Grant
Palmer Letters to Newspaper Editors:
Dear Sirs,
I write with regard to your
article in this morning's paper regarding Grant Palmer.
The gap between what is taught
in Mormon chapels, missionary discussions etc. about Mormonism's foundational
events and what is available at a few mouse clicks distance is dangerous
for many Mormons. This danger grows as well-researched evidence that
is highly probable to disconfirm Mormon orthodoxy becomes more readily
available over the Internet. Many marriages and other important personal
relationships have foundered as this information comes thundering without
warning into the lives of people who are unprepared to deal with it.
My story in that regard can be found at http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm.
I left Mormonism after a lifetime of service, including five years as
Bishop.
In my view, Grant Palmer
is doing a profound service for the Mormon community and particular
for its leaders. He raises issues for discussion that many of them know
need to be discussed but cannot themselves mention in public. He is
an agent for precisely the kind of mainstreaming change toward which
Gordon Hinckley points when he de-emphasizes things like "man can
become like God" and emphasizes Christ's role within Mormonism.
Grant Palmer says little
if anything that is new and is not the most balanced or scholarly voice.
But, he speaks from his heart and in the best of our democratic tradition,
brings to light important, legitimate questions that make many people
uncomfortable. And, in my view, he left alone the most telling evidence
that strikes at the heart of Mormonism - that related to Joseph Smith's
history of deception and hence general untrustworthiness.
I am reminded of what David
O. McKay said in a 1950s General Conference address in reference to
the case of a much more strident and unfaithful member of the Mormon
Church - the openly atheistic University of Utah philosophy professor
Sterling McMurrin. President McKay had a short time before stymied attempts
to excommunicate McMurrin. In what many who heard him understood to
be a reference to McMurrin, he said:
"Ours is the responsibility
... to proclaim the truth that each individual is ... entitled to freedom
of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly; that he has the
right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. ...
organizations or churches which deprive the individual of these inherent
rights are not in harmony with God's will nor with his revealed word."
It is regrettable in my view
that President McKay's counsel regarding these matters has been ignored
by those who inherited from him the Mormon mantle of authority. In this,
Mormon leadership behaviour merely reflects broad societal trends. The
1940s - early 60s were marked by rising confidence in public institutions
and the power of liberal democracy that is reflected by the kind of
pronouncement President McKay made. The social catharsis of the late
1960s and early 70s eroded that confidence, and caused many institutions
(including the Mormon Church) to become more insular and conservative.
Think, for exampe, of the dismemberment of Leonard Arrington's Church
History Department; the creation of the so-called "faithful history"
policy that requires those who teach about Mormonism to suppress any
information that does not paint the orthodox picture; and the excommunication
of Mormon academics and other intellectuals in the early 1990s.
Grant Palmer's case raises
a number of important questions about Mormonism. For example: How mature
is Mormonism as a faith and how mature does the Mormon leadership perceive
its membership to be?; do Mormons still require the protection of a
Taliban style information bubble to prevent them from grappling with
the "reality" of how their faith came into being, and hence,
what it is?; since Mormon leaders are critical of other faiths that
limit their members' access to information, how does Mormonism justify
information suppression?; since Joseph Smith said that the "truth
cuts its own way" and hence did not need his help or that of any
other Mormon leader, what has changed about Mormonism since he said
that?
While I do not agree with
everything Grant Palmer says, I share his view that it is past time
for Mormonism to grow up and not only allow, but promote, the discussion
of all questions relevant to its foundations and world view. That is
the direction Joseph Smith, President McKay and other confident, forward
looking Mormon leaders have pointed.
If there had been more people
like Grant Palmer and David O. McKay within the Mormon community as
my generation came to maturity, many of us who have left Mormonism behind
would likely not have done so.
Kindest regards,
Bob McCue
Calgary, Canada
Dear Editor:
A couple of misconceptions
need to be cleared up regarding your recent article on the possible
excommunication of Grant Palmer. First, persons associated with the
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) are not “scholars,”
they are “apologists.” They do not use scholarly (scientific)
methods, but instead pervert the scientific method by beginning with
the conclusion and working backward to the premises, and they scrupulously
avoid submitting their work to true peer review by the scientific/scholarly
community (specifically because they know the ridicule they would bring
on themselves). To label them “scholars” is an act of overt,
but misapplied, generosity. The apologist’s primary function is
to keep wavering Saints in the fold by offering plausible sounding explanations
to the myriad of historical, doctrinal, ethical, and character problems
with Mormonism. “Whatever it takes,” should be the apologists’
motto.
