The LDS Church has every right to control the speech of its adherents. Parallels to the Roman Catholic Church's discipline of Galileo or Henry VIII's treatment of Sir Thomas More are completely unwarranted, since Brother Palmer is not threatened with jail or beheading. Further, Galileo and Sir Thomas More are generally believed to have exercised their speech in good conscience, stating opinions based on reasoned scholarship rather than a desire to attack their church.
Grant Palmer only claims to have acted in good conscience by presenting publicly available historical documents. This cannot be determined by reading his book, but only by discerning his motives through established disciplinary procedures. As an active LDS member, I hope the media will resist the temptation to treat this case as common censorship or restriction of intellectual freedom.
After all, wouldn't it be better if we all just thought alike instead of stirring up trouble? No good will come of it.
Salt Lake City