An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Volume 1)

In the conclusion chapter, Palmer makes a plea for increased Christianity in Mormon meetings. He concludes this by making a comparison to Seventh Day Adventists, who have since the 80's drawn away from a focus on the "revelations" of their founder, Ellen G. White (since the source of those "revelations" have been largely debunked as plagiarisms from existing 19th century sources), and increased their focus on Jesus Christ. Similarly, the former RLDS (now "Community of Christ") does not require any belief in Joseph Smith (JS) to participate in their sacrament meetings.Palmer makes a strong point that the claims of divine authority evolved during the 1830's, mainly to meet the needs of crises threatening JS's authority. For instance, the First Vision was never even mentioned as a source for his authority until 1838; before that, if mentioned at all, it was as an account of JS's personal "epiphany", by which his sins were forgiven; his actual "call" from God came as a result of an angel (later identified as Moroni) revealing the Book of Mormon for JS to introduce to the world.And speaking of the Book of Mormon, Palmer distills the evidence in a suscinct chapter that shows clearly how the content of the Book of Mormon draws from 18th century KJV biblical material (including the mistakes), the 19th century notions on the origins of the Amerinds (as Hebrews), and the Revivalist camp meetings, their atmosphere and preaching/exhorting: elements JS was intimately familiar with through close association. The conclusion is that JS wrote the Book of Mormon himself, and that he demonstrated the brains and knowledge of the contents that comprise it, all of which were readily available to JS where and when he lived.Another strong point Palmer makes is the fact that back then (early 19th century), the magical world view was a widespread feature of American life. And that by making the visionary experiences of JS, the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, et al into physical world events, the modern LDS leaders/teachers have disassociated the 21st century church from any real history connections to the origins of their religion. Quote: "Today we see the witnesses as empirical, rational, twenty-first-century men instead of the nineteenth-century men they were. We have ignored the peculiarities of their world view, and by so doing, we misunderstand their experiences. Over time, we have reinterpreted their testimony so that, like with the other foundation stones, it appears to be a rational, impressive, and unique story in the history of religion....But is this acceptable? Should we continue to tell these historically inaccurate versions today?....It is appropriate to tell simplified, faith-inspiring stories to children, but is it right to tell religious allegories to adults as if they were literal history?"The author then makes his plea for a return to stronger Christianity.My only real quibble with Palmer is that I don't see Christianity as being any sort of guarantee of powerful religious faith. To me, the stories of Jesus Christ only "survived" for contemplation as real historical events, because I took on "faith" the Mormon church's claims of being the restored gospel through prophetic revelations. When that went bye bye, so too did any real consideration of the historical validity of Christianity as "the true faith." To my mind the Jesus stories are "simplified [augmented] faith-inspring stories [for] children", and I don't appreciate having been spoon-fed them as literal truth well beyond my childhood.The critics of Palmer's book within the Mormon church have not admitted the strength of the historical evidence. As Palmer says, "it is more reasonable" to accept the evidence than to continue to support and teach a wholly unjustified explanation that does not fit with the facts that the evidence shows. And that evidence is clearly a story of JS's religion making and augmenting to meet the crises that arose from his detractors and dissenters."Joseph Smith....lived as much in the invisible as in the temporal world." That about sums up Palmer's explanation as to how a man could be sincerely religious, yet change his views on his earlier spiritual experiences (epiphanies) to fit the changing demands of his situation, to preserve his new church and his leadership in it.JS augmented his earlier claims to include impressive, literal laying on of hands experiences from God's angels. Each development of JS's claims to authority were more impressive in order to trump the counter claims and criticisms of rivals and apostates.Enhanced Christianity may work for Palmer, but it falls flat with me. I join the (formerly) "evil" Warren Parrish, and become closest to being a deist anymore. Admitting that one's entire knowledge of God has rested on the imaginings of thousands of teachers who have come before and borrowed endlessly from each other, is a sort of liberation in admitted ignorance. That's where I am.