Second, members of FARMS
most certainly are not “highly orthodox.” In fact, they
are “highly heterodox.” A substantial portion of what they
write directly contradicts published statements by past and present
LDS prophets and other high LDS leaders. They spin a twisted, convoluted,
outlandish, complex version of Mormonism (the result of having to explain
so many inconsistencies and other troubling evidences away) that would
be as unfamiliar to the average LDS churchgoer as the material inside
Grant Palmer’s book.
Third, the article selectively
quotes people critical of Palmer’s book (ironically one of them
criticizing Palmer for selectively choosing his evidence) but omits
any quotes by people favorable toward Palmer’s book, thus creating
the incorrect impression that reaction to it by “knowledgeable”
sources is negative. I am a well-published Ph.D. (in actual scientific
journals) and former professor at BYU, and I have read the book. I found
Palmer's book highly informative and well reasoned. While I did not
agree with all of Palmer’s interpretations or conclusions, I nonetheless
found the book credible and the conclusions reasonably valid. Its central
message, however, is indisputable. The foundational events, history,
and doctrinal evolution of Mormonism are quite different, and much more
humanistic, than the foundational myths and “faith promoting”
stories spoon fed to LDS membership and the general public by LDS leaders
and the correlation committee.
Finally, I must comment that
I find the action of the LDS church in this case to be appalling. Having
recently read an account of Galileo’s appearance before the Catholic
Inquisition, I am deeply troubled by the parallels found therein. The
LDS church has a long history of stifling dissent and suppressing (or
attempting to suppress) negative information, and, sadly, this experience
adds yet another chapter to this sorry history. For an organization
that claims to value “truth” so highly, it has a curious
habit of attempting to suppress truth when it does not suit its purposes.
Yours truly,
Gary Woller
Sandy, Utah
Dear Editor,
When I was summoned by the
SP under the hand of the committee for strengthening the members, the
meeting went according to a pattern I've since heard repeated.
The SP first asked me to
bear my testimony. He was preparing for his game of spiritual blackmail.
He wanted me to testify that the church was true. Then, he was prepared
to use that testimony against me. He wanted me to know that I was fighting
against something I knew to be true, and that by doing so, I was in
jeopardy of losing my eternal salvation.
I had only written some letters
to the editor and whatnot, but since Grant has published a book, it
might be impossible for him to avoid excommunication. The SP will ask
for GPs testimony. He will ask if GP wants to repent. They may argue
over whether there is anything requiring repentence, since GP has been
telling only the truth.
Then, the SP will probably
tell GP that he needs to be excommunicated in order for the repentence
process to be complete. Or, he will find that GP is unrepentent, and
needs to be excommd.
No matter what, the SP will
tell GP in no uncertain terms that he is going to hell. That the blessings
of the gospel are revoked, and that his testimony is meaningless because
of his sin.
If the SP has a reasonable
bone in his body, he will let GP off the hook. If the SP is really smart,
he'll recognize what the church is doing and he'll resign himself.
I look forward to reading
about it, either way, as the press coverage increases.
Bob
Dear Editors,
A Gentleman by the name of
Grant Palmer has been scheduled for a church discipline court action
hearing on 12-12-04 at 7 am, by his Stake President. (I give the names
of the SP and the Stake name).
Mr. Palmer is the author
of a book, 'An Insiders View of Mormon Origins.' Mr. Palmer is a former
Church Education System employee, having been a three-time director
of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah. He has devoted
most of his life and time to service in the church.
Mr. Palmer is still an active
Mormon and is currently the Instructor of his High Priest Quorum in
his ward.
His book finds much of what
we take for granted as literal history of the Mormon Church has been
tailored over the years, slightly modified, added to, one aspect emphasized
over another, to the point that the original narratives have been nearly
lost. What was experienced as a spiritual or metaphysical event, something
from a different dimension, often has been refashioned as if it were
a physical, objective occurrence. This is not how the first Saints interpreted
these events. Historians who have looked closer at the foundational
stories and source documents have restored elements, including a nineteenth-century
world view, that have been misunderstood, if not forgotten.
