No Pics of Seer Stones in our Churches

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You've already had material of substance presented to you. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it lacks substance.

I've seen nothing of real substance in your posts about the contents of the books, but you have posted many ugly personal attacks and accusations towards the author (and links containing more).

I'll read what Nevo has written since he at least addressed Palmer's book and what it contains (and it doesn't matter to me if I agree or not, it's interesting to me to read his views).

Edited April 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And, sometimes it doesn't mean anything was dishonest in selecting a certain book title.  He quite possibly felt like an insider since he was in the church for so many years.

I personally see nothing wrong with the title and am more interested in the contents of the book.  

As I said, we are each making our best guess. I've already explained why identifying oneself as an "insider" just because one is a member of the Church does not make a lot of sense to me -- unless, by means of the vagueness of the label, one is trying to make people think one has status that one does not possess.

And selection of the title goes to the credibility of the author, which reflects on the content of the book.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen no real substance posted, but a lot of ugly personal attacks on the author have been posted here.

Your calling them "ugly personal attacks" does not really go to their validity or veracity. Let each person consider them and arrive at his own conclusion.

Quote

I'll read what Nevo has written since he at least addressed Palmer's book and what it contains (and it doesn't matter to me if I agree or not, it's interesting to me to read his views).

The other material that has been linked to here is interesting also.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The other material that has been linked to here is interesting also.

I just saw more personal attacks in the links you provided.  But I'll take another look.

You obviously have not read the book since you have posted nothing of substance regarding the contents.  I just think it's odd you continue attacking the author and the title.  But, you have a right to your opinion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What a strange post coming from you. You don't call out anything he has said but you condem him for making prudent financial decisions so as to not put his family in jepardy?  And perhaps he was not ready 15 years ago to publish his book. If you have a problem with what he wrote then you should tell us why. This just seem petty and unjustified. I am kinda surprised this is coming from you.  

Well, maybe in this one case I have gone completely off the rails but maybe I am being very consistent and my personal knowledge of the consequences of his choices both in publishing the book, how he presented himself and what else he has said over the years gives me good reason to respond this way.  I had family that was damaged badly by Palmer's claims as a person about the Church, outside of the book and I have seen other families hurt by it as well.  Those familiy members were responsible for accepting the narrative that surrounded the man and his book, but he is also responsible for contributing to the narrative.

A couple of posters have posted links to reviews, I only remember A Larson having a response to them (outside of those who said  they would read them).  Iirc, AL dismissed the reviews and did not engage them.  I understand that some find the reviews inflammatory and personal...but it is frustrating then when asked for the history of his endeavours but seeing what is offered by others ignored.  When I broke my own rule last night, I figured I also owed an effort to the request to deal with the inaccuracy of his work.  I don't have his book on my shelf so am dependent on others' reviews for source material.

JSince all of the reviews of the book I was most aware of appeared to me to be rejected by A Larson, who I have more or less chosen as representative in my mind of others I am conversing with in this thread, I decided it would be more effective to address his work with something that had less baggage attached to it (though I can see chosing to disregard some of the reviews, they were not all aproaching the same topic or used the same style so why are they rejected as well? Baggage perhaps, so makes sense to me to try something else) and so I posted a link to a review of later work that I see him approaching the same way (can't edit the post, the last word was supposed to be aspect iirc..it was late and medication interferes with memory...and self control which is why I allowed myself to break my self imposed rule).

Is the link sufficient for those who want to understand why I don't rate his first book or his later work as worth reading?  Or is it necessary for me to post sections to deal with?  It is morning and I am back to believing I need to distance myself from this aspect of the thread, but I blew it last night and must accept the consequences so if the link to what I hope will be accepted as a relatively noninflammatory and nonpersonal review is not enough, I will try and engage...but since I don't currently have access to his more serious work save through the reviews, I am not seeing what I could do better or wouldn't just be repeating.

