Grant Palmer

[_Mayan Elephant]

i met grant palmer in about 2008. he is one of the nicest people in the world. great guy. his book is right on target for people that have previously only read truth restored and the doctrine and covenants.

[_robuchan]

Reading the Mopologists' review of Grant Palmer is one of the things that helped turn me to the dark side. It harped on minor or inconsequential issues, ignored most of the meat. Overconfident, arrogant, snarky, mean, attacking him over "scholarly" issues. Like Galileo turning in a paper on why the earth is round, and the teacher reams him for grammar errors and dismisses his entire thesis. It was a real eye opener to me. One of the first steps in seeing the good guys weren't really the good guys and vice versa.

[_Ceeboo]

Perhaps another thing worth mentioning for the purpose of discussion here:

Grant suggests that he has met with and or has had conversations with (Past Missionary Pres, Current Missionary Pres, Stake Pres, CES teachers, and at least one Apostle, etc) who have expressed to him that they know the church is not true.

Again, perhaps I display a severe lack of understanding and/or deep personal ignorance with all of this but this strikes me as so entirely bizarre!
That would be like Ceeboo serving as a Missionary Pres, no?!
How could I do that?!
(Assuming that the above suggestions are true)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kishkumen]

I think calling Grant's book "garbage" is extremely unkind. Grant's book is certainly very flawed. I would not, however, call it "garbage," especially after the poor man has been dog-piled repeatedly by classic-FARMS.

[_Bazooka]

I found 'insiders' to be easy to read, easy to understand, easy to relate to and most of all, accurate on all of the key areas that the book presents - which are many.
It is also presented in a non bitter, empathetic way to the troubled 'insider' with the stated aim of helping people with their troubles whilst remaining at Church.

In my opinion it is one of the best books available about the issues that exist with the Church's telling of history etc and what the records show. It doesn't try to be high brow or overly academic. Which makes it very accessible for people from all walks of life. That he comes across that way in the video is of no surprise to me.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I think calling Grant's book "garbage" is extremely unkind. Grant's book is certainly very flawed. I would not, however, call it "garbage," especially after the poor man has been dog-piled repeatedly by classic-FARMS.

What would you consider to be the book's flaws? (Apart from the chapter on the Golden Pot, which is a bit far fetched.)

[_Madison54]

I think calling Grant's book "garbage" is extremely unkind. Grant's book is certainly very flawed. I would not, however, call it "garbage," especially after the poor man has been dog-piled repeatedly by classic-FARMS.

What would you consider to be the book's flaws? (Apart from the chapter on the Golden Pot, which is a bit far fetched.)

Hey Kish, I would really like to hear what you have to say about this too. The only thing that comes to my mind is also the whole Golden Pot issue. But, it's been several years since I read Palmer's book and it was actually one of the first books I read when I was studying church history. What other flaws did you find?

[_Cicero]

It has been many years since I read Palmer's book. I'm sad to see the narrator channeling Lou Midgley by calling it garbage. I don't think that is fair at all, but the book does have flaws.

I felt like Palmer was as guilty of "parallelomania" as apologists frequently are. We've all seen apologists like Nibley or Sorenson make extremely tenuous parallels between Mormon scriptures and, for example, Egyptian mythology or ancient American myths or artifacts. I felt like Palmer went overboard on the parallels too. The Golden Pot was the worst and most memorable example, but I do recall rolling my eyes at others that I can't recall specifically now.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey people

Thanks for all the replies!

Anyone want to take a shot at my question/questions below?

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

Perhaps another thing worth mentioning for the purpose of discussion here:

Grant suggests that he has met with and or has had conversations with (Past Missionary Pres, Current Missionary Pres, Stake Pres, CES teachers, and at least one Apostle, etc) who have expressed to him that they know the church is not true.

Again, perhaps I display a severe lack of understanding and/or deep personal ignorance with all of this but this strikes me as so entirely bizarre!
That would be like Ceeboo serving as a Missionary Pres, no?!
How could I do that?!
(Assuming that the above suggestions are true)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Madison54]

Anyone want to take a shot at my question/questions below?

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

Perhaps another thing worth mentioning for the purpose of discussion here:

Grant suggests that he has met with and or has had conversations with (Past Missionary Pres, Current Missionary Pres, Stake Pres, CES teachers, and at least one Apostle, etc) who have expressed to him that they know the church is not true.

Again, perhaps I display a severe lack of understanding and/or deep personal ignorance with all of this but this strikes me as so entirely bizarre!
That would be like Ceeboo serving as a Missionary Pres, no?!
How could I do that?!
(Assuming that the above suggestions are true)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Did Palmer discuss this in the interview you watched on YouTube? I guess I'd have to hear or read what he stated regarding this before I'd know for sure....but, if he means that many (at all levels) know of the problems and issues with church history and past doctrines, etc., I agree that they are aware of these.

Did he actually say these men told him they knew the church was not true?