An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins- by Grant Palmer

[Anonymous]

I read this after hearing the interview on Mormon Stories. Palmer really convinced me that he knows his stuff. A life-long career in church education; he has no other option than to eventually come upon this stuff. Palmer presents many facts that put the creation of the Book of Mormon in context to the time it was translated. He gets his info directly from the original sources and presents a view quite different than what a TBM would grow up knowing. Ex: a lot of this stuff surprised my 54 yr old life-long-Mormon mother.

Palmer shows all the holes in the history. I know he was disfellowshipped for this, but so was my aunt for divorcing her husband after finding out he had a huge porno collection. What can you do? A fact is a fact. What do you guys think? Has anyone else read this? I thought it was very helpful. I read Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling after this one. I found it added important details that Bushman refused to acknowledge

[Anonymous]

Grant Palmer is a CES guy, but he’s no scholar. The sources he uses for Insider’s View of Mormon Origins are of varying repute, but he doesn’t discriminate. This is kind of a Whitman’s sampler of all the criticisms that have been out there since the church’s inception. A lot of it is very convincing, but a lot of it is just bunk, too, mixed in indiscriminately. None of it is original material. I had read elsewhere (or come up with on my own) about 85% of what is in the book.

Grant Palmer was disfellowshipped and treated somewhat harshly. He seems like a very sincere and wonderful (if saddened) person in the interview on Mormon Stories. But he has difficulty distinguishing between what is good research and what is rampant speculation, so he just puts it all out there together. IMO, that’s why he was disfellowshipped. He was not ex’d, probably because he is a truly wonderful person and very kindly toward the church.

Quote:

He gets his info directly from the original sources and presents a view quite different than what a TBM would grow up knowing. Ex: a lot of this stuff surprised my 54 yr old life-long-Mormon mother.

That’s probably true for TBMs who live in the Mormon corridor. Being from the “cradle of the restoration” area, most of this stuff is widely published all over that area in the form of anti-Mormon tracts that are found in hotels, B&Bs, and shoved into your hands if you go to the church sites. Or at least it was that way when I was a teenager.

Quote:

I read Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling after this one. I found it added important details that Bushman refused to acknowledge

Some of those details he refused to “acknowledge” are the least scholarly and least reputable, for example: The Golden Pot theory is widely recognized as a ludicrous stretch, the link to specific revival speeches is tenuous at best although conceptually there could be a link, Hurlbut’s affidavits are largely discredited by scholars as he had an ax to grind with the Smiths and would say anything to get gain, authors of early anti-Mormon tracts frequently sensationalized their stories in an effort to sell more books and were debunked at the time, etc. Bushman, who is also from the northeast, was certainly as familiar with this material as anyone, but as a scholar with more familiarity with the reliability of the sources, he only included what was reputable.

But I do enjoy discussing Palmer’s book. Many of the theories in his book were things I too came up with on my own when I was a teen (e.g. black & white stock characters in the BOM, unbelievability of the Nephite conversion process, use of the KJV, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Great review. Thanks for posting it. We need a thread on this book. It’s a common one to discuss.

I kind of got the impression from Grant Palmer’s Mormon Stories interview that he sort of wrote an encyclopedia version of controversial Mormon material (along the lines of Hawkgrrrl’s critique of him not being as scholarly). I think his book is important among the milieu of works in the area of Mormon studies, but I have too many other books higher up on my priority list.

[Anonymous]

I’m with Hawkgrrrl on the “golden pot” thing, definitely a stretch. What did you guys think of all the Bible content in the BoM? Its hard to pick up on when reading through the BoM, but when Palmer lines it up, I was really surprised to see all that. I know Christ would quote the scripture in the New Testament, but with the BoM, it’s quite different. I kind of feel like it makes the sermon on the mount a prepared campaign speech that Christ tours around with.