It is my understanding that
Desert Book may be pulling his book off their shelves.
This in my opinion is quite
similar to the Mormon Church's excommunication of 5 or 6 LDS Intellectuals,
some of whom were BYU Professors several years ago because they made
public statements or published writings which the church found offensive.
This reminds me of a similar
tragedy centuries ago when Galileo was forced to recant his findings
which contradicted the Catholic Church's dogma of a believe in an earth
centered universe. The church maintained the sun and planets orbited
the earth. With his findings Galileo discovered the earth and planets
actually orbited the sun. He was threatened with torture and even death
unless he recanted his teachings and writings. Out of fear for his life
he recanted and was subsequently placed under house arrest for the rest
of his life. Fortunately a few brave souls secreted away some of his
writings so that later generations could finally learn the truth. A
few years back the Catholic Church apologized for their treatment of
Galileo. A little late I would say.
I believe an excommunication
of Mr. Palmer is something that could bring national and even international
media attention to Salt Lake City, much of it negative and unwanted
by the Mormon Church leaders.
This is something I'm sure
you would want to investigate in more detail for a possible article
in your newspaper.
Sincerely,
Herbert Philbrick
Dear Editor,
As a former
institute glutton (I once signed up for an entire quarter of nothing
but institute classes at USU), I just wanted to add a few comments to
the Grant Palmer discussion.
First of all, having had
a number of my institute teachers deliberately withhold information
from me and others crucial to ascertaining whether the church could
be all it claimed (I later realized this when I read some of their historical
pieces); and having had a number of them essentially tell me flat out
that the church had formally asked them to censor what they said publicly
(somehow I didn't grasp the implications of this at the time), it has
been gratifying to me to see someone affiliated with the CES finally
decline to participate in the Orwell-style wholesale revision of reality
the church, lamentably, so depends on (see Elder Packer's speech, "The
Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect", or Deconstructor's
list of similar statements).
I should add, that this is
not to condemn my old teachers - I don't know that I can presume to
judge just to what degree they understood the extent of Joseph's invention,
or to what degree they had lost the ability to morally reason about
how to deal with that fact, or how much they feared losing their families
if they permitted themselves to wonder the unwonderable, or what.
But the fact is, that for
whatever reasons, some did not disclose what they knew, and instead
transmitted an inaccurate, but faith-promoting version of reality to
sincere students, whose only crime was to believe that a church-employed,
recommend holding teacher would never "deal dishonestly with their
fellow men" by lying through omission or comission, consciously
or semi-consciously. How silly we were.
In any case, to Grant Palmer.
I know of no good reason why anyone shouldn't write letters to the editor
or do whatever they feel should be done to encourage the media, and
by extension the church, to confront questions raised by Palmer, or
to express support for Palmer in what has to be a very difficult period
of his life - with one proviso:
I don't think anyone should
attempt to argue that Palmer shouldn't be excommunicated.
The reason why is that men
like Grant Palmer have no business being members of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, and as far as I'm concerned, the church
should go ahead and kick him out, and everyone else they find like him.
We should all stop the hand wringing and whining, and accept the reality
that there is NO PLACE for anyone who wants truth no matter the cost,
in ANY organization which doesn't. The church clearly has placed itself
in this category (see again the many talks compiled by Deconstructor,
or, just read Mormon history).
For all the good the church
may or may not embody, the reality is - proved again and again by its
actions - that in the end, the church isn't really about the truth at
all - so why the fuss? It is about what its founder was about - survival
and growth, just because. Anyone who can even contemplate the possibility
that the church is perhaps not entirely synonymous with All Cosmic Truth,
doesn't belong. They never have.
