Golden Pot theory of Book of Mormon authorship

Criticism

Former LDS Institute teacher Grant Palmer argues that Joseph Smith developed his story of visits by Moroni and the translation of a sacred book from The Golden Pot, a book by German author E.T.A. Hoffmann.

Source(s) of the Criticism

  • Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), chapter 5.

Response

Grant Palmer was a teacher in the Church educational system. He began circulating the manuscript that was later published as "An Insider's View" more than twenty years ago, while an employee of the Church Educational System.

In 1985 a Hofmann forgery known as the Salamander letter became public. Louis Midgley has shown how this letter affected Palmer's faith. When Palmer became aware of the book The Golden Pot, he saw parallels between the Salamander letter and the fictional story. Palmer saw in this connection a secular explanation for the origins of Mormonism.

When the true nature of the Salamander letter as a forgery became known, Palmer was apparently unwilling or unable to rethink his position and thereby remained bereft of faith. He apparently began writing his book during this time, as in 1987 Midgley came into possession of an early draft. Palmer first used the name Paul Pry, Jr., a pseudonym also used by an early anti-Mormon writer active in the 1800s. Midgley indicated that "[b]y hiding behind the name Paul Pry, Palmer signaled his anti-Mormon agenda in the first draft of his book."[1]

The evidence indicates Palmer turned from his faith based on a Mark Hofmann forgery and E.T.A. Hoffman's fairy tale, and then wrote this book to justify his new found disbelief. Despite his lack of faith in the Church's foundational events, Palmer continued to portray himself as a believer, in order to maintain his employment with the Church. However, Palmer did wish to publish his book; he simply waited until he retired with Church pension intact.

Palmer's supporters have argued that there is nothing wrong with Palmer deceiving Church leaders and members about his convictions and beliefs, while being paid with Church funds to teach Church doctrine to its youth in the CES. Palmer's supporters on this point should consider that non-LDS thinkers clearly understand the ethical and moral problem here, even if Palmer doesn't:

It [the clergy's] duty to to fix the lines (of doctrine) clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other.[2]

Conclusion

Palmer's conclusion has not been found credible by anyone else, including other anti-Mormon writers. His theory is based on a forgery from twenty years before his book's publication, and he remained wedded to it despite this. His inability to jetison a pet theory does not speak highly of his historical skills, or in his intellectual rigor. His decision to hide his hostile work until he could retire with a pension paid from the tithing funds of the Church belies his claimed commitment to honesty and 'telling the whole truth.'

Endnotes

  1. [note] Louis Midgley, "Prying into Palmer," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 (2003): 408.*
  2. [note]  C.S. Lewis, "Christian Apologetics," Easter 1945; reprinted in God in the Dock, (edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970 [1945], 89–90).

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Template:BofM authorship theories

FAIR web site

  • Reviews of Grant Palmer and An Insider's View of Mormon Origins

External links

  • James B. Allen, "Asked and Answered: A Response to Grant H. Palmer (Review of An Insiders View of Mormon Origins," FARMS Review of Books 16/1 (2004): 235–286.*
  • E.T.A. Hoffmann, The Golden Flower Pot, online text at blackmask.com (accessed 5 October 2005).
  • Jeff Lindsay, "Plagiarism in the Book of Mormon: Is It Derived from Modern Writings?, jefflindsay.com (accessed 5 October 2005).
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction]: Of 'Galileo Events,' Hype, and Suppression: Or, Abusing Science and Its History," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii.*
  • Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A One-sided View of Mormon Origins," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 ({{{date}}}): 309–364.*
  • Davis Bitton, "The Charge of a Man with a Broken Lance (But Look What He Doesn't Tell Us)," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 (2003): 257–272.*
  • Steven C. Harper, "Trustworthy History?," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 (2003): 273–308.*
  • Louis Midgley, "Prying into Palmer," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 ({{{date}}}): 365–410.*
  • Group, "Statement from the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History on Grant Palmer's work," FARMS Review of Books 15/2 ({{{date}}}): 255–256.*


Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Golden_Pot_theory_of_Book_of_Mormon_authorship&oldid=3390"