Podcast: Download (28.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Joseph Smith Scholar Don Bradley and Dr. Dan Peterson take calls on K-Talk radio and answer a wide variety of questions in this interview that took place on July 25, 2013 on Drive Time Live with Mills Crenshaw.
This recording is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This is the second of a two-part interview.
Podcast: Download (30.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Why do people leave the Church? What was in the missing 116 pages of the Book of Mormon? How do we explain the appearance of horses in the Book of Mormon? Did Joseph Smith make up the story of the first vision long after it was supposed to have occurred? Is there any evidence that supports the authenticity for the Book of Abraham? Does the mention of grains in the Book of Mormon provide evidence of its truthfulness?
Joseph Smith Scholar Don Bradley and Dr. Dan Peterson take calls on K-Talk radio and answer a wide variety of questions in this interview that took place on July 25, 2013 on Drive Time Live with Mills Crenshaw.
Don Bradley is a writer, editor, and researcher specializing in early Mormon history. Don recently performed an internship with the Joseph Smith Papers Project and is completing his thesis, on the earliest Mormon conceptions of the New Jerusalem, toward an M.A. in History at Utah State University. He has published on the translation of the Book of Mormon, plural marriage before Nauvoo, and Joseph Smith’s “grand fundamental principles of Mormonism” and plans to publish an extensive analysis, co-authored with Mark Ashurst-McGee, on the Kinderhook plates. Don’s first book, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Missing Contents of the Book of Mormon, is slated to be published by Greg Kofford Books.
A native of southern California, Daniel C. Peterson received a bachelor’s degree in Greek and philosophy from Brigham Young University (BYU) and, after several years of study in Jerusalem and Cairo, earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures from the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Dr. Peterson is a professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic at BYU, where he has taught Arabic language and literature at all levels, Islamic philosophy, Islamic culture and civilization, Islamic religion, the Qur’an, the introductory and senior “capstone” courses for Middle Eastern Studies majors, and various other occasional specialized classes. He is the author of several books and numerous articles on Islamic and Latter-day Saint topics–including a biography entitled Muhammad: Prophet of God (Eerdmans, 2007)—and has lectured across the United States, in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, and at various Islamic universities in the Near East and Asia. He served in the Switzerland Zürich Mission (1972-1974), and, for approximately eight years, on the Gospel Doctrine writing committee for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He also presided for a time as the bishop of a singles ward adjacent to Utah Valley University. Dr. Peterson is married to the former Deborah Stephens, of Lakewood, Colorado, and they are the parents of three sons.
This recording is posted here by permission of K-Talk Radio. The opinions expressed in this interview do not necessarily represent the views of FAIR or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This is the first of a two-part interview.
“…as all have not faith,” the Lord told the members of the early Restored Church, “seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).
In the early 1980s I struggled for a brief time with my own personal testimony, brought on by exposure to LDS-critical material for which I had no answers. I was stunned, confused, and anxious. In my search for answers I stumbled upon the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)—a newly formed (1979) organization of LDS scholars. The handful of writings and reprints produced by this LDS scholarly group was exactly what my fledging testimony needed.
I joined their mailing-list, purchased every publication they had, and became aware of other sources for academic studies of LDS issues—sources such as BYU Studies,Sunstone, Dialogue, and the writings of Hugh Nibley. I bought used back-copies of everything I could get my hands on to feed my craving for learning more.
In the FARMS newsletters I would occasionally get invitations to attend a lecture or other event hosted by the scholars who contributed to LDS studies. These were always held in Utah, but I was a young family-man in Colorado without the means to travel these events. In 1985 BYU hosted the first Ramses II exhibit and in my FARMS newsletter I received an invitation to attend a tour of the exhibit with Hugh Nibley as the guide. Since Dr. Nibley was my hero at that stage in my life, I was devastated that I was unable to attend.
My wife and I were convinced that we needed to move to Utah, in part, so I could be closer the Mecca of LDS scholarship. Once we settled in Ogden (north of Salt Lake City) I attended virtually every event the FARMS offered. In 1999 the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) was created.
Like the original FARMS (now-defunct and replaced by BYU’s Maxwell Institute) FAIR was organized by a group of grass-roots Latter-day Saint volunteers who were interested in LDS studies. FAIR, however, was dedicated to educative apologetics (“apologetics” means to defend one’s beliefs). With a policy of non-confrontation (they didn’t want to engage in “Bible-bashing”) FAIR’s goal was to apply scholarly research and answers to the anti-LDS accusations of the Church’s critics.
