Grant Palmer is attacked by Brian Hales and Gregory L. Smith

[_Nevo]

Since that single initial was their evidence for plagiarism surely they are just as guilty? Or do you give "scholars" you agree with free passes Nevo?

No, the single initial wasn't their evidence of plagiarism. My original post was referring to this part of Greg's reply to Grindael:

=== Evidence for plagiarism in Palmer’s essay===

Palmer writes:

Benjamin F. Winchester, a close friend of the prophet said the Kirtland accusations of scandal and “licentious conduct” against him was discussed,"especially among the women. Joseph’s name was connected with scandalous relations with two or three families."

For this claim, Palmer cites only: Benjamin Winchester, “Primitive Mormonism” The Daily Tribune (Salt Lake City), September 22, 1889. [Note 22]

There is no reference to Van Wagoner—yet, why did Palmer make the same error? I believe the most parsimonious explanation is that Palmer is relying on his secondary source (Van Wagoner), and has not checked the original reference. We did not say so at the time, but it actually appears that this is an instance of plagiarism, unintended or otherwise.

Van Wagoner’s text reads:

Rumors about Smith multiplied. Benjamin F. Winchester, Smith’s close friend and leader of Philadelphia Mormons in the early 1840s, later recalled Kirtland accusations of scandal and “licentious conduct” hurled against Smith, "this more especially among the women. Joseph’s name was connected with scandalous relations with two or three families" (Winchester 1889).

I have here bold-faced the material that is verbatim from Van Wagoner’s treatment. Not only does Palmer cite no material from the original source that Van Wagoner did not cite, but he even appears to lift the precise introductory words "Kirtland accusations of scandal and". (Palmer even duplicates the label of Winchester as a "close friend" of Joseph, thus following Van Wagoner into deception about the true relationship between Winchester and Joseph...)

Unfortunately, then, Palmer appears to have plagiarized Van Wagoner’s account without proper documentation.

[_Nevo]

By the way, here's Van Wagoner plagiarizing Quinn:

D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 1st ed., p.173:

The 1832 vision . . . proposed a three-tiered gradation of salvation "glory" which contemporaries in 1832 could have understood only as describing three heavens. For traditional Christians, any concept of universal salvation was a dangerous heresy akin to Universalism and was regarded as undermining the fabric of moral conduct in society. Moreover, for traditional Christians, heaven was a unitary, singular place (E. Chambers 1728, 1:228), despite Paul's reference to "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2).

Consequently, early Mormon converts from denominational Protestantism faced a crisis when they learned of the 1832 vision of the three degrees of glory. Brigham Young's brother Joseph, who had been a Methodist minister prior to converting to Mormonism, reminisced: "Then when I came to read the vision of the different glories of the eternal world, and of the sufferings of the wicked, I could not believe it at first. Why, the Lord was going to save every body!" (Deseret News 7 [18 March 1857]:11).

Brigham Young himself recalled: "When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of god, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation, and many stumbled at it" (JD 16:42, emphasis added).

Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, p.113:

The three-tiered gradation of glory could only have been viewed by Rigdon's and Smith's contemporaries in 1832 as three heavens. For conventional Christians heaven was a single place, despite Paul's reference to "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2). To traditionalists, any concept of universal salvation implied Universalism, a "dangerous heresy," a threat to the fabric of moral conduct in society.

Consequently, many converts steeped in denominational Protestantism faced a crisis when they learned of this vision. Brigham Young's brother Joseph, a former Methodist minister, recalled: "[W]hen I came to read the vision of the different glories of the eternal world, and of the sufferings of the wicked, I could not believe it at first. Why, the Lord was going to save every body!"

Brigham Young himself remembered: “When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of good, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation and many stumbled at it.”

[_Sammy Jankins]

From the Interperter article.

In 1892, depositions seeking to discover if Joseph Smith practiced sexual polygamy were sought for litigation between the RLDS Church and the Church of Christ (Temple Lot). Helen Mar Kimball was not called to testify, even though she lived nearby and had written two books defending plural marriage. Instead, three wives who lived further away were summoned, and all affirmed sexual relations with the Prophet in their plural marriages. The most likely reason for Helen’s absence was her inability to offer the required testimony of a sealing with a sexual dimension.

I see Brian Hales use this lack of testimony as evidence all the time. But it seems problematic. There are alternative explanations.

She wrote books defending polygamy, but if memory serves in those books she never talks about her marriage to Joseph Smith. Why? Maybe she was reluctant. Maybe she was asked to testify, but just she simply didn't want to testify of a sexual relationship in a courtroom.

Also Brian Hales himself has said that the age of Helen Marr Kimball would have been considered "eye-brow raising" in it's time period. Should we expect her to have testified in the Temple Lott trail if her age would have been a scandal the way it is today? To use this as evidence, you need to elininate the alternatives. I'm not satisfied that they have.

[Guest]

-

[_grindael]

Well, if one wants to nitpick, one can find anything. Here is an example from Hales' book:

Hales writes,

Born in Delaware in 1812, Eliza Winters apparently moved to Harmony prior to 1829. I have found no evidence that she interacted with Joseph Smith or his family in Pennsylvania, although one late recollection states that she was Emma’s friend in Harmony. Her exact location—even whether she was living in Harmony itself—during this period is unknown.