I am assuming no one needs to go over why the commentary of his that I mentioned about his privately teaching a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy is problematic?  The text is online in the fullest at Mormon Think which I understand carries temple content so I don't link to it, but it can be easily googled.  I believe it was an accurate paraphase with my phrase 'sit at his feet' conveying the attitude that Palmer was attaching to the alleged GA.  I say alleged because I believe Palmer is lying.  At the time of the claim, I and others examined the possibilities of who it might be and did not find any credible.  If one takes the approach that he altered the details to protect the man's identity...well, the details of the man's status is too important to his story.  If he altered it so it is not someone in the First Quorum, the whole story becomes meaningless with no authority behind any claims made of insider knowledge.

 Btw, I believe this incident is consistent with Palmer's previous attempts to appear as one having access to deep "insider" information for those who question if there was any desire on his part to portray himself as such.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

I disliked An Insider's View almost from the start. And I've never found much to admire about Palmer either.

These were some of my initial reactions to the book:

• http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/106390/A-Selective-Continuing-Commentary-on-Grant-Palmer
• http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/127389/My-Testimony-Took-a-BIG-hit-Please-Help
• http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/142724/The-Golden-Pot#reply-142724
• http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/sreply/152839/Grant-Palmer-Not-the-first-Insider-to-be-mistreated

And my estimation of Palmer's scholarship has not really improved over the years:

Thank you for posting this.  Brings back memories.  I wouldn't have a clue where to find any substantive posts I made on the topic and kind of doubt I would have had the nerve to believe my contribution would have been important enough to post stuff worth reading now given the responses of you and others so much better educated in the area.  And as I have said before, I didn't see the value of the book as a reference when there are better critical stuff out there so didn't buy it so can't repeat my efforts save for using reviews of others to inform myself about the book.

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

A couple of posters have posted links to reviews, I only remember A Larson having a response to them (outside of those who said  they would read them).  Iirc, AL dismissed the reviews and did not engage them.  I understand that some find the reviews inflammatory and personal...but it is frustrating then when asked for the history of his endeavours but seeing what is offered by others ignored.  When I broke my own rule last night, I figured I also owed an effort to the request to deal with the inaccuracy of his work.  I don't have his book on my shelf so am dependent on others' reviews for source material.

JSince all of the reviews of the book I was most aware of appeared to me to be rejected by A Larson, who I have more or less chosen as representative in my mind of others I am conversing with in this thread,

That's not a very fair depiction, IMO.  I stated I had read many of the reviews already, that I would read what Nevo posted and that I would take another look at what Scott Lloyd posted.

I have also actually read Grant Palmer's book (I've read both of his books).  So, I do feel that I have a right to post my opinion of it and the contents.

I just get tired of the personal attacks on him (and on the title of one of his books) and was asking to actually address what his book contains.  I thanked Nevo for posting what he did and said I was interested in reading what he had written.

I'm sorry you have had family members hurt from anything they read in his books (or elsewhere), so I get this is personal for you. 

But most on here who are attacking Palmer's book, haven't even read it.  And to digress or sink to comparisons with Hitler and Satan, is pretty low, IMO.  

Edited April 2, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That's not a very fair depiction, IMO.  I stated I had read many of the reviews already, that I would read what Nevo posted and that I would take another look at what Scott Lloyd posted.

I meant my comment about you in just regard to the Farms reviews...why I had decided not to addressthe book and instead use another of his works to demonstrate why I don't find his stuff worth reading if one is researching LDS history or doctrine.... because of necessity and current laziness I would need to use the FARMS reviews for the book.  It had not occurred to me to see if there had been sufficiently substantive remarks on either here or ZLMB.  I just remembered those threads as primarily dealing with the FARMS reviews (stupidly looking back now Nevo hasrefreshed that memory) and I was trying to think of something sufficiently removed from them.