Along these lines, I encourage
the church (maybe the church employees who monitor this board will kindly
pass along my suggestion) to reintroduce a version of Jedediah Grant's
Mormon catechism, developed during the so-called Mormon Reformation;
but instead of being asked how often they bathe or clean out the privy,
members can be given a psychological test (like a concentrated, extended
temple recommend interview) to see NOT if they HAVE committed thought
or speech crimes, like Palmer has; but to see if they are potentially
CAPABLE of committing thought or speech crimes (like one day wondering
whether it really makes sense to thoroughly reject ANY possibility that
once, a poor, desperate young human being did not tell the truth, or
whether one ought to believe that "feelings" constitute a
reliable indicator of whether historical events happened, or to believe
that people with no Israelite ancestry whatsoever are in fact Israelites
as Joseph Smith said they were, etc.)
Home teachers can administer
the tests; each HT unit will serve as a TDS - a Truth Detection Squad:
anyone who the test determines might one day - due to some unfortunate
personality quirk - value something that is true, just because it is
true, over the survival and growth of untrue ideas (like those found
in Joseph's church), can then be weeded out pronto. They can be excommunicated
right then and there, during the visit. This new program could be called
"Pre-emptive Inquisition", or "PI" for short.
After all, I think the church
should learn from this Palmer incident that an ounce of prevention is
indeed worth a pound of cure. If they had excommunicated Palmer 15 years
ago when he first started wondering, they wouldn't have this problem
now, would they? He would have been just another totally discredited
loser excommunicated for reasons the church won't disclose, with therefore
a perpetual taint around him. He would have had, then, no standing to
write his book; and so, there most likely wouldn't be a book; and if
there weren't, there'd be no PR problem now, would there? No pesky discussions
about the perpetuation of ideology just because, versus reality...
So, I say, write all the
letters of support and everything else, but...no more hand-wringing
or fretting about the excommunication per se. Every person reading this
knows that in a conflict between survival per se and Truth, the church
will always kill Truth; and so, it will always kill all its members
who would not also kill Truth. Truth is always the enemy of the lie
- it can't be any other way. Why hope differently? The truth about Grant
Palmer is that he deserves to be excommunicated: he told the truth from
within an organization whose entire project is the perpetuation of untruth.
And to my readers at HQ,
good luck with the pre-emptive Inquisition program. It's about time!
Tal Bachman
Dear Editors,
It is with heavy heart that
I learned Grant Palmer, author of An Insider’s View of Mormon
History, has been called in for an LDS Church court. He seems to be
the latest in the growing list of those who are persecuted for their
attempts to grapple honestly with difficult issues of church history.
Disciplinary actions against loyal and devoted scholars suggest that
authorities care more about suppression of discussion than following
the high ideals they proclaim. They create a public relations disaster
for the church.
As Sterling McMurrin said
in a letter to the editor in these pages almost ten years ago, AThe
LDS Church has considerable power and wealth, with a strong tradition
of leadership and action. It is not a fledgling sect that can survive
only on conformity and obedience. In its theology, the church celebrates
freedom, intelligence, knowledge, and love as the great values. It can
afford to practice what it preaches.@
Let the church begin by stopping
any further actions that offend against free thought and expression.
Sincerely Yours,
William T. Dobbs
Dear Editors,
Recently, a caring and sincere
Christmas card came to me from a former inmate on my prison case management
case load.
In his card, he wrote:
"... I'll never forget
you! Thank you ... for treating me like a human being."
That same day, a lady from
a local Christian church took it upon herself to telephone me at home.
She invited me to her church and to give up the "Mormon cult,"
which she wrongly believed worships Joseph Smith and doesn't even accept
the Bible or Jesus Christ. (Huh?)
Albeit sincere, she was
and is so sadly deluded by prejudice and misinformation about The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the Old Testament of the Bible,
the prophet Daniel prophesied that God would "set up a kingdom"
that would "never be destroyed" and would "stand forever."
In making this prophecy,
he spoke of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the kingdom
of God on earth today.
From the day the church
was organized with six members, it has grown and flourished, and will
continue to progress until it has "filled the whole earth."
With Jesus Christ at the
head of the church, living prophets will continue to guide the church's
progress until the earth is prepared for the saviour's second coming.
For the wonderful truth
about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a free copy
of a beautiful video or DVD about the birth and life of Christ, call
1-877-300-8000 (toll-free).
Larry D. Kump
Falling Waters, W.Va.
Dear Editor,
As a long time member of
the LDS church I would like to comment upon the upcoming disciplinary
court to be held on Grant Palmer.