Hales then writes,

Mark B. Nelson provides this history:

Eliza Winters was born in Delaware in 1812 and was married in 1837 in Susquehanna County. I have found no evidence when her family moved to the area but her older sister was married in Harmony in 1829 so it was obviously before then. I have found no evidence that Joseph and Eliza ever interacted although it is probable that they knew each other. Eliza would have been 13 when Joseph first came to Harmony (assuming she lived there in 1825) and 18 when Joseph and Emma moved. Her name first shows up with her encounter with Martin [Harris] . . . in late 1832. (Joseph Smith Polygamy, Vol. 1, page 53)

It is obvious that Hales took his summary from Nelsons. He should have just quoted Nelson, but he paraphrased what he said using his phrasing, without quotation marks or attribution before he finally quotes him. Whether or not one includes the quote or just the source, it is still inadequate paraphrasing-- a form of plagiarism.

Is this a big deal? Not really. Just like with Palmer, it is obvious that Hales didn't do it to dupe people into believing they were his own words. He just should have just quoted Nelson and then separately added any new information.

[_Jaybear]

I am quite certain that the evidence to support plagiarism that Brian Hales and Greg Smith (and NEVO) rely on to impugn Grant's character is considerably weaker than the evidence that shows that Smith committed plagiarism (KJV) when he wrote the Book of Mormon.

Has anyone else tried to have a rational discussion with an apologist about whether lifting portions of the KJV translation and placing them in the Book of Mormon, while insisting that the Book of Mormon is an original translation of an ancient manuscript constitutes plagiarism?

[_Brackite]

At present, there is evidence of two or three children fathered by Joseph Smith via plurality. Even if that number were doubled, it would still represent a surprisingly small number of children if sexual relations occurred often. The Prophet was virile, having fathered eight children with Emma despite long periods of time apart and challenging schedules.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-resp ... ment-14972


That Paragraph from that Article reminds me of this famous statement from bcspace: "Have you checked the children?"

[_Brackite]

At present, there is evidence of two or three children fathered by Joseph Smith via plurality. Even if that number were doubled, it would still represent a surprisingly small number of children if sexual relations occurred often. The Prophet was virile, having fathered eight children with Emma despite long periods of time apart and challenging schedules.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-resp ... ment-14972


That Paragraph from that Article reminds me of this famous statement from bcspace: "Have you checked the children?"

I am at least 90% certain that Josephine Lyon Fisher was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith. Why haven't the DNA results been released about this yet??

[_Nevo]

So what is the upshot of this thread? That Grant Palmer has been unfairly criticized? But is there anyone here that honestly thinks he's a first-rate historian? Or even a second-rate one?

Is there anyone here that truly believes that Palmer is as knowledgeable, fair-minded, careful, and astute as, say, Quinn, Bergera, or Compton? Or, for that matter, Richard Van Wagoner and George D. Smith?

Has Palmer's scholarship ever been recognized by any reputable historian or scholar of Mormonism?

[Guest]

By the way, here's Van Wagoner plagiarizing Quinn:

D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 1st ed., p.173:

The 1832 vision . . . proposed a three-tiered gradation of salvation "glory" which contemporaries in 1832 could have understood only as describing three heavens. For traditional Christians, any concept of universal salvation was a dangerous heresy akin to Universalism and was regarded as undermining the fabric of moral conduct in society. Moreover, for traditional Christians, heaven was a unitary, singular place (E. Chambers 1728, 1:228), despite Paul's reference to "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2).

Consequently, early Mormon converts from denominational Protestantism faced a crisis when they learned of the 1832 vision of the three degrees of glory. Brigham Young's brother Joseph, who had been a Methodist minister prior to converting to Mormonism, reminisced: "Then when I came to read the vision of the different glories of the eternal world, and of the sufferings of the wicked, I could not believe it at first. Why, the Lord was going to save every body!" (Deseret News 7 [18 March 1857]:11).

Brigham Young himself recalled: "When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of god, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation, and many stumbled at it" (JD 16:42, emphasis added).

Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, p.113:

The three-tiered gradation of glory could only have been viewed by Rigdon's and Smith's contemporaries in 1832 as three heavens. For conventional Christians heaven was a single place, despite Paul's reference to "the third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2). To traditionalists, any concept of universal salvation implied Universalism, a "dangerous heresy," a threat to the fabric of moral conduct in society.

Consequently, many converts steeped in denominational Protestantism faced a crisis when they learned of this vision. Brigham Young's brother Joseph, a former Methodist minister, recalled: "[W]hen I came to read the vision of the different glories of the eternal world, and of the sufferings of the wicked, I could not believe it at first. Why, the Lord was going to save every body!"

Brigham Young himself remembered: “When God revealed to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that there was a place prepared for all, according to the light they had received and their rejection of evil and practice of good, it was a great trial to many, and some apostatized because God was not going to send to everlasting punishment heathens and infants, but had a place of salvation, in due time, for all, and would bless the honest and virtuous and truthful, whether they ever belonged to any church or not. It was a new doctrine to this generation and many stumbled at it.”

Wow. Now that meets the legal definition of plagiarism. If properly attributed, it probably is a copyright violation. Live and learn.