Extraordinary Claims by Grant Palmer

[_robuchan]

I find it extremely improbable that a GA told Palmer this. If so, then the GA is mentally unstable. The story is that outlandish. The proper response when someone mentally unstable tells you an outlandish conspiracy theory is to challenge them, and then when you find out they're mentally unstable, to either get them some help or quietly distance yourself.

No matter what, Palmer is still duped and an idiot. Palmer is not telling this story like "wow what a wack job, how could anyone believe this crap?" He's telling it like "ladies and gentlemen I'm so important in the exmo world look at me, GA's are reading my book, and I'm breaking the biggest story in the history of the church!" There's no possible outcome of this other than Palmer is an idiot and anyone who believes there's an ounce of truth to the story is an idiot.

Your objection to the manner in which Palmer conveyed the story is noted.

I disagree. The fact that a GA came to him is newsworthy. I believe that Palmer acted appropriately by conveying what he was told by the GA without infusing his personal commentary.

If as you say only an idiot would believe an ounce of truth of the GAs story, then its certainly not necessary for Palmer to point that out.

Calling Palmer an "idiot" because you don't like how he presented the story is frankly completely unwarranted.

If you haven't already done so, watch the first 20 minutes of Palmer's exmo talk on youtube from last October. That gives you more context about Palmer's delivery of this story. He's not a neutral reporter simply passing on the facts.

[_Kishkumen]

Oh, I get that.

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.

Yes, I still don't think you do get it. Every time I hear or read something, I interpret it, and I am responsible for my own interpretation. I have every reason to think that this narrative feeds Grant's preconceptions and that his interpretation of it is driven by that fact.

Nor I am I aware from prior experience that Grant is not someone that is an unreliable source of information.

I don't think he is %100 reliable, and I think he is inclined to be a little gullible when the information fits what he wants to be true. Hell, read the Golden Pot chapter in his book, if you don't believe me.

If you have any reason to support your criticism of Grant, other than the fact that you don't believe what the GA told him, you haven't shared it.

As I say, read the Golden Pot chapter of his book, or look up the name "A. True Ott," a person that Palmer cites on a very titillating piece of information on Luman Walter in his book.

And yes, it is most certainly newsworthy that (1) a member of the 70 does not believe the foundation claims of the LDS Church; (2) he met with a know apostate; and (3) he had critical, even shocking things to say about (a) compensation paid; and (b) personal beliefs of the GAs. You lose all credibility when you say its not.

I do? Because, I don't think that any of the reliable information in this story is all that interesting or shocking. How many seventies are there these days, anyway? I recall running into a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventies at Arby's in SLC on a Sunday. So big effing deal.

[_Jaybear]

Yes, I still don't think you do get it. Every time I hear or read something, I interpret it, and I am responsible for my own interpretation. I have every reason to think that this narrative feeds Grant's preconceptions and that his interpretation of it is driven by that fact.

I am trial attorney. I drafted too many witness declaration to count. I can assure you that I understand how language is used to convey and emphasize facts.

I saw nothing in the story to suggest that Grant used language to provide a misleading or false impression of what was said during the meeting. If you can point to some language, please share.

I don't think he is %100 reliable, and I think he is inclined to be a little gullible when the information fits what he wants to be true. Hell, read the Golden Pot chapter in his book, if you don't believe me.

I am aware that he speculated that the story might have inspired Smith. This was the apologists favorite criticism. In that chapter, you may very well be right that he drew conclusions that were not warranted from the facts, but I am not aware that he made up any facts.

In this instance, Grant has not offered any person conclusion. He simply conveyed the facts. You criticism of Grant is based on the assumption that he believes the GA because it fits his narrative. Not only does he not express his personal opinion, but if he did, it, as I said, it would not be relevant.

I do? Because, I don't think that any of the reliable information in this story is all that interesting or shocking. How many seventies are there these days, anyway? I recall running into a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventies at Arby's in Salt Lake City on a Sunday. So big effing deal.

I bolded the qualifier you added .. "reliable" to the response, because its a nice example of how one can use language to present a misleading response. A key and inextricable part of the story that makes the conversation newswothy, was, as I noted, his willingness to convey shocking and "unreliable" information to an apostate.

If you remove that part of the conversation, then your credibility remains intact. The news value of the story become a legitimate question.

[_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

[_why me]

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

From your link:

The GA went to MormonThink.com regularly and there found a link to Palmer’s book.
The GA and his wife read Grant’s Insider and determined neither the church nor its foundational claims are true.
The GA gave the book to the mission president,who is also a closet doubter.

Nice plug for his book. He mentions his book as being the main reason for the doubts. However, I doubt this very much. Grant's book has been around for years and most likely it was known to the GA and to the MP. So, from reading Grant's book, they made their determination that the church is not true? I doubt it. Grant's book is an interpretation of historical facts, nothing more. How a GA could doubt based on someone's interpretation seems doubtful.

[_Kishkumen]

I am trial attorney. I drafted too many witness declaration to count. I can assure you that I understand how language is used to convey and emphasize facts.

I saw nothing in the story to suggest that Grant used language to provide a misleading or false impression of what was said during the meeting. If you can point to some language, please share.

Um, I hope you don't imagine that these bona fides mean crap to me, because they don't. 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 am aware that he speculated that the story might have inspired Smith. This was the apologists favorite criticism. In that chapter, you may very well be right that he drew conclusions that were not warranted from the facts, but I am not aware that he made up any facts.

In this instance, Grant has not offered any person conclusion. He simply conveyed the facts. You criticism of Grant is based on the assumption that he believes the GA because it fits his narrative. Not only does he not express his personal opinion, but if he did, it, as I said, it would not be relevant.

If he did explicitly express his personal opinion, then he would most certainly be unable to pretend like everything he has said is factual. That he presents this as a mere report does the job his opinion could not. I am not obliged by his generic decision to believe that he is representing the person's words accurately. I have no way of checking his report. I do not know where the boundary between the facts and his interpretation is.

Now, I am more inclined to believe something like a million bucks to cover financial liabilities because it is a mundane and unexceptionable detail. The characterization of it as hush money is juvenile and risible. Whether that characterization is the GA's or his is not as easy to determine.

I bolded the qualifier you added .. "reliable" to the response, because its a nice example of how one can use language to present a misleading response. A key and inextricable part of the story that makes the conversation newswothy, was, as I noted, his willingness to convey shocking and "unreliable" information to an apostate.

If you remove that part of the conversation, then your credibility remains intact. The news value of the story become a legitimate question.

I put the word "reliable" in there because there are details that I see no reason to doubt. But those details are not really big news. He has made a fairly mundane story about middle management doing a crappy job of whistle-blowing into something it really is not: a startling revelation.

I am not startled. I was startled when Tom Phillips went through second anointing ritual in a podcast. That was startling. This crap is mildy intriguing and that's about it. The big news here is Grant's willingness to compromise what credibility he has in order to stick it to the LDS Church.

Did you look up A. True Ott?

[_Equality]

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

Well said.

[_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?

[_Kishkumen]

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.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.