I understood that you had read the reviews and assumed you would give it your usual thoughtful attention, it was just that my impression was you didn't see them as contributing enough of value and too much that was not to be useful in this discussion and so it just seemed wisdom to use something else since I desire to be persuasive.  I am not criticizing why you found them that way, if I was going there, I would have first asked for details to see if I disagreed with you on those aspects. (laziness on my part). I just saw it as efficient not to get into them by trying .first to persuade you to change your mind about them and then use them to support my view of the book, when my issue with the book was based on his methodology that is carried over into other things.  

My apologies if it came out as if I thought you had not seriously considered them and were dismissing them outright.  I choose you often as the poster I am imagining as my audience because I respect how you examine topics even if we don't always come to the same conclusion.  I may not always understand your decisions (thus my comment about the different styles, etc...should have left that out as it was irrelevant to the post and only would have been relevant if I had been willing to put the effort into discussing the FARMS reviews with you), but I have yet to find one I didn't respect.

[Calm]

I agree that Hitler and Satan stuff is inappropriate (and I do usually report it when I see it in respect of the board's guidelines though my ipad has been crashing so much on everything but replying sometimes I can't).

The insider title...I don't know if he chose it or not.  I do think whoever did used it to add a sense of...authority is not the word, perhaps credibilty is.  And I have had many of those who like the book telling me the narrative in that way, enough so that I see it as the most common reading.  Whether or not it was Palmer, he appears to me to more recently want to be seen as holding that sort of insider with access to special knowledge based on his latter claims of the alleged GA (see Mormon Think for the text if needed, please) so I find it credible to argue that this attribute was probably present when he had the book published and he likely contributed to the narrative even if he didn't choose the title.

I hope your kindness allows you to not be disappointed (I am talking in a small way, I am not assuming you or others mold your life around my comments, I am just referring to the disappointment that comes from making an effort to converse that is not as fully reciprocated) if I try to withdraw myself again in the middle of the discussion.  Nevo is so much better at this stuff anyway, better time investment there for you and others.  I think I have contributed enough posts today of addressing people's comments in a more analytical way (whether it was a poor attempt or not, I have tried) to redeem myself for the personal commentary so am quitting again (and hopefully it will stick, today's embarrassment over blowing it will help).

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree that Hitler and Satan stuff is inappropriate (and I do usually report it when I see it in respect of the board's guidelines though my ipad has been crashing so much on everything but replying sometimes I can't).

The insider title...I don't know if he chose it or not.  I do think whoever did used it to add a sense of...authority is not the word, perhaps credibilty is.  And I have had many of those who like the book telling me the narrative in that way, enough so that I see it as the most common reading.  Whether or not it was Palmer, he appears to me to more recently want to be seen as holding that sort of insider with access to special knowledge based on his latter claims of the alleged GA (see Mormon Think for the text if needed, please) so I find it credible to argue that this attribute was probably present when he had the book published and he likely contributed to the narrative even if he didn't choose the title.

I hope your kindness allows you to not be disappointed (I am talking in a small way, I am not assuming you or others mold your life around my comments, I am just referring to the disappointment that comes from making an effort to converse that is not as fully reciprocated) if I try to withdraw myself again in the middle of the discussion.  Nevo is so much better at this stuff anyway, better time investment there for you and others.  I think I have contributed enough posts today of addressing people's comments in a more analytical way (whether it was a poor attempt or not, I have tried) to redeem myself for the personal commentary so am quitting again (and hopefully it will stick, today's embarrassment over blowing it will help).

For what it's worth, here's a thread from three years ago in which Palmer's tall tale about the General Authority sitting at his feet is discussed and evaluated.

I agree it goes to his overall credibility and his tendency to claim "insider" status.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For what it's worth, here's a thread from three years ago in which Palmer's tall tale about the General Authority sitting at his feet is discussed and evaluated.

I agree it goes to his overall credibility and his tendency to claim "insider" status.

I'll read the thread.  Thank you for the link!

But it isn't applicable to Palmer picking the title for his book since this was 11 years after his book was published.