I also found the story of the witnesses to be pretty strong as well. That Palmer was disfellowshipped was troubling to me, members are asked to bare their testimonies in public all the time. This book seemed to be the reasons behind his own. It’s unfortunate that the church has the power to judge which testimony is acceptable and which is not: kind-of destroys the whole purpose.

In general, Do you find yourself disputing the quotes and issues brought up in the book, or do you accept it and find a way to reconcile? I’m still new to a lot of this info so I’m still in ‘digestion mode’.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read this book yet. It’s in my queue (fairly high up too). But I have looked into the Golden Pot, Solomon Spaulding, View of the Hebews theories, etc. To me, there are a couple of things to point out. I think anyone who tries to pinpoint a single source for the BoM is doing themselves a disservice. That is, I think it a stretch to propose that the Golden Pot is a major source for the BoM. But I don’t think this means it wasn’t at all involved.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that the BoM is a 19th century text. So, the tremendous correlation with the KJVB, family stories, national stories, events of the day, and other books, legends, stories is not surprising. My point is, when I read someone who is theorizing that a certain book (View of the Hebrews, or Golden Pot) influenced the BoM, I take that to mean that it’s possible that Joseph either read, or heard about the contents or ideas in those books and took elements of that and put it into the BoM. I don’t think this a stretch. When I write something it is an amalgam of whatever is in my head which comes from a lot of sources.

Most often, when I hear someone saying that View of the Hebrews, Golden Pot could not have influenced the BoM, they are usually claiming that the source in question doesn’t account for some significant portion of the text in the BoM. While that may be true (and probably is) it doesn’t mean it wasn’t an influence. As I said, I think it entirely possible that the Golden Pot, View of the Hebrews, etc. influenced Joseph who I believe wrote the BoM. He may not even have read it, but it still could have influenced him through acquaintances etc.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

What did you guys think of all the Bible content in the BoM?

JS had his KJV with him when he was dictating, and it seems clear to me that he used it in those passages, probably reading directly out of it. I don’t think he pulled the words out of the air or hat or whatever, and I imagine he felt inspired to quote the parts he did. I think he opened the KJV and dictated it for those areas. This is actually probably the most common “anti-Mormon” criticism I’ve seen in literature from competing ministers. The fact that KJV was readily accessible to JS and that it is one of the least accurate translations makes it clear, at least to me, that he was using it directly in the process. Critics and TBMs alike imagine a process of translation that is quite different, IMO, from what actually took place. The word “translation” truly seems like it doesn’t fit.

The witnesses having just a “spiritual” and not physical witness was something that was new to me in the book, although not wholly unexpected. I was aware of the fact that most of them left the church at different times and joined other movements, claiming rival spiritual experiences there also. But here’s my angle on that. My DH’s testimony is actually based on a very similar BOM experience, which is why I lend it credence. We claim to be a visionary people, so why is it that we expect everything to be physical and literal? Everything in the church is based on vision. It’s only because people have imbued things with literal, physical meaning (a literal Adam & Eve, a physical visitation from GtF and JC, actual angels on the Kirtland temple) that we think they were. It doesn’t state that. Maybe the way God works is through our brains more than our five senses. ‘Cuz if I were God, that would be one heckuva lot easier to pull off. And I’m not so much looking for more work.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The witnesses having just a “spiritual” and not physical witness was something that was new to me in the book, although not wholly unexpected. I was aware of the fact that most of them left the church at different times and joined other movements, claiming rival spiritual experiences there also. But here’s my angle on that. My DH’s testimony is actually based on a very similar BOM experience, which is why I lend it credence. We claim to be a visionary people, so why is it that we expect everything to be physical and literal? Everything in the church is based on vision. It’s only because people have imbued things with literal, physical meaning (a literal Adam & Eve, a physical visitation from GtF and JC, actual angels on the Kirtland temple) that we think they were. It doesn’t state that. Maybe the way God works is through our brains more than our five senses. ‘Cuz if I were God, that would be one heckuva lot easier to pull off. And I’m not so much looking for more work.

