I just completed Grant H Palmer’s book, An Insider’s View to Mormon Origins. Grant H Palmer has been an institute directed for years and has a pedigree that makes one think he should know what he is talking about. I ordered his book and Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Bushman at the same time hoping to read them simultaneously; Rough Stone Rolling never came, meaning this one got my whole attention. I usually leave book reviews to more literary minded folks but have not seen one on this book that speaks of what I saw, so I will attempt my first even book review (not counting book reports done in grade school).
I first came across this book on a website that gave it a shining review, the website also had an .mp3 download of an interview with the author on a Salt Lake City radio station. The interview sounded all well and good, and then he said something that really struck a chord with me. He said he wished mormon Sacrament Meetings would focus more on Jesus and less on other topics. Anyone who knows me knows this is a big beef I have. I decided I would buy and read his book.
He says in the introduction that the chronological and spiritual sequence of events depicting the formation of the church did not happen the way we have been told, I do not doubt this, but I think his account may be just as flawed as the official story he is trying to disprove. Even I could see this being a fairly uneducated reader. Someone more educated than I would easily see the shortcomings without having to look very hard. In short, here is the premise of the book: Joseph Smith was an incredibly clever man whose main desire was to save peoples souls, he made up the whole thing to help people come to Christ. Granted there is a bit more to it than that, but you get the idea. I believe his whole approach is incorrect and therefore he can never quite build a valid argument throughout the whole book. He spends large portions of the book disproving mormon culture with current scientific thought. This was very disappointing to me as one could disprove almost all mormon culture with no scientific help at all. The interesting part, however, is a lot of the scientific culture that has produced the evidence he cites is just as flawed as the mormon culture he is trying to disprove. It makes for an interesting concept, and one he did not intend, but also one that is hard to take seriously.
Here are a few examples of points in the book that need to be reexamined.
He mentions there is no scientific evidence that Egyptians were ever on this continent. A brief Google search where one puts in the search terms “Grand Canyon” and “Egyptian” turns up enough results not to disprove this, but shed enough reasonable doubt to make the argument invalid.
He mentions that it is “accepted” in the scientific community that the people who populated this continent walked across the Bearing Strait and worked their way down. Yes, at one time this was the prevailing theory but it has since begun to fall under the weight of continuing research. The main reason it is still the prevalent theory is because a man named Michael D Coe refuses to believe otherwise. This same Mr. Coe happens to be the author of the majority of textbooks used in our institutions of higher learning on the subject. The challenging theory now is that though there were migrants who came across the Bearing Strait, they did not stray much beyond what is today British Columbia, Canada. The majority of the emigrants who peopled this continent came from maritime migrations.
He mentions that the Book of Mormon “assumes” it is the sole source of people on the continent. He cites the oft-quoted statement from the introduction on the 1981 edition that claims the Nephites and Lamanites were the “principle ancestors” of the Native Americans. I do not agree with his assertion that just because the Book of Mormon does not specifically mention other civilizations means it assumes it is the only one. I also do not see how a statement written in 1981 (and now removed in some editions) could have anything to do with mormon origins, if anything, it shows the flaws in mormon culture.
He speaks of Newtonian physics as compared to Einstein physics and how it ties in with Joseph Smith's view of the universe. The whole time the reader can't help but think Palmer is retelling something he was told that helps his theory, not necessarily something that Palmer himself even understands.
The rest of the book is about the same, though there are tidbits of interesting data and history, and he does make a couple good points, sifting through the questionable evidence surrounded by opinionated dialogue and personal conclusions makes it a laborsome read and not one I would recommend.