Edited April 2, 2016 by JulieM

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, now you're comparing Palmer  to Hitler, Stalin and Satan himself?  Wow....Unbelievable!  You guys really hate this man and I can't quite figure out why that is.  Why such vitriol?

I did not say that and you know it. I see no point in this conversation so I give you the last word.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Well, maybe in this one case I have gone completely off the rails but maybe I am being very consistent and my personal knowledge of the consequences of his choices both in publishing the book, how he presented himself and what else he has said over the years gives me good reason to respond this way.  I had family that was damaged badly by Palmer's claims as a person about the Church, outside of the book and I have seen other families hurt by it as well.  Those familiy members were responsible for accepting the narrative that surrounded the man and his book, but he is also responsible for contributing to the narrative.

A couple of posters have posted links to reviews, I only remember A Larson having a response to them (outside of those who said  they would read them).  Iirc, AL dismissed the reviews and did not engage them.  I understand that some find the reviews inflammatory and personal...but it is frustrating then when asked for the history of his endeavours but seeing what is offered by others ignored.  When I broke my own rule last night, I figured I also owed an effort to the request to deal with the inaccuracy of his work.  I don't have his book on my shelf so am dependent on others' reviews for source material.

JSince all of the reviews of the book I was most aware of appeared to me to be rejected by A Larson, who I have more or less chosen as representative in my mind of others I am conversing with in this thread, I decided it would be more effective to address his work with something that had less baggage attached to it (though I can see chosing to disregard some of the reviews, they were not all aproaching the same topic or used the same style so why are they rejected as well? Baggage perhaps, so makes sense to me to try something else) and so I posted a link to a review of later work that I see him approaching the same way (can't edit the post, the last word was supposed to be aspect iirc..it was late and medication interferes with memory...and self control which is why I allowed myself to break my self imposed rule).

Is the link sufficient for those who want to understand why I don't rate his first book or his later work as worth reading?  Or is it necessary for me to post sections to deal with?  It is morning and I am back to believing I need to distance myself from this aspect of the thread, but I blew it last night and must accept the consequences so if the link to what I hope will be accepted as a relatively noninflammatory and nonpersonal review is not enough, I will try and engage...but since I don't currently have access to his more serious work save through the reviews, I am not seeing what I could do better or wouldn't just be repeating.

I am assuming no one needs to go over why the commentary of his that I mentioned about his privately teaching a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy is problematic?  The text is online in the fullest at Mormon Think which I understand carries temple content so I don't link to it, but it can be easily googled.  I believe it was an accurate paraphase with my phrase 'sit at his feet' conveying the attitude that Palmer was attaching to the alleged GA.  I say alleged because I believe Palmer is lying.  At the time of the claim, I and others examined the possibilities of who it might be and did not find any credible.  If one takes the approach that he altered the details to protect the man's identity...well, the details of the man's status is too important to his story.  If he altered it so it is not someone in the First Quorum, the whole story becomes meaningless with no authority behind any claims made of insider knowledge.

 Btw, I believe this incident is consistent with Palmer's previous attempts to appear as one having access to deep "insider" information for those who question if there was any desire on his part to portray himself as such.

Well thanks for the clarification.  I can certainly see why you are emotional about this issue.  II did read the links provided and found only one link that actually talked about content.   The one on Moroni's visit being compared to an existing book.  The rest seemed to be more personal attacks than content. I have to be honest here.  I don't really read any of the anti Mormon books.  If I really want to know what Palmer said, I should read the book for myself.  My reasons for not being a part of the church does not revolve around doctrinal issues.  I think you know that.  I have a general opinion about a few aspects of the church narrative, but that is not what keeps me away from coming back.  

Again, thanks for your response and explanation.  I love reading your comments.  I learn a lot from them.  Keep it up.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I meant my comment about you in just regard to the Farms reviews...why I had decided not to addressthe book and instead use another of his works to demonstrate why I don't find his stuff worth reading if one is researching LDS history or doctrine.... because of necessity and current laziness I would need to use the FARMS reviews for the book.  It had not occurred to me to see if there had been sufficiently substantive remarks on either here or ZLMB.  I just remembered those threads as primarily dealing with the FARMS reviews (stupidly looking back now Nevo hasrefreshed that memory) and I was trying to think of something sufficiently removed from them.

