Extraordinary Claims by Grant Palmer

[_Kishkumen]

It would be fun, I must admit, to imagine Luman Walter as the Keyser Söze of early Mormonism.

[_Jaybear]

Um, I hope you don't imagine that these bona fides mean s*** to me, because they don't.

You are welcome to presume I am complete idiot, so long as you provide the textual evidence that I requested to support your position.

If anything, they make your protestations of the iron-clad reliability of Grant's account even more suspect. You of all people should be expected to present something as factually reliable when it is not.

I never said that Grant's account was "iron clad." That your hyperbole. What I said was:

I read the article. I saw nothing in the language used by Grant to suggest that he had not accurately conveyed the conversation. No hyperbole. No personal opinion.
Nor I am I aware from prior experience that Grant is not someone that is an unreliable source of information.

I asked you for textual evidence, or past examples where Grant has embellished or made up facts to support a claim.

It more accurate to say that I have seen no credible reason to believe Grant has lied, or misstated what he heard.

Twede has a better sense of Grant, personally, and he says:

I want it to be very clear that I believe Grant Palmer is of the highest integrity. That some of the claims aren't factual doesn't mean Grant has failed in reporting what he has experienced. It is what it is.

The big news here is Grant's willingness to compromise what credibility he has in order to stick it to the LDS Church.

Because ... ? You have no evidence to support your suggestion that Grant is lying, but you just can't seem to help yourself.

I piped in, because I am trying to understand where all this hostility directed towards Grant is coming.

Did you look up A. True Ott?

Yes. The story had nothing to do with Grant's integrity. As I noted, Grant didn't say he believed the GA, and frankly who cares if he did. Grant's belief or not belief doesn't make the GA's story more or less credible.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't know Palmer personally, but is it possible this is due to age rather than promotion of a book or some kind of character flaw?

You make a good point, and I should temper my reaction by allowing for this. That said, I do think that he has been a little too eager at times to accept shaky evidence when it suited his theory.

And for anyone who has not looked up A. True Ott, he is one of these quacks and conspiracy theorists who believes that the Mormon Church is a front for the Illuminati or some such. So, citing him as a source on Luman Walter was not a wise thing to do, and Grant was clearly played by Ott, who was trying to plant evidence for his conspiracy nonsense in a published work with at least some credibility to it.

Yeah, confirmation bias is a bitch. He's not the first guy to get screwed over by it and he won't be the last.

[_Black Moclips]

I'm just a regular dude. The church has never settled my financial obligations, nor given me free scholarships for all my kids and grandkids to BYU. Nor lifetime health benefits, retirement, fringe benefits and travel perks, etc., I haven't shaken tens of thousands of hands nor testified to millions about what I believe, and I don't have the pressure of feeling that I have contributed to the testimonies of all those people. I don't owe the church anything. I'm just a regular scrub. And yet, even I, the lowliest of church membership have a hard time dealing with and "coming clean" to those in my family about my doubts and what I believe!! It is so much easier and less painful to go with the flow.

Now multiply that pressure by a million for an apostle. I can't even fathom what you would feel. In addition to that, Rollo's link above discusses something I had never considered either - NDAs (non disclosure agreements). If GA's and apostles have to sign NDAs and they are that expansive and far reaching, I can't imagine any apostle coming clean. What kind of loving grandpa is going to literally rock his entire family (like 3 generations worth) like that, just so he can alleviate some cog.dis? I just can't see an apostle coming out like that. No way.

[_Kishkumen]

You are welcome to presume I am complete idiot, so long as you provide the textual evidence that I requested to support your position.

Provide me textual evidence that I called you an idiot.

I asked you for textual evidence, or past examples where Grant has embellished or made up facts to support a claim.

If you are referring to particular language that doesn't have the mechanical form of quoting ("he said") then I can't say that I would be able to provide incontrovertible evidence that he is embellishing, but I can easily see where he might have inferred things that were not explicitly stated.

For example:

He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church.

The one million dollar gift, plus their totally obedient attitude makes it easy for them to go along when they find out the church is not true.

This whole paragraph is riddled with inconsistencies and problems:

When I asked the GA how he knew these things, he answered by saying that the Quorum of the Twelve today is more isolated from the Quorums of the Seventies now because there are several of them. When only one Quorum of the Seventy existed, there was more intimacy. During his one on one assignments with an apostle, conversations were more familiar. He said that none of the apostles ever said to him directly that they did not believe; but that it was his opinion based on “my interactions with them.” Also, that none of the Twelve want to discuss “truth issues,” meaning issues regarding the foundational claims of the church. He said that the apostle’s lives are so completely and entirely enmeshed in every detail of their lives in the church, that many of them would probably die defending the church rather than admit the truth about Joseph Smith and the foundations of the church.

