Interview With Grant Palmer On Polygamy Statement

[theplains]

I was wondering if any of you have seen this video on youtube.

 

Will the LDS Church make this announcement in Ensign so that non-English people will

know before they found out on the Internet or through non-Mormons?

 

The church's statement on polygamy mentions, "... members came to see themselves 

as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite 

outside opposition."

 

Had they seen themselves as 'peculiar' (like is mentioned in various places in the

Bible) before polygamy?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

[Duncan]

They should ask him about his General Authority friend who was supposed to leave the Church, which never happened, so why should we take Palmer seriously?

[Uncle Dale]

 

I was wondering if any of you have seen this video on youtube.

 

Will the LDS Church make this announcement in Ensign so that non-English people will

know before they found out on the Internet or through non-Mormons?

 

The church's statement on polygamy mentions, "... members came to see themselves 

as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite 

outside opposition."

 

Had they seen themselves as 'peculiar' (like is mentioned in various places in the

Bible) before polygamy?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

 

 

According to my late grandfather, the Mormons of HIS grandfather's

day viewed themselves as the gathered, literal descendants of the

Biblical Patriarch Joseph.

 

That is to say, that (according to Grandpa, at least) his ancestors

received patriarchal blessings confirming that they were indeed the

progeny of Ephraim, son of Joseph -- while most (if not all) of their

neighbors and associates were "wicked Gentiles" in whose veins

no blood of Abraham flowed.

 

They (those first Mormons) thus were pre-destined elite spirits, especially

born into familes of the blessed bloodline destined to inherit the "Land of

Promise," and thus were the "Chosen People of God," not only by baptism,

but by actual physical descent.

 

Whether or not modern LDS think of themselves in those terms, I know

not -- but the Reorganized LDS of my generation certainly did NOT.

 

"Peculiar?" -- Peculiar in what way? In the sense that the inhabitants of

Enoch's City were "peculiar," perhaps? Peculiar in obeying each and

every word that came from the mouth of God, with such faithfulness as

to be a holy people, already far progressed on the road to godhood,

before Zomas was removed from the basin of the Carribean and lifted

high, nearly to the realm of Kolob itself?

 

I wonder...

 

I never put much stock in Palmer's opinions, but he may have a point worth

making, if he believes that Patriarchal Marriage was a factor in the peculiarity

of our ancestors.

 

UD

[theplains]

"Peculiar?" -- Peculiar in what way? In the sense that the inhabitants of

Enoch's City were "peculiar," perhaps? Peculiar in obeying each and

every word that came from the mouth of God, with such faithfulness as

to be a holy people, already far progressed on the road to godhood,

before Zomas was removed from the basin of the Carribean and lifted

high, nearly to the realm of Kolob itself?

 

I wonder...

 

'Peculiar' in the sense how others (non-believers) viewed the people for obeying

God - whom they could not see.  Since the word 'peculiar' is not mentioned in the

Book of Mormon, D&C, or POGP, I cannot really say how those of Enoch were

viewed. Zomas sounds like an urban legend.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

 

I was wondering if any of you have seen this video on youtube.

 

Will the LDS Church make this announcement in Ensign so that non-English people will

know before they found out on the Internet or through non-Mormons?

 

The church's statement on polygamy mentions, "... members came to see themselves 

as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite 

outside opposition."

 

Had they seen themselves as 'peculiar' (like is mentioned in various places in the

Bible) before polygamy?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Don't do videos except on rare occasions so what announcement are you anticipating?

[tonie]

They should ask him about his General Authority friend who was supposed to leave the Church, which never happened, so why should we take Palmer seriously?

 

I have watched one of those "interviews" with Grant Palmer. At times he seems a reluctant guest, due to what comes across as the host anti-mormon agenda.

 

More importantly, care to explain why we should take anyone seriously who made statements that proved untrue? To be more direct, you might want to be sure none of the Leaders of the LDS Church have every made a comment that was in error, before you start suggesting that people whose statement turned out untrue can not be taken seriously.

[Calm]

I think the extreme nature of untrue comments should be taken into account as well as how much they are intended to damage others' reputations as opposed to simple misunderstandings.

[Duncan]

I have watched one of those "interviews" with Grant Palmer. At times he seems a reluctant guest, due to what comes across as the host anti-mormon agenda.