I understood that you had read the reviews and assumed you would give it your usual thoughtful attention, it was just that my impression was you didn't see them as contributing enough of value and too much that was not to be useful in this discussion and so it just seemed wisdom to use something else since I desire to be persuasive.  I am not criticizing why you found them that way, if I was going there, I would have first asked for details to see if I disagreed with you on those aspects. (laziness on my part). I just saw it as efficient not to get into them by trying .first to persuade you to change your mind about them and then use them to support my view of the book, when my issue with the book was based on his methodology that is carried over into other things.  

My apologies if it came out as if I thought you had not seriously considered them and were dismissing them outright.  I choose you often as the poster I am imagining as my audience because I respect how you examine topics even if we don't always come to the same conclusion.  I may not always understand your decisions (thus my comment about the different styles, etc...should have left that out as it was irrelevant to the post and only would have been relevant if I had been willing to put the effort into discussing the FARMS reviews with you), but I have yet to find one I didn't respect.

Hey Calm, you're a class act.  There are few on here who I respect more than I do you.

I get what you are saying and why you feel as you do.  I completely understand.

I mainly object to personal attacks on here and just would like to focus on the actual writings or statements from a person.  I am certainly no defender of Grant Palmer nor have I followed all that he has done or said. I did purchase his book years ago and felt it was an easy read and found nothing too inaccurate about what he presented (other than feeling his Golden Pot theory was a bit odd).  Of course, he doesn't come across as a serious historian (not like Michael Quinn or others, for example), but I felt it was easy to read and his book honestly didn't contain anything I hadn't read or heard before.  

I have listened to part of his interviews, etc, and my impression of him was that he was a good person who was caught in a bad situation (questioning and doubting his beliefs while being employed by the church).  I don't know what I would have done for sure if I'd been in his position and I try not to judge.  I think he probably agonized and worried about supporting his family, but of course I don't know this.  I do know that I would not have written a book, though.  I honestly would not want to be responsible for destroying another person's testimony (and I adhere to that strongly in my life with family and friends). However, I just try to give people the benefit of the doubt and feel he's not an evil, conniving person.

I really was just trying to focus this conversation on the contents of his book rather than continuing to personally attack Grant Palmer.  But I realize that it's personal for some of you when it's not for me.  Thanks for all that you posted, Calm.

Edited April 2, 2016 by ALarson

[SeekerB]

On 3/30/2016 at 1:33 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

That incident might mean nothing more than that the Lord was not going to put up with Martin Harris's tomfoolery. It had the effect of assuaging Harris's doubts. That may have been the Lord's intent.

Whatever the medium or means employed, the Lord will always grant divine revelation and spiritual gifts on His terms, not ours.

 

Scott, you could be right, but wouldn't that mean the Seer Stone is just a plain old rock, just like the dummy one Martin Harris used?  I tend to think the Seer Stone is genuine, meaning it is more than just a brown rock.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, SeekerB said:

Scott, you could be right, but wouldn't that mean the Seer Stone is just a plain old rock, just like the dummy one Martin Harris used?  I tend to think the Seer Stone is genuine, meaning it is more than just a brown rock.

I hold to the opinion there is nothing intrinsically powerful about the stone itself and that it only had revelatory value to the Prophet Joseph to the extent that the Almighty willed it to be so. It is for that reason that Joseph eventually grew in his prophetic capabilities to the extent that he didn't need the stone any longer. All it ever was was an instrument to focus the mind and faith of Joseph to the point that he could seek and receive divine revelation. When he developed the necessary confidence, faith and spiritual maturity, he no longer needed the stone.

