An insider’s view of Mormon Origins

Some people blog, some write books. Some use avatars and pseudonyms and some just tell you who they are and what they believe. He’d reached some conclusions based on his studies that he felt he had to put in print. While he was forming his thoughts he was still part of the seminary and institute program and after his retirement published, as I recall. He asked in the last bit of his employment to be assigned as chaplain to one of the jails in SLC and in his ministry emphasized Christ and His ministry. He did graduate work in history but I don’t know that he’d consider himself a historian.

Getting back to the original question I suppose it’s like when you see something and someone else doesn’t and you just feel you have to point it out. In the end he’s gained a little recognition and a disfellowshipment in the process.

I just finished insider’s view yesterday, for me its about the “whole truth”, not just the stuff some leaders think I should know. I really liked the book, it helps me get the whole family up to speed on what they won’t hear in SS and Primary. The mormon stories podcast with Grant Palmer added to my understanding of his motivation for writting the book.

i listened to the podcast interviews at mormonstories.org of Grant Palmer (by John Dehlin) and he just seemed to have been fixated on the belief Joseph Smith was a fraud. When that’s the case what do you do then ? I also listened to the mormon stories podcast interviews with Richard Bushman. He read and saw much of the same historical evidence that Grant Palmer came across but he came to much different conclusions. Richard wasn’t shaken or disaffected by the evidence, but Grant Palmer was – from what I could gather, from simply believing that the evidence he saw was evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Richard never came to that conclusion, in spite of seeing much of the same evidence as what Grant Palmer saw.

My disaffection or faith crisis didn’t come from these “historical facts” issues but then again I did question my own faith and in the end I came to the conclusion all my spiritual experiences were from God, the only buffer I had that protected my testimony from it being lost to disbelief.

Mike(BLC)

BLC – I see the same thing you did, and I think Grant Palmer’s conclusions were related to that idea of “innoculation.” Bushman was raised knowing many of these facts and criticisms throughout his life, from a young age. Palmer knew very little (despite or because of being a CES employee), and when he saw the contrary evidence all at once, it quickly unravelled – one black & white was exchanged for another whereas Bushman always saw it in gray.

The other thing the I think has allowed Bushman to continue to function with this information is the depth of his belief. Over his life he’s been a bishop (chronicled in “A Year in the Elkton Ward”), stake president in Boston and a patriarch all of which can serve as buffers for these challenges to faith. But it still comes down to either suspension of belief, i.e. “it doesn’t matter”, I chose to believe anyway or or deciding that whatever I’m seeing is only part of the story so I chose to believe anyway. It’s a good trick if you can pull it off.

I would like to add that it’s a very well written book that covers a lot of territory. If you want a good summary of the issues related to the Book of Abraham, the first vision and priesthood restoration it’s not a bad place to start. It seems to me that a lot of material at Mormonthink.com appears to have come from Grant Palmer.

Korash