 

More importantly, care to explain why we should take anyone seriously who made statements that proved untrue? To be more direct, you might want to be sure none of the Leaders of the LDS Church have every made a comment that was in error, before you start suggesting that people whose statement turned out untrue can not be taken seriously.

 

 

we have Grant Palmer we don't have Brigham Young

[Tacenda]

http://authorgrantpalmer.weebly.com/sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-and-the-beginnings-of-polygamy-in-nauvoo.html

 

True or false?  What say ye, apologists?  

Edited July 7, 2015 by Tacenda

[stemelbow]

http://authorgrantpalmer.weebly.com/sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-and-the-beginnings-of-polygamy-in-nauvoo.html

 

True or false?  What say ye, apologists?

I think it's a terrible piece. It seems he has his idea of Joseph and is wanting to use any possible incrimination against him. The first few examples he uses are less than hearsay--almost silly.

[Tacenda]

I think it's a terrible piece. It seems he has his idea of Joseph and is wanting to use any possible incrimination against him. The first few examples he uses are less than hearsay--almost silly.

You're probably right.  I found a spelling error and that bothered me.  I remember hearing or reading that he was working on an article that would provide some unknown evidence or what's the word?  Can't think, but think there were footnotes galore, but when it involves a John C. Bennett, that doesn't help.  Also, anything from Richard S. Van Wagoner seems to be suspect since several apologists discredit some of his work.  Oh yeah, thought of the phrase, smoking gun.  This wasn't much of a smoking gun article.  Maybe to those that have never heard that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy/polyandry.  But it is interesting that he had sexual allegations against him, you never hear anything about those in the church.  I often wondered why he was consistently put in jail or hounded by law enforcement.      

[Calm]

Grant Palmer's use of sources wasn't that great in the past and it would seem to be again appropriate to doublecheck and evaluate them again...not that I would suggest skipping this with anyone, but it is essential with some authors and Palmer is one of those in my experience.

[stemelbow]

You're probably right.  I found a spelling error and that bothered me.  I remember hearing or reading that he was working on an article that would provide some unknown evidence or what's the word?  Can't think, but think there were footnotes galore, but when it involves a John C. Bennett, that doesn't help.  Also, anything from Richard S. Van Wagoner seems to be suspect since several apologists discredit some of his work.  Oh yeah, thought of the phrase, smoking gun.  This wasn't much of a smoking gun article.  Maybe to those that have never heard that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy/polyandry.  But it is interesting that he had sexual allegations against him, you never hear anything about those in the church.  I often wondered why he was consistently put in jail or hounded by law enforcement.

Hey Tacenda, I can't tell if you're being silly and sarcastic about my post or not. I remember reading this perhaps a couple of years ago and went the rounds with some people on it. We seemed to get in the detail then. I don't think the conversation happened on this board though. I just remember concluding the piece itself was pretty bad. if we just take the first example into consideration:

Miriam and Rhoda, Stowell

Joseph Smith Jr. was arrested on a warrant for severa1 charges on June 30, 1830. The following day a court trial was held before Judge Joseph Chamberlain at Bainbridge, New York. Twelve witnesses were called, including Miriam and Rhoda Stowell, daughters of Josiah Stowell of Bainbridge. Smith and Mr. Stowell had worked together searching for a silver mine from October 1825 to March 1826. During this five month period, Joseph frequently associated with the Stowell girls who were eighteen and twenty years of age.[10] The prosecutor seeking to determine the "character and conduct" of Smith called them as witnesses either because of rumors brought to his attention regarding Joseph and the girls, or because he was simply fishing to find something against his character. Joseph Smith said that both girls "were severally examined. particularly as to my behavior towards them, both in public and in private." Apparently nothing came of this examination, though we only have Smith's assessment of the matter.[11]

What does this amount to? it seems like nothing at all. Because we don't have anything from the girls that Joseph was inappropriate with them, could mean he was, after all he's the one who mentioned the incident and if he did something inappropriate he'd have something to hide, therefore it's possible he's bad.

Somehow Grant concludes that he had sexual allegations against him from 1827 on. And this is his earliest incident (1830) which in no way can suggest sexual allegations. This really is about as irresponsible as one can get, if you ask me.