Since its inception as a non-profit organization, FAIR has grown into a multi-national organization of volunteers who draw upon the best latest scholarship, and has produced books (such as my Shaken Faith Syndrome), DVDs, YouTube Videos, podcasts, a Wiki, and hundreds of articles. In 1999 FAIR held its first conference in California. In 2000 the venue was moved to Utah where it has remained ever. I attended the first Utah FAIR Conference and haven’t missed one since.
There are a few annual events I eagerly anticipate—Christmas with my family, Halloween, 4th of July, and the annual FAIR Conference. Some of the brightest LDS scholars have spoken on some of the most interesting topics ranging from such issues as Egyptology, DNA, Race Issues, Women’s Issues, the First Vision, Same-Sex Attraction, Plural Marriage, and more. The FAIR Conferences are consistently one of the highlights of my year.
This year, the 15th annual FAIR Conference will be held August 1 and 2 and promises to continue the standard of interest and excellence that has drawn increasingly larger crowds. The first FAIR Utah Conference was held in Alta. The next few years were held in Provo to provide for a greater number of attendees. For the past several years the FAIR Conference was moved to a venue in Sandy, and this year (because FAIR has outgrown the Sandy venue) it is being moved back to Provo to the Utah Valley Convention Center.
The list of speakers this year is fantastic. This year’s line of up scholars includes Ronald Barney of the LDS Church historical department who will speak on “Joseph Smith’s Visions.” Morris Thurston will present the “Kidnapping” at Palestine Grove: Missouri’s Final Attempt to Extradite Joseph Smith. Don Bradley will speak on The Original Context of the First Vision Narrative: 1820s or 1830s.
Salt Lake Tribune humor columnist, Robert Kirby will present, Why It is Important to Laugh at Ourselves, and Lynne Wilson’s topic will be, Was Joseph a Product of the Second Great Awakening? Dr. Mark Alan Wright, a specialist in Mesoamerian Archaeology will present, Heartland as Hinterland: The Mesoamerican Core and North American Periphery of Book of Mormon Geography. Rosalynde Welch will discuss “Disenchanted Mormonism,” and Seth Payne will speak on “Why Mormonism Matters: Pastoral Apologetics and the LDS Doubter.”
Ralph Hancock will reflect on “Mormonism and the New Liberalism: The Inescapability of Political Apologetics,” Maxine Hanks will present, “Working With the Church: Another Narrative,” and Daniel Peterson (a perennial favorite) will address, “Toward a More Effective Apologetics.”
In addition to this awesome list of speakers and subjects, the FAIR Conference will host two panel discussions: Charity Never Faileth: Seeking Sisterhood Amid Different Perspectives on Mormon Feminism, with Neylan McBain, Valerie Hudson, Wendy Ulrich, Kris Fredrickson, and Maxine Hanks.
The second panel is entitled, The Loss and Rekindling of Faith, and will include panelists, Bill Reel, Don Bradley, Janet L. Eyring, and Maxine Hanks.
Anyone interested in Mormon studies should attend. Early-bird discounts are still available until July 28 but even if you miss the discount, the “study and faith” you’ll gain from this assemblage of speakers will be worth far more than the price of the ticket. You can get all the info here, and I hope to see you there.
*This article was also published in Meridian.
Podcast: Download (27.7MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Richard Bushman, author of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, discusses the issues that loomed in his mind as he wrote his books on Joseph Smith. One conclusion he has reached is that “we will not always be able to give satisfactory answers to our critics. We will never placate our critics completely and we should not seek to do so. If we placate them completely we are making our gospel, our history, conform to their sense of what life should be and what the path should be. In a sense, we’re caving in if we become too pleasing to those around them. We have to state it as we see it and recognize that there will be differences from what our critics expect of us and of what actually happened to our people.”
The text of his presentation can be found here. The video can be seen here.
Richard Bushman is the and Gouverneur Morris Professor of History emeritus at Columbia University. He is currently the Howard W. Hunter Visiting Professor in Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He also serves as one of three general editors of the Joseph Smith Papers.
The opinions expressed in this address do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or of FAIR.