As a youth and throughout
my early years I was always taught that the "glory of God is intelligence"
and that we should study as much as we can, especially about the church
and the Gospel. I was taught that no study of the truth could shake
the foundations of the church. However, the court for Grant Palmer simply
shows that the Mormon Church has something to hide that it does not
want its membership to see. And why would that be? Why should the Church
be afraid of the truth?
I read Mr Palmer's book "An
Insider's View" and found it to be quite enlightening. As an author
and a researcher myself I randomly checked his sources and found each
one accurate. I have also read a number of reviews by FARMS and find
them more to be attacks on Palmer himself than refutations of the facts
from Palmer's book. If he wrote an untruth it should have been pointed
out. None were. I should also note that FARMs does not publish in peer
reviewed journals but only has reviews done by "friends".
Any true scholarly work would be put through a peer review process.
As an applied anthropologist working and teaching at a University I
know that any bona fide institution will use correct peer review procedures.
The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter day Saints and its leaders should take Joseph Smith's words
to heart when he said: "I never thought it was right to call up
a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like
methodism [sic] and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds
which a man must believe or be kicked out of
their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels
so good not to be trammeled. It don't [sic] prove that a man is not
a good man, because he errs in doctrine." (The Words of Joseph
Smith, pp. 183-184, Ehat & Cook, Bookcraft, 1980.)
Grant Palmer should not be
excommunicated for writing the truth. The Church leadership should look
inwardly and accept the truth, warts and all.
Name Withheld
Grant Palmer's detractors should
stick to the facts
By Chuck Goldberg
So Mormon author Grant
H. Palmer was disfellowshipped due to his 2002 book, An Insider's View
of Mormon Origins.
Palmer had challenged some
of the faith's founding events - Joseph Smith's First Vision, the visit
of the Angel Moroni, Smith's translation of ancient writings on gold
plates, and the restoration of the priesthood.
Apparently Palmer's 34-year
career as a faithful church director and educator spared him from excommunication.
However, it did not prevent his detractors, quoted in last week's Tribune
article, from accusing him of bias, disloyalty or questionable motives,
impugning his credentials, saying he is hurting the church.
Such reaction reminded me of an introduction written a generation ago
for the book, Life In the Son, by Robert Shank. Like Palmer, Shank had
dared to risk his professional reputation to question one of his faith's
cherished doctrines. Yet, a professor named William W. Adams had the
courage to direct these words to Shank in the introduction, which are
now so apropos for Palmer:
"Some will loudly
denounce your book merely because you dare to call in question some
of their customary interpretations and to challenge their accustomed
doctrinal position. They will label you a heretic or a novice.
"Let me urge you to ignore all criticisms of yourself, and all
criticisms of your book that amount to mere general disapproval and
denunciation. This will be the resort only of men who are incapable
of presenting any serious reply to your interpretations and thesis.
Negative criticisms that fail to demonstrate objectively that your
interpretations are incorrect will not deserve serious consideration
or serve the cause of truth.
"Some will consider that 'unity' is more important than truth
and that, right or wrong, conformity to tradition and popular opinion
is the only wise course. Men
so easily become enslaved by a vested interest in the status quo,
and many will refuse to venture the risk of honestly searching for
truth at the possible expense of comfort."
Adams challenged Shank's
readers to obtain the book, read it carefully and prayerfully at least
three times, and as objectively as possible. Then, only after they tried
to refute the author's interpretation and thesis, should they form their
conclusions. He then said:
"If (he) is right
. . . it is of the utmost importance for time and eternity that we
come to share his understanding . . . If he is wrong, it remains for
us to refute his thesis by demonstrating that we are better . . .
interpreters of Scripture than he has proved himself to be. In any
event, a critical re-examination of one of the historic tenets of
our theology now becomes mandatory through the publishing of this
book."
Therefore, Palmer's detractors
should confine themselves to the facts and attempt to prove objectively
that he is wrong. They should be viewing this as a wonderful opportunity
to buttress Mormon doctrine.
After all, a faith that
is true will withstand scrutiny and we will all be better for having
made the effort. As Jesus himself said, " . . . seek and you will
find; knock and the door will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7).
Mormon
Grant Palmer