I compare it to our use of consecrated oil in giving priesthood blessings. There is no intrinsic healing power in the oil itself. The healing power comes from God. What the oil does is focus the faith and spiritual intent of both the one giving the blessing and the one receiving it. (And, of course, use of the oil fulfills the commandment to so use it.)

I have no doubt that, in an emergency, where no oil was available, a priesthood blessing could be given that would be just as efficacious as if the oil were used.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

I'll read the thread.  Thank you for the link!

But it isn't applicable to Palmer picking the title for his book since this was 11 years after his book was published.

I've already explained that it demonstrates a propensity on his part to seek attention by claiming "insider" status, a propensity that may have been present at the time a title for his book was chosen.

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already explained that it demonstrates a propensity on his part to seek attention by claiming "insider" status, a propensity that may have been present at the time a title for his book was chosen.

"May" have been present 11 years earlier?

Yeah, maybe.  But, maybe not 😊

We just can't know unless you've seen or heard Grant relate why he selected that title.  I'll read his book and see if he seems to believe he had some secret information or position in the church.

[Calm]

Need to be distracted, but I will at least try to refrain from the more personal stuff.

The statement below quotes from Palmer where he attempts to present that certain scholars agree with him when they don't and states he has pushed this view in other situations.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/15/2/S00012-5176b15767d3212Statement.pdf

"In the preface to his book, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer speaks approvingly of historical work done by the faculty of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History (pp. vii–viii). To some readers, this has suggested that Smith Institute faculty are among Palmer’s category of “historians and re- ligion teachers like myself” who share his views of Latter-day Saint origins (p. x). In subsequent remarks to audiences Palmer has encour- aged this view.

Smith Institute scholars are unified in rejecting Palmer’s argu- ment that Mormon foundational stories are largely inaccurate myths and fictional accounts."

This does appear to me as an inclination of Palmer to add credibilty to his work by suggesting that those who are most knowledgable almost all agree with him in substantial ways.  I don't believe the Institute ever has released a similar statement for anyone else so I find that they felt the need to do so significant.

I can see how some would link this to the idea of pushing 'insider status' in the sense that Palmer wants to present himself as belonging in a group of elite scholars (which option I lean towards though have my reservations about) but others would see it as him attempting to add credibilty to his work (not saying he doesn't believe what he is saying, either here or in his public remarks; if he did, however, it demonstrates at least one example where he significantly overstated the case of agreement which would suggest caution in accepting other examples of such claims....which is one of the methodological problems listed in the linked review I provided****, his ignoring of evidence that contradicts his claims).  But isn't the whole insider discussion based on the idea that he or his publisher/editor wanted to present his work as having authority/credibilty through personal status, so this approach documented in this statement seems at least related to that discussion...which is why I posted it when I remembered it today.

****"In this paper, Palmer’s analysis of these ten interactions is reviewed, revealing how poorly Palmer has represented the historical data by advancing factual inaccuracies, quoting sources without establishing their credibility, ignoring contradictory evidences, and manifesting superficial research techniques that fail to account for the latest scholarship on the topics he is discussing."

[salgare]

On 3/22/2016 at 7:19 PM, Steve Noel said:

As a non-Mormon I must say that the transparency and openness about these things is refreshing. Nearly every evangelical critique of Mormonism that I have ever read tells this side of the story. It is a common narrative in these works that the average LDS member has been sold a bill of goods about their early history. Another implication in these critiques is that the LDS leadership is intentionally deceiving the members about the truth of their history. 

This "transparency" is very recent history (last few years), which many feel the church was driven to by critics of the church coupled with the internet.  5 years ago, there was no transparency.  The transparency started with the "essays" which you should check out if you have not already.  They admit things in there that they excommunicated people over in the past. 

A very interesting thing about Mormons which you would be well to study is the evolution of "correlation".  There is a man that did his Doctorate Dissertation on this evolution along with "post manifesto polygamy" google/see

LDS Anthropologist Daymon Smith on Post-Manifesto Polygamy, Correlation, the Corporate LDS Church, and Mammon, Mormon stories