To purchase tickets to the 2013 FAIR Conference, visit this page. This short video clip also provides more information: FAIR Conference video clip.
Podcast: Download (35.4MB)
Subscribe: RSS
The Maxwell Institute has started a podcast and subscribers to the FAIR Blog will especially enjoy this interview with Fiona and Terryl Givens. They talk about their recent book, The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, and also discuss their recent string of firesides and symposia discussing the navigation of faith crises. Former Mormon FAIR-Cast host, Blair Hodges, conducts the interview as they cover subjects like the character of God, the pre-earth life and human agency, the balance between faith and the intellect, individuality and Mormon culture, and many other topics.
This recording is used here by permission of the Maxwell Institute and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Podcast: Download (8.8MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Christian minister George MacDonald, a primary inspiration to C.S. Lewis, once said “It is often the incapacity for defending the faith they love, which turns men into persecutors.” Adding to this, Elder Neil A. Maxwell said, “Defenders beget defenders and one of the significant side benefits of scholars who are devoted, . . . is that we will at least reduce the number of people who do not have the capacity to defend their faith and who otherwise might ‘grow weary and faint in their minds.’”
In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on July 14, 2013 Martin Tanner and Steve Densley, Jr. discuss the need to defend the faith and the way in which FAIR and the FAIR Conference can help prepare people to respond to attacks against the Church.
To purchase tickets to the 2013 FAIR Conference, visit this page. This short video clip also provides more information: FAIR Conference video clip.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR. Listeners will note that the first part of this recording is missing.
Podcast: Download (9.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
What can you do if you have friends or family members who are leaving the Church because of anti-Mormon attacks? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on February 3, 2013, Martin Tanner responds to this question and discusses many of the anti-Mormon attacks.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
When we talk about the problems of a “fundamentalist” approach to history, scriptures, and prophets, it’s important to define our terms in the context of this discussion. “Fundamentals” are certainly good things. They are the foundations of thought, theories, and structures. In the Gospel, the fundamental beliefs are the core doctrines—the belief in God and the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. Our fundamental beliefs include the knowledge that Heavenly Father communicates with us and His prophets, and that His power on earth—the priesthood—has the authority to bind us to each other and to the divine. Fundamentals are a necessary part of religion as well as science.
Fundamentalism vs. Fundamentalist
Etymology (the study of word origins, meanings, and changes) tells us that many words change meaning over time or when the word is modified. As some have noted with amusement, we “park” on a driveway but “drive” on a parkway. The words “fundamentalist” or “fundamentalism” take on completely different meanings just by adding three letters.
In current LDS language “fundamentalist” often refers to those off-shoot groups who practice plural marriage. Outside of Mormonism, the term may refer to zealous and dogmatic members of various religions or even foreign terrorists. It may also refer to dedicated believers who take a strict black and white approach to many of their beliefs.
Christian fundamentalists (which include many Latter-day Saints) generally believe (perhaps tacitly or unconsciously) that the Bible or other scriptures are inerrant (or near inerrant), that truth comes solely from spiritual sources (perhaps defined as prophets and/or scriptures), and that science and scholarship should conform to their beliefs and never the other way around.
Most of our Protestant brothers and sisters, for example, believe (at least from an institutional standpoint) in sola scripture. This doctrine teaches that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and that all other authorities which help govern Christian life, are subordinate to the Bible. If the Bible is the absolute authority on Christ’s teachings, then it should contain no errors.
Our Catholic brothers and sisters, on the other hand, include not only Sacred Scripture into their theology, but also Sacred Tradition (the transmission of truths from generation to generation as well as apostolic succession), and Sacred Magisterium (or the infallible teachings of the Pope). Some have described this approach like the legs of a tripod; all three components maintain balance and insure the purity of Christ’s original doctrines.
While the above briefly describes Protestant and Catholic teachings that are more complex than can be covered in this short column, it is interesting to note that although Latter-day Saints don’t officially accept inerrant or infallible prophets and scriptures, some members seem to respond to challenging issues as if we did. To avoid any ambiguity, I want to make this clear—LDS doctrine does not teach that scriptures or prophets are inerrant or infallible.
Mistaken Assumption of Infallibility
The mistaken assumption of infallibility is likely the by-product of unexamined traditions and a misunderstanding of authoritative comments. I spend more time on this topic in my book Shaken Faith Syndrome, but I wish to highlight a few quotes from leaders who have addressed this topic.
