G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Mary]

Moksha, is it being discussed on the apologetic board? I find that I am blocked from even viewing material on the site. I would be interested if it comes up there and what is being said..

This is an area of great personal interest to me, because Fanny Alger in Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy was one of my great moments of 'oh no, I think there's more to the history than I have been taught at church'

I'm not surprised that the allegations were many. Also greatly interested in William Law and another viewpoint on him, because again it was always my impression from church that he was an embittered apostate, full of lies and deceit.

[_Tobin]

Regarding the William Law podcast, I will be disheartened to read about Professor Midgley going through the Palmer garbage can looking for attack material. I want to hear some TBMs address the William Law podcast. It seems essential that this be addressed on a factual basis. I have never before heard as devastating information against the Church as this, so please don't doddle.

Uh huh, sure it is. Let me sum up what it really is - hearsay sprinkled with rancid drivel. Just the concoction that enemies of Mormonism love to drink. Sounds lovely. Any TBM with any sense will just ignore it and let it pass like the other non-sense out there.

[Guest]

Moksha, is it being discussed on the apologetic board? I find that I am blocked from even viewing material on the site. I would be interested if it comes up there and what is being said..

This is an area of great personal interest to me, because Fanny Alger in Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy was one of my great moments of 'oh no, I think there's more to the history than I have been taught at church'

I'm not surprised that the allegations were many. Also greatly interested in William Law and another viewpoint on him, because again it was always my impression from church that he was an embittered apostate, full of lies and deceit.

Miss Taken,

Yes, this is being discussed on the MADBoard (MDD). Even though it would appear that Palmer's podcast has hit the hornets nest, the response is somewhat subdued this time around. The thread at MDD is:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57069-grant-palmer-is-at-it-again/

Daniel C. Peterson was early on the scene to coordinate damage control. Interestingly, rather than deny anything that Palmer said, DCP just provided some "here are some positive things to read" links from LDS approved sources.

One of the posters obligingly provided a link to Palmer's article about Joseph Smith's sexual exploits at MormonThink.

http://mormonthink.com/grant6.htm

The response here is somewhat different than I would have expected from the apologists. DCP has not attacked Palmer directly. Even Wade Englund was a bit oblique, posting:

My response to the Grant Palmers of the world is: I have found that there is an inverse relationship between really getting what the restored gospel is about, and the importance one places on obscure elements of Church history.

Perhaps the Mopologists are beginning to realize that there will be a lot of this stuff headed their way this year, and that if they continue to employ past tactics against it, they are going to come across looking defensive and dishonest and as if they have something to hide.

[_Mary]

Thanks Dr W. That is interesting. I tried again to log in to the MDD site, but just get error 2000 saying I'm not permitted to visit the site. I used to post there as Abulafia, and didn't think that I had a reputation over there that would merit my blocking. Oh well. I would have preferred to have been banned or something, so that I could still keep up with what the apologists are saying. Or do you get blocked from visiting if you are banned?

Tobin, first, I'm not an enemy of the church. Some of my very best (sister) friends are still active Mormon, and I try my best to be careful around them with what I say. What I am interested in is accurate history and even balanced history which deals with a variety of viewpoints. I thought Grant Palmer dealt with the sources in quite a balanced way. Have you checked the articles on Mormonthink.com as DrW referenced above. Both the William Law and the Exploits article are well sourced.

[_Mary]

Also Tobin, aren't most of the faith promoting parts of church history just hearsay. We have to take Joseph at his word that he is telling the truth about the first vision, the Book of Mormon, and all the founding miraculous events with regard to the re-establishment of the priesthood.

[_Drifting]

Also Tobin, aren't most of the faith promoting parts of church history just hearsay. We have to take Joseph at his word that he is telling the truth about the first vision, the Book of Mormon, and all the founding miraculous events with regard to the re-establishment of the priesthood.

Actually, Miss Taken, it's more that we have to take the Church version of Joseph's word for it. For example - Joseph's handwritten account of the first vision makes no mention of God being there at all.

Joseph didn't use the Book of Mormon to teach from, nor did he reference it's contents in any sermons etc. it's as if he could find no use for it following it's completion and the unsuccessful attempt to sell its copyright.

As for the establishment of the Melk. Priesthood. Anyone know the date that happened?

[_Tobin]

Tobin, first, I'm not an enemy of the church. Some of my very best (sister) friends are still active Mormon, and I try my best to be careful around them with what I say. What I am interested in is accurate history and even balanced history which deals with a variety of viewpoints. I thought Grant Palmer dealt with the sources in quite a balanced way. Have you checked the articles on Mormonthink.com as DrW referenced above. Both the William Law and the Exploits article are well sourced.

I'm sure it claims to be "balanced" and "well sourced". It also happens to be a hatchet job that TBMs should just ignore. There is nothing pleasant that William Law is going to say about Joseph Smith. He has no reason to and to ignore his motivations is to be completely disingenuous about it.

[_Mary]

Drifting, yes...good point.

[_Tobin]

Also Tobin, aren't most of the faith promoting parts of church history just hearsay. We have to take Joseph at his word that he is telling the truth about the first vision, the Book of Mormon, and all the founding miraculous events with regard to the re-establishment of the priesthood.

And those should be taken in exactly the same way as this should - it is hearsay. I don't put much credence in those accounts either.

[_Mary]

Tobin, so, what kind of man was William Law then? In your opinion? Please source your response!