Well said hawk. I think this is my position as well. I happen to take it a step further by equating this type of “God working through our brains” with other unreliable (IMHO) psychological phenomena. Maybe I am wrong for doing this. The fact that this is the way God works (in our mind) rather than providing physical and/or literal miracles for all to see makes me a bit skeptical of the whole thing. This is probably the heart of what led me to deconstruction of my TBM testimony. I looked at all the “witnesses” I had had, and noticed a pattern. After reading some about psychological phenomena I could not deny that my “witnesses” were well described by these characterizations. I am still waiting for the “unmistakable witness” that Elder Packer talks about.

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

The fact that this is the way God works (in our mind) rather than providing physical and/or literal miracles for all to see makes me a bit skeptical of the whole thing. [snip] I am still waiting for the “unmistakable witness” that Elder Packer talks about.

1. Please don’t settle on your facts (the way God works is in our mind rather than providing physical and/or literal miracles for all to see) quite yet. There are physical and literal miracles and evidences of the eternal world every day once you have faith to accept them. This isn’t just feeble-mind talk or mystic talk, but the plain reality.

2. I can’t speak for Brother Packer regarding unmistakeable witnesses, and I don’t even like to use that approach, but when your reality shifts to center on a reference to your view of heaven, all you can do is call everything else relatively illusory and worthy of skepticism.

I’ll quote Beverly Brodsky: “Although it’s been 20 years since my heavenly voyage, I have never forgotten it. Nor have I, in the face of ridicule and disbelief, ever doubted its reality. Nothing that intense and life-changing could possibly have been a dream or hallucination. To the contrary, I consider the rest of my life to be a passing fantasy, a brief dream, that will end when I again awaken in the permanent presence of that giver of life and bliss.”

[Anonymous]

@Tom: Cool concepts. How come you talk in such ambiguous ways when describing “reality shifts” and “view of heaven”? I hear people say that experiences are too “sacred” to share. Is this what you’re insinuating?

I’m all about “life is an illusion” anyways, so I would love to hear more specifics. btw, I loved the quote by Beverly B. but it is extremely subjective. There are millions of people who have changed their lives in an instant, after having a supernatural experience/dream/hallucination, so it is possible to have experiences as intense and life-changing as a dream or hallucination.

[Anonymous]

@swimordie:

Regarding too “sacred”:

I don’t know. I’m against superstition and taboos, and the prevailing LDS “too sacred” motif seems to lean that way. I think things should be shared in reverence. Some concepts, though, are hard to share, and other things seem too simple (awww, shucks, you’d probably just laugh) to be of interest. And in general it doesn’t do much good to be in anybody’s face or to try to force the issue. I try not to come across as coy or elusive. Is this a threadjack?

Re: subjective/dream/hallucination

To my way of thinking, if a genre of experience reframes reality permanently for a significant portion of the population worldwide, and they can express that lucidly and meaningfully, and it accords with my own and humankind’s reality, I am willing to give careful heed to its core meaning as expressed. I’m careful not to discount sincere sharing based on my life’s experience, even if it comes with weird names attached like alien abductions, dreams, psychedelic drugs, etc. Who am I to tell God what is and isn’t kosher for revelation? These people frame their entire lives on these experiences, swimordie. Their entire lives. Over and over and over again. That is reality.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

‘Cuz if I were God, that would be one heckuva lot easier to pull off. And I’m not so much looking for more work.

I love your statements Hawkgrrl

I think I currently fall along similar lines as jmb275. I tend to think of the BofM like a 19th century religious casserole — it’s got a little bit of all the tasty leftovers from the pantry in it. Even if you can dissect it and identify all the individual ingredients, a casserole is a new dish. It has a name, and you like the taste or you don’t. It nourishes or it doesn’t, or somewhere in between. I had already heard about the spiritual witness version as sounding more based on historical facts that are available.