“I make no claim of infallibility,” said President Spencer W. Kimball.[1] “We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators,” said Elder James E. Faust. Elder George Q. Cannon taught, “the First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.”[2] “We respect and venerate” the prophet, said Elder Charles W. Penrose, but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”[3]
Some members have trouble accepting the fact that prophets have human weaknesses and can make mistakes. Prophets are not fax machines for the Word of God. Like all humans they must interpret and convey impressions through imperfect and incomplete human language and understanding. As Brigham Young once explained, there “isn’t a single revelation” given “that is perfect in its fulness.” God speaks “to us in a manner to meet our capacities.”[4]
Not every word spoken by a prophet should be considered scripture. In 2007 the Church posted the following on the LDS.org website:
“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency …and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles… counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture…, official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”[5]
Do Prophets Make Mistakes?
We must realize that prophets are just one of the many tools God utilizes in His plan to lead us back home. Prophets have the keys to the priesthood and can receive revelation and instruction for the entire Church. God’s ultimate plan, however, is thatwe, individually, come to Him through personal sacrifice, humility, obedience, and prayer, so that we may receive personal communication from on high.
President Uchtdorf recently quoted Brigham Young who once said:
“I am … afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates.”[6]
But, some will ask, aren’t we promised that the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead us astray? We could answer this question with another question: What kinds of things do we think the Lord reveals to the prophets? In D&C 18:18 we learn that the Holy Ghost will “manifest all things which are expedient unto the children of men.”
It is unlikely that the Lord would think it necessary and expedient to explain the shape of the earth, the properties of electrons, or the workings of the cardiovascular system to ancient prophets. Why would we think it necessary or expedient for the Lord to explain Book of Mormon geography, the physical properties of Noah’s flood, or the possibility of space travel to modern prophets?
Prophets receive revelation on guiding God’s children back home, divine instruction on how to make our lives happier, as well as divine warnings on those things that bring us misery. We recently received such revelatory instruction and warning in the last General Conference.
Sometimes, discourses on instruction and warning may include tangential topics for illustrative purposes that may reflect the opinions of the speaker. Opinions on such tangential topics may be correct or incorrect, but they generally would not have a bearing on the validity of any true points of doctrine central to the discourse.
Prophets and apostles—as mortal men—are not exempt from making errors. They are also entitled to their own opinions on areas where we have not received solid revelatory answers, and they are as free as all members to speculate on issues of history and science. The Lord assures us, however, that if we are living lives that allow the Holy Spirit to work within us and speak to us, if we are seeking God’s guidance through our actions, thoughts, and desires, if we pray always, accept Christ’s atonement and conform to His will, then we can receive our own revelation confirming those expedient teachings pertinent to our salvation.
Like all of us, prophets can simultaneously know divine truths and accept beliefs or traditions that are faulty or incomplete. If we can jettison any fundamentalist views of how we suppose revelation works, and if we are in tune with the Spirit, we can take comfort in knowing that even given the human nature of all of God’s children, no error of opinion will jeopardize our personal journey home to the Father.
Read the previous article in this series, “Even the Very Elect Can Be Deceived”
There’s a remarkable story circulating the Net in which a prominent LDS General Authority allegedly lost his faith due to the teachings of Grant Palmer, the controversial ex-Mormon author who was teaching seminary for years while secretly circulating some highly implausible theories of plagiarism of the Book of Mormon. This General Authority has come to Palmer with the statement, “We are here to learn” and continues to learn the ways of anti-Mormon truth in his regular meetings with Palmer as his guide. This General Authority allegedly has said that all of the Apostles and many other leaders know that the Church is not true but just don’t have the courage to do the right thing (like, oh, keeping their Church job for years while sharing anti-Mormon materials with others).
In mid-October 2012, a returned LDS Mission President contacted me to arrange a meeting. Several days later, he called again and said that a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy also wished to attend. He said the General Authority would attend on condition that I not name him or repeat any stories that would identify him. He explained that neither of them, including the GA’s wife, believed the founding claims of the restoration were true. He clarified that they had read my book, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, and had concluded that the LDS Church was not true; was not what it claimed to be….
We have at this writing met three times. We first met on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and again February 14, 2013 at my house. On March 26, 2013 we convened at the GAs house. Upon entering my home for the first meeting the GA said, “We are here to learn.” I recognized him. He has been a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for a number of years. He has served in several high profile assignments during this period. The following are the more important statements made by the GA during our first three meetings. We now meet monthly….