So an apostle said what to the GA exactly? I can't make heads or tails out of it, other than the idea that the apostle must have said something to convince the seventy that all the apostles are in this category:

He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church.

Something is terribly fishy about this, and I am willing to allow for the real possibility here that the smell of old fish is coming from Grant's interpretation of what he has been told, which is, as I have said, probably driven by a need to be validated in his conclusions concerning the Church and the price he has paid thus far for taking this position so publicly.

It more accurate to say that I have seen no credible reason to believe Grant has lied, or misstated what he heard.

I don't think he is lying. I think he is seeing what he wants to see. In the end, he is not the dirtbag he would be for lying, but that does not make his story reliable either.

Because ... ? You have no evidence to support your suggestion that Grant is lying, but you just can't seem to help yourself.

Well, let me assist you in your reading skills. Go to what I said about the Golden Pot nonsense in this thread and tell me where I have stated that Grant is lying. I have said, rather, that his interpretation of the GAs words is likely skewed by a need for validation, not that he is willfully fabricating.

See the difference?

I piped in, because I am trying to understand where all this hostility directed towards Grant is coming.

I think the hostility is in your imagination.

Yes. The story had nothing to do with Grant's integrity. As I noted, Grant didn't say he believed the GA, and frankly who cares if he did. Grant's belief or not belief doesn't make the GA's story more or less credible.

Yes, you have very skillfully left out the option that I was actually going for, which is that he is inclined to be gullible when the information he is presented fits his narrative. That's not lying, sir. But it is also not credible.

I am sure you get the difference.

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, confirmation bias is a bitch. He's not the first guy to get screwed over by it and he won't be the last.

Exactly.

[_dblagent007]

Now multiply that pressure by a million for an apostle. I can't even fathom what you would feel. In addition to that, Rollo's link above discusses something I had never considered either - NDAs (non disclosure agreements). If GA's and apostles have to sign NDAs and they are that expansive and far reaching, I can't imagine any apostle coming clean. What kind of loving grandpa is going to literally rock his entire family (like 3 generations worth) like that, just so he can alleviate some cog.dis? I just can't see an apostle coming out like that. No way.

Yes, the NDAs are extraordinary in their scope and penalties. I'm starting to think that there is some truth to a lot of this, e.g., the apostles financial obligations are all paid for up to $1M when they enter the quorum. I still think the GA's opinion that the big 15 don't believe is probably not warranted. However, its his opinion and he probably has some basis for it even everyone else is skeptical (including me).

[_dblagent007]

Here is David Twede's take on this (I hope it hasn't already been posted). I thought it was very good and added a lot to the analysis.

http://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2 ... ct-to.html

This is an amazing post by David Twede. Makes me believe even more that Palmer is on the up-and-up about all this (HOWEVER, this doesn't mean the GA and MP have told the truth to Palmer). I can't help but wonder what is going on 'behind the scenes' at COB right now in terms of damage control. Have they identified the rogue GA? Seems to me they ought to be able to whittle it down quite a bit (i.e., according to Palmer's account, the anonymous GA must be a long-time member of the 1st Quorum of Seventy (and possibly started in the 2nd Quorum and then was promoted to the 1st)). I know several have bantered about the name of Carlos H. Amado, who might fit the bill. He seems a possible candidate because he became a Seventy at a young age and will be given emeritus status next year, so he may feel he doesn't have a lot to lose.

I've heard others speculate that it could be Lynn Robbins or Zwick (Craig?).

It is surprising that we haven't had a single GA come out and openly apostatize in recent memory. It makes me think there is definitely something to this "church broke" idea and that they must have some serious legal leverage on these guys (NDAs, etc.). I know of one member of the second quorum of the seventy who is NOM at best, but he rarely, if ever, says anything publicly. I wonder what they have on him to keep him quiet?

[_Jaybear]

Yes, you have very skillfully left out the option that I was actually going for, which is that he is inclined to be gullible when the information he is presented fits his narrative. That's not lying, sir. But it is also not credible.

I am sure you get the difference.

Most of his adult life, he believed that Joseph Smith had a conversation with Jesus and God, and that he translated ancient writing into King James English from golden plates taken back by an angel. So you don't have to convince me that Grant is someone that is prone to believing wild claims.

However, I have found its best to separate my perception of someone's gullibility from my perception of their ability to honestly, accurately and CREDIBLY convey what they personally saw and heard.

[_BartBurk]

The economy of the entire state of Utah would be at risk if the LDS Church leaders were to tell everything they know about the church. They can't allow themselves to be responsible for that. That alone might be enough to overcome any cognitive dissonance they might have. And it would also cause them to maintain as much secrecy as possible about their financial dealings. That is one reason I don't think what Palmer said he was told is too far-fetched.