[Nevo]

http://authorgrantpalmer.weebly.com/sexual-allegations-against-joseph-smith-and-the-beginnings-of-polygamy-in-nauvoo.html

 

True or false?  What say ye, apologists?  

 

It's a mixture of truth and error, like most of Palmer's output. Regarding the first part of Palmer's essay, see Brian C. Hales, "Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith's Pre-Nauvoo Reputation," Journal of Mormon History 35, no. 4 (2009): 112–190. Palmer outlines ten allegations of sexual misconduct against Smith (with the Stowell daughters, Eliza Winters, Marinda Nancy Johnson, Vienna Jacques, Miss Hill, Fanny Alger, Lucinda Harris, Sarah Pratt, Melissa Schindle, and Catherine Fuller Warren) that Palmer judges to have "at least some plausibility of being true." I don't think most of the allegations have any plausibility at all (those relating to the Stowell daughters, Eliza Winters, Marinda Johnson, Vienna Jacques, "Miss Hill" (a fictional person), Melissa Schindle, and Catherine Fuller). I also consider it unlikely that Lucinda Harris was a plural wife. That leaves Fanny Alger and Sarah Pratt. The evidence that Joseph Smith had a sexual relationship with Fanny Alger is, in my view, compelling. As for Sarah Pratt, I think Joseph probably did ask her to be a plural wife. I don't buy Palmer's claim that he just wanted her as "a wife for the night."

Edited July 7, 2015 by Nevo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Who?

 

I think I am lost not sure any of what he has to say is relevant to any thing. shrug.

[Calm]

I often wondered why he was consistently put in jail or hounded by law enforcement.      

 

FairMormon has a presentation from a few years back summarizing his legal cases.  You can find out why he was hounded or at least the legal reasons given there.  Can't get you the link right now as off to an appt shortly.

[Hagoth]

According to my late grandfather, the Mormons of HIS grandfather's

day viewed themselves as the gathered, literal descendants of the

Biblical Patriarch Joseph.

 

 

I don't think this idea is dead. I had a discussion with an older patriarch in which I mentioned that I assume that I am not a literal blood descendant of Ephraim, but rather adopted spiritually into the tribe. He got very upset and insisted that it is a literal blood kinship. I just politely nodded my head, sitting there next to my Chinese wife who is also of the tribe of Ephraim and and has a sister whose patriarch assigned her to a different son of Noah who has nothing to do with Israel.

[readstoomuch]

This video seems very anti-mormon, though I haven't heard of Ancient Paths before.  Grant doesn`t do balanced.  Any one who knows the polygamy literature catches that pretty quickly.  If Mormons practicing polygamy makes people go "ich," then I guess it does`t matter whether someone describes both sides of the argument.  Read Insiders View of Mormon Origins to find more unbalanced history.  Grant posted the video in MormonStories on Facebook.  He like most of the members of that group are postmormon or nonbelievers.  Jeremy Runnels and the CES Letter came up.  These stories and books are the same old chestnuts that have always been used in the past with different names bantering them.  Grant says to tell their leaders to leave Jeremy alone to write his vitriol.  Also, the essay don`t go far enough.  I just really couldn`t stand to listen to him, but I did.  I think I am done for a long, long with Grant now.  

[why me]

I think that one problem that critics such as grant will have now is trying to still remain valid. Since the lds church is now publishing essays, including 'controversial' material in manuals to be taught, what can the critics do to remain valid? Some will become more 'strange' in their accusations. When the lds church presents its history for all to read on its website, such history will not come across as strange or crazy. It will come across as a history of a people who believed that they were living what god required them to do.

 

So, what voice does grant have now when it comes to the lds church? Or even kate and john? Or Tal? What can be said? Can they rmain valid in this age of openness? Grant needs to let go of the lds church as does john and kate or anyone else who makes a hobby of being critical of lds policies and find a productive life outside the boundaries of the lds church. 

Edited July 9, 2015 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

Still wondering what "announcement" is referred to in the opening post that Jim expects the Church now to make in the Ensign magazine.

 

I'm like calmoriah. I'm not going to sit through a 30-minute anti-Mormon video just to try to figure out what Jim is talking about.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Scott Lloyd