He said that it takes about two to three years before the new apostle discovers that the church is not true. He said it took Dieter F. Uchtdorf a little longer because he was an outsider. He said they privately talk among themselves and know the foundational claims of the restoration are not true, but continue on boldly “because the people need it,” meaning the people need the church. When the Mission President voiced skepticism and named ___ as one who surely did believe, The GA said: “No, he doesn’t.” …
When I asked the GA how he knew these things, he answered by saying that the Quorum of the Twelve today is more isolated from the Quorums of the Seventies now because there are several of them. When only one Quorum of the Seventy existed, there was more intimacy. During his one on one assignments with an apostle, conversations were more familiar. He said that none of the apostles ever said to him directly that they did not believe; but that it was his opinion based on “my interactions with them.” Also, that none of the Twelve want to discuss “truth issues,” meaning issues regarding the foundational claims of the church.
The GA stated that my disciplinary action (which would have occurred on the final Sunday of October 2010 had I not resigned), was mandated/ordered/approved by the First Presidency of the Church. I said that if the apostles know the church is not true and yet order a disciplinary hearing for my writing a book that is almost certainly true regarding the foundational claims of the church, then they are corrupt even evil. He replied, “That’s right!”
The GA said the church is like a weakened dam. At first you don’t see cracks on the face; nevertheless, things are happening behind the scenes. Eventually, small cracks appear, and then the dam will “explode.” When it does, he said, the members are going to be “shocked” and will need scholars/historians like me to educate them regarding the Mormon past.
The Mission President and the GA both said they attend church every Sunday and feel like “a hypocrite and trapped.” The GA said his ward treats him like a king and when he gives firesides and speaks to LDS congregations they have high expectations of him. He would like to do more in getting the truth out besides raising a few questions when speaking and gifting my book to others when feeling comfortable. Perhaps this is why he has reached out to me. The GA is a man of integrity and very loving. Upon leaving each time, he always gives me a big hug.
Grant Palmer is blowing smoke. He talks about a current member of the First Quorum of Seventy (FQS) who was familiar with how things worked when there was only one quorum of seventy. Number of current members of the FQS who were members when there was only one quorum: 0
Based on Palmer’s memorandum, certainly this mysterious GA would have been a GA before the area seventy quorums were called in April 1995, right? FQS members called before April 1995:
Carlos Amado (based in Central America)
Claudio Costa (based in Brazil)
John Dickson (based in West Africa)So which of these three GAs, based in far flung corners of the world, is meeting with Palmer on a monthly basis? And that’s before we even get to how on earth this GA would be able to discern it takes 2-3 years for a new apostle to discover the church is not true, but it took DFU a bit longer. It would be hilarious if he wasn’t serious.
Second Quorum of the Seventy formed
In 1984, some seventies were appointed to the First Quorum of the Seventy who were not to serve for life, but for terms of several years. In 1989, these limited-term members were separated into a new Second Quorum of the Seventy. At the same time, the general practice was instituted of retiring all members of the First Quorum at the October general conference following their 70th birthdays, or earlier in the case of serious health problems. Some flexibility on the terms of service has emerged in recent years.
Since 1989, members of the First and Second Quorums have continued as general authorities of the church. Sometimes members are called from the Second Quorum into the First Quorum.
Since the 1976 merger of First Quorum of the Seventy, seventies are the most usual candidates to become members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Since 1976, three have been called as apostles who did not serve as general authority seventies prior to their call, including Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, and David A. Bednar,[12]Nelson and Oaks were ordained apostles in 1984 under church president Spencer W. Kimball, and Bednar in 2004 under church president Gordon B. Hinckley.
Area seventies and additional quorums of seventy
At the April 1995 general conference of the church, church president Gordon B. Hinckley announced the creation of a new leadership position known as the area authority.[13] The area authorities were to replace the regional representatives who had served as bridge of leadership between the general authorities and the local stakeand mission presidents. In 1997, it was decided that area authorities would be ordained to the office of seventy. As a result, these area authorities were renamed area authority seventies, and the church announced that these new seventies would become members of the newly-created Third, Fourth, and Fifth Quorums of the Seventy.[14] Later, the title “area authority seventy” was shortened to area seventy, which is the title currently in use.