I liked Hawk’s points about how our Church later made these into more physical stories over time. It would seem that people understood the visionary aspect of the Church in their own time more than we do today. They didn’t seem to have the problems with it we do now, finding out that it is different.

[Anonymous]

This is all good stuff, guys, but if I could bring the topic back to the content of Palmer’s book.

There are obviously many ideas on how visions, revelations and translations occur, but Palmer’s argument is taken straight from the prophet’s mouth: that if we are to believe his works, we should believe his words. Palmer is making the case against JS’s enduring claim on the physical-ness of the Church- the plates, the angels, the visitations, the papyri of Abraham, powers of the endowment, relics, heaven ect….these were not metaphysical in JS’s claims.

Palmer puts these claims into question: due to what we now know of things like the witnesses, the papyrus of the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, translation process of the Book of Moses and BoM ect…..due to all these facts, Palmer argues that Smith’s notion of a physical and literal church doesn’t hold up, and therefore allows for Smith’s claims of physicality to be placed under scrutiny. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

spacious maze wrote:

Palmer puts these claims into question: due to what we now know of things like the witnesses, the papyrus of the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, translation process of the Book of Moses and BoM ect…..due to all these facts, Palmer argues that Smith’s notion of a physical and literal church doesn’t hold up, and therefore allows for Smith’s claims of physicality to be placed under scrutiny. Thoughts?

Thanks for getting us back on track and on topic.

Yes. That is the point of the book. Grant Palmer collected all this information that seems to refute the literal/physical claims of “truthfulness” people in the Church have made over the years, including claims made by Joseph Smith himself.

I personally believe Joseph Smith was sincere, for the most part, about what he taught and claimed. By that, I mean I think he believed his own stories. He really thought he was able to translate Egyptian. He believed angels visited him. He believed he was restoring lost truths, priesthood authority, new information about the heavens and the nature of God, etc.

That is what prophets all through history do.

But do they really hear the voice of a *REAL* God? Real Angels? Real scripture dictated from on high, like an instruction manual or a precise HOWTO?

Yeah. The history of our religion is full of holes like swiss cheese. How do you answer that question though? Is this stuff for real? really truly for real? I think Grant Palmer decided it wasn’t. His journey was to collect a lot of reasons why not. He has a lot of solid information.

But the question of reality, is it real … Well that is what all our discussions at this site are about, isn’t it…

[Anonymous]

spacious maze wrote:

This is all good stuff, guys, but if I could bring the topic back to the content of Palmer’s book.

There are obviously many ideas on how visions, revelations and translations occur, but Palmer’s argument is taken straight from the prophet’s mouth: that if we are to believe his works, we should believe his words. Palmer is making the case against JS’s enduring claim on the physical-ness of the Church- the plates, the angels, the visitations, the papyri of Abraham, powers of the endowment, relics, heaven ect….these were not metaphysical in JS’s claims.

Palmer puts these claims into question: due to what we now know of things like the witnesses, the papyrus of the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates, translation process of the Book of Moses and BoM ect…..due to all these facts, Palmer argues that Smith’s notion of a physical and literal church doesn’t hold up, and therefore allows for Smith’s claims of physicality to be placed under scrutiny. Thoughts?

I’m not quite sure whether Palmer’s argument is against a straw man or not. For me, it kind of is a straw man, but that doesn’t mean it really is one. There are many who have unquestioning belief in things that seem implausible. For example, you have a “testimony” that the BOM is true because you got a spiritual witness or burning in the bosom. But then you also assume, without giving it more thought, that everything in the BOM was accurately portrayed, that Shiz really raised up on his hands after his head was cut off and that Ammon really dismembered but didn’t kill all those robbers. Some of these stories seem like “campfire tales” to me, which in a way lends credence to the BOM (that it was the mythology of a people, that it was handed down for hundreds of years, that a general abridged it). But if you suggested that Ammon’s swordsmanship was exaggerated or that it’s not very likely for that many people to have arms cut off in the middle of a field and not have any casualties, you’d be seen as an unbeliever in some circle or a heretic intellectual.

Bushman is a good complement to Palmer’s book because he too views things as far less literal and physical, but has a more subtle approach: physical objects are mere “touchstones,” visions and experiences are subject to changes with memory and importance, and perhaps most importantly, his JS is often a sincere but confused person, just trying to figure out what he’s supposed to do and what it all means, but by no means certain. He makes as many mistakes through his own misunderstanding as through that of others.

[Anonymous]

spacious maze wrote:

I read this after hearing the interview on Mormon Stories. Palmer really convinced me that he knows his stuff. A life-long career in church education; he has no other option than to eventually come upon this stuff. Palmer presents many facts that put the creation of the Book of Mormon in context to the time it was translated. He gets his info directly from the original sources and presents a view quite different than what a TBM would grow up knowing. Ex: a lot of this stuff surprised my 54 yr old life-long-Mormon mother.

Your poor mother.

Whether he knows his ‘stuff’ or not depends, I guess, on what his ‘stuff’ is. I read the book all the way through, and it was not a pleasant read. Not because he disses the Church and Joseph Smith, but because it was an indiscriminate laundry list of doubt, rumor and tenuous supposition without any practical understanding of the spiritual energies in play.

spacious maze wrote:

Palmer shows all the holes in the history. I know he was disfellowshipped for this, but so was my aunt for divorcing her husband after finding out he had a huge porno collection. What can you do? A fact is a fact. What do you guys think? Has anyone else read this? I thought it was very helpful. I read Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling after this one. I found it added important details that Bushman refused to acknowledge

His facts are all over the place. Some are legit. Some are not. He says (see below) it is his ‘research, concerns and thoughts ‘ put down on paper. Some things shouldn’t be aired in publication, IMO.

OTOH, I have certainly gone through this kind of doubt and evaluation in my own mind. My own personal conclusions are vastly different from Grant’s. Maybe its because I know God is ‘real’ and I have some kind of an idea of how He works with His children.

---

Notes for the Media

By Grant H. Palmer

1. I wrote a book that honestly expressed my research, concerns and thoughts regarding the church I grew up in, love and am loyal to still. Plenty of active members wrestle with testimonies and other theological/historical claims. I put my wrestle in writing, hoping that it would help ME and others with similar questions.

2. For two years, quasi-Church officials, self-appointed zealots (many of them employees and retired employees of the church) and, possibly, a few LOCAL ecclesiastical leaders have gone out of their way to harass me and attack me personally, treating me as though I was an apostate bent on doing the church harm.

3. Meantime, the Church continued to sell the book through Deseret Book and its online system. Deseret Book will not carry books it deems “Anti-Mormon.” It has indicated an interest to carry my new book – “The Incomparable Jesus”-when it is released in spring of 2005.

4. A year ago my stake president told me he had been prompted to act by people above him in the ecclesiastic chain of command, but he decided against acting at that time. Nothing has changed since then; in fact in the interest of keeping the peace I have declined numerous speaking opportunities etc., book signings.

5. I want to remain a member of the church. I am confident that members of the First Presidency of the Church were NOT aware/behind the issuing of the summons last week, and may be just as surprised by this unfortunate turn of events as I was.

6. My testimony in Jesus Christ is firm. My doubts about the accuracy of some teachings about the origins of the Mormon Church are shared with many Latter-day Saints. During the last 35 years, a new Mormon history has arisen that takes a more objective and honest view of Mormon origins. This new openness was spurred in part by the tenure of Leonard J. Arrington who served as Church Historian from 1972-1982. My book is nothing more or less than a distillation for the lay reader of

this new Mormon history. I have done nothing that warrants excommunication.

7. For 64 years, I have counted on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to help me connect with Christ and His teachings. Despite my doubts about the accuracy of various historical claims, nothing has changed regarding my love for the Church of my birth–the church that has literally defined the character of my family and my ancestors families for nearly two centuries.

8. From my first Sunday School class at age three until now, my church taught me to value truth over all else. When I served as a missionary for the church for two years in the Virginia/North Carolina area, I told prospective converts that whenever truth and traditional beliefs conflict, they should choose the truth. The personal discoveries I wrote about in my book are my attempts to put into practice what I was taught at church.

Grant H. Palmer

---

Kevin Christensen made some useful remarks WRT Palmer:

---

…given Palmer’s claim that the stories of the angelic priesthood restoration were only invented in 1834-5 to bolster Smith’s authority, why doesn’t Palmer refer to the first paragraph of the 1832 Joseph Smith History. Palmer uses that source elsewhere. Why does it disappear when it undermines this key claim? Any why do the free-thinking, well informed, open-minded questers in the “Meet the Critics” panel and session overlook this, and many other, obvious problems? Is the material in the first paragraph of the 1832 account merely subjective or ad hominem relative to Palmer’s argument?

Why, when discussing sources like the Stephen Burnett letter, does Palmer completely ignore Richard L. Anderson’s four page discussion in the 1981 book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses? Palmer dismisses Anderson by labeling him as too literal in a single footnote. Is this scholarship to emulate? For my money, Anderson shows the importance of not just gathering all sources, but critically evaluating them.

Why does Palmer neglect literally hundreds of important studies and primary sources while claiming to represent a consensus view of LDS scholars? And why does he suppress important material in sources that he does cite? For example, why does he cite Ostler’s important 1987 essay on the “Expansion Theory” only to support the notion of a 19th Century origin, and ignore all of Ostler’s references to important comparisons to antiquity? For example, Ostler cites Hugh Nibley’s An Approach to the Book of Mormon, which compares Benjamin’s discourse to ancient coronation ceremonies. Nibley’s 1957 priesthood manual describes a 36 step ritual, compared to Palmer’s quote from Brent Metcalfe offering a four step revival conversion pattern. Palmer claims that he can account for 80% of the Book of Mormon in just six sources. It seems to me that here the percentage claim fails here. Since 1957, several other scholars have extended the comparisons to the Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, Sabbath, and Jubilee years, ancient farewell addresses, and even more recently to Mesoamerican temple murals contemporary with Benjamin, and Mesoamerican rituals (see Dianne Wirth). Does “honestly confronting the LDS past” mean all of this can be completely ignored? Is it so hard to pick up and read the huge 1998 volume on King Benjamin’s Speech? Should we credit Palmer with courage, boldness, and daring insight, when he completely ignores something so conspicuous and relevant to his specific claims? Is it impolite to notice that not only does this new emperor of Mormon thought not only have no clothes, but that he’s not the emperor either? Should those who have read enough to see the glaring problems in his work defer to the tender sensitivies of those who have not?

Why does Palmer complain about Midgely’s account of the Paul Pry name while also reporting that he refused to respond to three requests for more information from Midgely? I’ve seen evidence that Midgely is quite willing to revise his opinions in light of new information, and publically admit when he got something wrong. When has Palmer done so?

…

Kevin Christensen

---

Well, Kevin does kind of pile on, but I agree with his points.

Even though my main complaint with Grant is his indiscriminant use of questionable sources, I also just got worn down by his relentless doubt. Don’t get me wrong, I do value questioning and even doubt. But sheesh.

The downside of doubt:

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might

win by fearing to attempt.

— William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act 1

The upside:

“To refuse to doubt, think about or question what you are told

is to miss an opportunity to talk to God”

— Father Leo Booth

The annoying truth:

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and

the intelligent are full of doubt.”

— Bertrand Russell

The uplifting truth:

“Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don’t know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God.”

— Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

HiJolly

[Author]

Posts