Grant could have left out the Golden Pot story. He could have cited all the pseudo scholarship fabricated by entities such as F.A.R.M.S., F.A.I.R. and Professor Emeritus Hugh Nibley. But that was not his intent, I believe. When I read this book, I knew about that vast body of "scholarship" such as horses are really tapirs! (Tapir-back rider), steel swords are wooden clubs with flint shards affixed in them, and somehow, the Amerinds "forgot" about the single most useful innovation known to homo sapiens sapiens; the wheel. How sad they forgot about it! And how about Daniel Peterson's recent statement that the best archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon, in the Americas, is a stone with the name "NHM" on it ON THE ARABIAN PENNINSULA(!) This is scholarship?We all need a mythology to explain the meaning of our lives. Grant is honest about the factual history of Mormonism. True believers in Mormondom tend to ignore things that do not support their "model" of the Mormon Church. Scientists do the same with their scientific models to explain the natural world. But as more reliable data is obtained, scientists must revise their scientific models; often it is revised, one scientist's funeral at a time.An historian ranks the value of an original document something like this:Most reliable - written contemporaneous to an event by one friendly to the faith. (Martin Harris said twice, 40 years apart, that Smith saw a spirit while using his peep stone).Very reliable - written contemporaneous to an event that contradicts the modern view, but the writer was friendly at the time. (Mother Smith wrote, through the Corays, that Joseph went to bed one night thinking about which church to join, and an angel, Nephi, appeared to him in a dream and told him not to join any. "And by the way Joseph, there is a gold book buried in a hill nearby." Huh?)Somewhat reliable - written from an independent source by a disinterested party. (Willard Chase wrote that a Spirit helped Smith find a gold treasure, but the Spirit first looked like a toad in the stone box).Unreliable - written significantly after the event by a friendly source. (Smith in 1832 wrote that he "saw the Lord" and in 1835 he "saw a first angel, then a second. Then the first testified Jesus was the Christ. Then he saw many angels." Then in 1838, by the hand of Mr. Mulholland, an articulate writer, Smith saw to beings; the Father and the Son).Palmer goes to contemporary, eyewitness sources, including original scriptures and revelations that were edited and often are contradicted by current versions. Classic to this are the angelic vists of John the Baptist, and of Peter, James, and John. Smith originally had a "charismatic" view of priesthood authority, "if ye have desires to serve God, you are called to the work" (D&C 4, 1829) and "he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordaines him ..." (D&C 20:60, 1830). Notice how no angels are needed to get authority; just an inner feeling, called "charismatic authority". Later versions, including in the current D&C awkwardly place John the Baptist (D&C 13) into the history. But look at the original (1833) Book of Commandments: No John the Baptist! Then look at the 1835 Book of Doctrine and Covenants: Still no John the Baptist! Where is he? Years later, an 1829 revelation is recorded as the current D&C 13. Where would you rank this document as an historian would? Very reliable? Somwhat reliable? Not reliable? Any contemporary (1829) independent accounts? Nope!When one reads Mormon scripture with this view, Smith's dynamic evoloution of his theology leaps off the page. Try it! You will find the onion has many layers.Sorry folks! Truth sometimes is not pleasent.Palmer wants the factual truth to be digested by all "non-novice" Mormons. It will be very distracting to one who buys the "faith-promoting mythology" taught today. But when the mythology falls away, Mormons still have each other, 194 years of history, and the legacy left by some very hardy folks who endured tough times.But why the velvet glove? I believe "Palmer's people" are the Mormons (as are mine), and he wants us to grow out of our intellectual adolesence and become Christians. That is his next book ...I think we as Mormons have a lot to offer the world. Just think if our 19-year-old sons and our 21-year-old daughters went on missions to teach school to inner-city children in locations such as Calcutta and Tbilisi! They would come home, bilingual and highly connected to a distant culture! Wonderful! What would the conversion/retention rate be? Can't say, but it could not get much worse.

This book is odd, because the author comprehensively shows how Joseph Smith made up his entire body of work, and then talks about being proud of being a Mormon! It will certainly broaden your understanding of Mormonism, and I was impressed to see an LDS member being frank about the founder of his Faith, but I simply can't see how he remains a supporter of the church when he knows how it started off as lies - and not even very original ones. Having said that, it's nice to read a book demolishing a religion that is actually well-disposed to it at the same time.It doesn't really approach another central question - was Joseph Smith an out-and-out con artist? Or what? Deranged? Initially well-meaning and seduced by the possibilities offered by his congregation? For this, I guess I'll need another book. I wasn't sure if this question was avoided out of fear of offending his community.The first reviewer finished his copy in four days. Why so long? This is a very hard book to put down!

I enjoyed reading a book in which, while exposing the fraudulant foundations of the LDS church, the author does NOT come across as bitter and resentful, as so much 'anti-Mormon' literature does. One could still question his timing, of course: if he had been aware of these issues long before (as I believe he had) why did he continue in his church employment and keep quiet until he retired? There's a certain amount of self-interest here which does detract slightly from the integrity of his beliefs/views. Nevertheless, overall an intelligent read and leaves you with plenty to consider. Would recommend.

Being a member of them LDS faith some many years. I found this rather eye opening. But how can the writer come to his conclusion, and continue in a church, that claims to have authority? It shows that Joseph Smith was not honourable, nor are the present day leaders, do not have integrity, to put it blunt. Glad that this information has come to light.

The sources are there to be cross referenced and checked. I found the book informative and balanced. I recommend it for anyone interested in early LDS history.

Super. Love the book. Good service