some point you run out of hit men to replenish your downline. Then you have to pay off the last hit man.I can't imagine a hit man somewhere in the middle not getting wise to this, taking the guys money, and then taking him out as well so he cant hire a hit man to hit him.Hypothetically, of course.
DonBradley Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 I had not been in contact with Grant Palmer since 2007, but, finding I had a still-valid e-mail address for him, I wrote him on Monday night asking if the story was correct. He responded with this, which I'm sure he wouldn't mind my sharing:Yes. I waited 6 months to make sure that I understood his views before issuing my report. He is fine with its release. He simply doesn't want his name or the MP named. The document is on my homepage at mormonthink.comThe spot on his homepage to which he refers is http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htmThat's all I know.Don 3
Avatar4321 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 While I am one who would also like to see more verification that this guy said that, if he did then I don't see any difficulty in concluding that he is making it up. One thing I learned very early while investigating the Church is that those who professionally attacked it have absolutely no problem manufacturing material to attack it with. In fact, that's one of the reasons I found to believe early on. After all, if the truth is on their side, why do they need to make things up?Why should he be any different? Those who fall away and enter the sphere of the adversaries influence take on his attributes, including lying.
why me Posted April 10, 2013 Author Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) I had not been in contact with Grant Palmer since 2007, but, finding I had a still-valid e-mail address for him, I wrote him on Monday night asking if the story was correct. He responded with this, which I'm sure he wouldn't mind my sharing:The spot on his homepage to which he refers is http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htmThat's all I know.DonNothing new here except his verification that he wrote the piece. However, without the naming of names and proof that the 12 believe the church to be false, we can only assume that what Grant wrote is false. Why would the GA remain silent? And then we still have the million dollar pay off to new apostles.This reminds me of the 11 witnesses to some extent. According to some critics the witnesses knew the church to be a fraud but remained silent to save their reputation. Now we have GAs remaining silent because of a payout or because of family. Quite amazing. Same rationale but different characters. Edited April 10, 2013 by why me
Duncan Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) I still think the whole thing is total twaddle. If Palmer mentioned on Oct, 19 at the exmo conf. that he knew about this GA and his thoughts, yet 2 days later he first met the man, was he just passing on an unconfirmed rumour at the exmo conf.?"Grant waited 6 months before releasing this report to the public because he wanted to make sure this is what the GA believed."YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he wanted to make sure????? PUH LEEEEZZZZ!!!from what he said at the exmo conf. he wasted no time at all to pass it off to the public, given that this phone call happend just a few days before-what convenience...I am not the smartest man alive but let' say it is true, why pass off a rumour at the conf. and only now say that you wanted to make sure this is what he believed? Edited April 10, 2013 by Duncan 2
escott3564 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 After I read this, all I could think of was the reptilian take over story. Only it was more believable.Forgive my ignorance, Jullian. What is the reptilian story?
canard78 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Sorry...I can't edit yet, but it should state above, "IF you'll read...."Funnily enough my eyes had simply flipped the 't' to an 'f' already. Amazing things these brains of ours.
canard78 Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) I had not been in contact with Grant Palmer since 2007, but, finding I had a still-valid e-mail address for him, I wrote him on Monday night asking if the story was correct. He responded with this, which I'm sure he wouldn't mind my sharing:The spot on his homepage to which he refers is http://mormonthink.com/grant9.htmThat's all I know.DonWow. Then I'd have to believe that Palmer really wrote it.In which case...It's odd, I can only believe one two things: Palmer is deluded and is losing it. The GA/MP are deluded and are losing it. I can't believe for a minute that all of the 12 are insincere and know it's not true. Not for a minute. I actually feel a little sick in the stomach at the thought that someone would genuinely believe that. Especially someone in such close contact (if the meetings are really happening with the GA).Saying that, I'm reminded of a quote by 'friend of Mormonism' Mark Twain:"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also."ETA:Out of interest. He cites 3 sources of 'proof' at the end of the letter. I presume they're all unverifiable? Hearsay to prove hearsay? Not very useful. Edited April 10, 2013 by canard78
rpn Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Here is an analysis of the grant palmer blog: I don't know the identity of the author (and didn't try to figure it out). II do find it interesting that the blog speaks of MPs (in the plural) when the original post used singular: the analysis seems to be referring to the discussion at the exmo Oct conference.http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2013/04/rumor-rumor-every-where-nor-any-fact-to.html?m=1
Duncan Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Here is an analysis of the grant palmer blog: I don't know the identity of the author (and didn't try to figure it out). II do find it interesting that the blog speaks of MPs (in the plural) when the original post used singular: the analysis seems to be referring to the discussion at the exmo Oct conference.http://mormondisclos...act-to.html?m=1the blog mentions "another foreign GA" something, as I have said before there aren't that many to pick as possibilities who are even in SLC to have these meetings. if we take what the other blog said that he has been around for some years, Elders Amado and Vinas are foreign but they are out in Area pres.so it's highly doubtful it's either of them Edited April 10, 2013 by Duncan
mfbukowski Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 maybe it is in the naive humanist in me, but I like to think that most people aren't maliciously deceptive.No, but they do get dementia. Even humanists.
mfbukowski Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Is there any confirmation that this really came from Palmer? I've seen no confirmation other than the blogger's claim. (On a blog that has one post? Isn't that pretty much guaranteed to be false?) From my reading of his claims, I don't agree with Palmer and find him to not be an honest broker of information, but there are lots of dishonest people out there would could have falsified this story (or falsely attached Palmer's name to it, etc.).I certainly would like to see how it's been "verified" as being from him. I really dislike anonymous, unsourced claims.Watch the video linked above somewhere from the ex-Mo conference. He says the same things essentially- and its clearly him saying it. Edited April 10, 2013 by mfbukowski
ALarson Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Here is an analysis of the grant palmer blog: I don't know the identity of the author (and didn't try to figure it out). II do find it interesting that the blog speaks of MPs (in the plural) when the original post used singular: the analysis seems to be referring to the discussion at the exmo Oct conference.http://mormondisclos...act-to.html?m=1Thank you for the link. It's very interesting to read through and it does give more information on this whole affair. It's all just very bizarre and many will be watching to see what comes next (is there going to be more from Grand Palmer???).
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 And what happens when the million runs out? Remain silent? I would hit them up for another million to remain silent. It would never end. Not to mention the wonderful book deal that would rake in a few million more. Imagine if 8 of the 12 who Palmer says doesn't believe would get together and tell all. The church would fall like a house of cards, especially with proof.Still just price negotiations.There's the rub. Palmer has no proof, or he would have showed it already.
Nevo Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 Out of interest. He cites 3 sources of 'proof' at the end of the letter. I presume they're all unverifiable? Hearsay to prove hearsay? Not very useful.I wouldn't say they're unverifiable. References are supplied for each statement. So we can at least verify Palmer's sources. But the sources themselves are second- or third-hand.It would be nice to know, for example, what the "curious anecdote" was that Nibley related to Prince that allegedly indicated that McKay did not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Is this interpretation Nibley's or Prince's or Palmer's? Even if it was Nibley that was left with this impression, was his impression correct?
why me Posted April 10, 2013 Author Posted April 10, 2013 What is suspicious is that Grant credits his book for the doubting GA and the MP. They both read his book and determined the church to be untrue. How can a GA or an MP who have experienced countless spiritual experiences begin to doubt based on a reading of Palmer's book. I find this account suspicious and unbelievable. Now Grant claims that he is the point man for the two...having meetings with them on a somewhat regular basis. Quite amazing that the GA and the MP would find a new prophet in Grant.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 What is suspicious is that Grant credits his book for the doubting GA and the MP. They both read his book and determined the church to be untrue. How can a GA or an MP who have experienced countless spiritual experiences begin to doubt based on a reading of Palmer's book. I find this account suspicious and unbelievable. Now Grant claims that he is the point man for the two...having meetings with them on a somewhat regular basis. Quite amazing that the GA and the MP would find a new prophet in Grant.And that the Church will eventually implode and will have to turn to "scholars" such as him to rescue it.Delusions of grandeur, anyone? 2
ERayR Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 And that the Church will eventually implode and will have to turn to "scholars" such as him to rescue it.Delusions of grandeur, anyone?Its mine, mine all mine ha ha ha aaaaaaa.
T-Shirt Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) In my opinion, if this alleged Seventy has truly gifted Palmer's book to other people, I would say that is virtually impossible that this story could have remained secret with no one leaking it. Additionally, since this mystery person admits that he has never heard an apostle deny the truth claims of the Church, how can he possibly know, with such detail, that none of the twelve actually believe, including the alleged fact that Elder Uchtdorf took longer to break. How would he know these things? And, why would he know and no one else? Edited April 10, 2013 by T-Shirt 3
why me Posted April 10, 2013 Author Posted April 10, 2013 And that the Church will eventually implode and will have to turn to "scholars" such as him to rescue it.Delusions of grandeur, anyone?And that is the point. He is crediting himself and his book for casting doubt in their minds. I find this unbelievable. Maybe he needs more royalties. I just can't see any GA suddenly believing that the church is not true because of his book. I think that this is hard to comprehend. 2
jwhitlock Posted April 10, 2013 Posted April 10, 2013 In my opinion, if this alleged Seventy has truly gifted Palmer's book to other people, I would say that is virtually impossible that this story could have remained secret with no one leaking it. Additionally, since this mystery person admits that he has never heard an apostle deny the truth claims of the Church, how can he possibly know, with such detail, that none of the twelve actually believe, including the alleged fact that Elder Uchtdorf took longer to break. How would he know these things? And, why would he know and no one else?LIstening to President Uchtdorf in conference, it's really ludicrous to think that he's been "broken" of anything.
Recommended Posts