Area seventies serve in the various geographic regions of the world called areas in which the church is governed by area presidencies. An international area presidency is typically composed of members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy, while areas in the United States and Canada are directed by a member of the Presidency of the Seventy.[15]In 2004, the Fifth Quorum of the Seventy was divided to create the Sixth Quorum of the Seventy.[16]
So who is this mysterious General Authority who looks to a better Mormon future thanks to Palmer and his book (or rather, millions of copies of that soon-to-be best seller)? He had to be a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy back in the good ol’ days when life wasn’t so complicated with all those other quorums. 1989 is the key date, for that is when the Second Quorum was formed. So we just have to look at the list of current First Quorum members and eliminate all those who were ordained after roughly 1989, inclusive. Let’s see, that leaves, well, not exactly anybody. Nobody. So that’s looking like a problem. OK, I’m still going to give bonus points for very nice specific dates given for the meetings with the General Authority. That adds a nice granular feel of reality to the story. But the part about the good ol’ days of the First Quorum apparently adds a little too much granularity that can be checked to rule out–sigh–every candidate. That’s a step backward for the credibility of this story that so many are anxious to believe. But don’t give up yet.
One commenter elsewhere suggested that Jay E. Jensen could be a candidate, probably because he had been in the First Quourum of the Seventy and was serving in the Presidency of the Seventy when he was given emeritus status in October 2012. But as Wikipedia’s article on Jay E. Jensen explains, he was was “called to the Second Quorum of the Seventy in 1992 and transferred to the First Quorum of the Seventy in 1995.” That was after the other quorums were added so he would not have been reminiscing about his early intimate days in the First Quorum.
An apparent problem with these candidates is that they have been living and serving far away from Palmer’s territory of Utah. Carlos Amado is from Guatemala and has served and lived in various parts of Latin America. He was assigned as a counselor in the church’s Central America Area in 2011. Not likely to have been meeting with Grant Palmer in Salt Lake, nor to have invited Grant to his home (where, in Guatemala?). Claudio Costa was in the Idaho area for a while, but since 2011 has been assigned to Brazil. Not likely to have been having regular meetings recently with Palmer as his spiritual advisor in 2012.
So that leaves is with John B. Dickinson. I hope it’s not him. If it is, there are some curious details to consider. John is in the First Quorum now, but when he became a General Authority in 1992, he was called to the Second Quorum (same for the other two candidates considered here). It wasn’t until 1995 that he transferred to the First Quorum, and that’s when the other quorums were added, so it really doesn’t fit the story. Plus he’s been assigned to the Africa West Area since 2011. Seems hard to square his facts with the Palmer story.
The story from Palmer seems to imply an old-timer First Quorum member (not Second Quorum member who recently transferred to the First Quorum) who has a home in the Salt Lake City area and spends enough time there to meet several times with Palmer in 2012. Even if we generously reconstruct the story to cushion it with a few extra years after the time when the Second Quorum was added, I really don’t see that anybody in the current First Quorum could fit the very few details provided by Palmer. Even if we had scores of candidates to choose from, there are problems that could cause us to doubt its accuracy, but if we can’t even find a single candidate even with generous interpretations being applied, it would seem to raise legitimate grounds for putting this story on hold as potentially unreliable, pending further clarification. Grant, care to clarify? Give us a few clues? Am I missing something big and simple? Perhaps the next revision will make it more clear.
It is possible that some General Authority out there really is having testimony trouble and thinks Palmer and his book with its salamander-flavored Golden Pot tale offer unique insights into Mormonism that every Mormon should be taught one day. On the other hand, it’s also possible that the account, with no plausible candidate so far, is a tad delusional. A mean-spirited Mormon apologist might see a self-serving aspect to the story, with Palmer playing too grand a role and his questionable book being too powerful and important, all a potential red flag. I’d be more inclined to accept it if the story were promoting some other random book written by another insider to Mormonism such as, say, Conquering Innovation Fatigue. Hey, why not? That could shake a General Authority’s testimony as well as anything. Why, just the depressing chapter alone on Mormon inventor Philo Farnsworth could do the trick. No need to wait until the dam of truth bursts, either. But that’s another story.
Accurate or not, this story apparently from Palmer will increase publicity for his book and its claims. Here are some resources for you to better understand what Palmer has been up to:
