An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_why me]

I"m going to chime in here and say, I think its been well argued that the critique that Palmer's book has a misleading title is a poor ineffective critique. I have every reason to wish it was a deceptive title, but I don't see the reason for making a fuss over it. When I first saw it years ago, I did not think it was a deceptive title. Can't this stupid point die?

Because it sells more books and gives the wrong impression. Thus, it is misleading. But of course, if the title sells more books, it is good for Palmer and the publisher. And just look at the play it has had on exmormon boards because of the title and its effect on the discussion.

[_Baker]

I"m going to chime in here and say, I think its been well argued that the critique that Palmer's book has a misleading title is a poor ineffective critique. I have every reason to wish it was a deceptive title, but I don't see the reason for making a fuss over it. When I first saw it years ago, I did not think it was a deceptive title. Can't this stupid point die?

Because it sells more books and gives the wrong impression. Thus, it is misleading. But of course, if the title sells more books, it is good for Palmer and the publisher. And just look at the play it has had on exmormon boards because of the title and its effect on the discussion.

Kind of like "Truth Restored" - talk about a deceptive title!

[_why me]

So we can agree that Speer was an actual insider to the third reich and could have very well entitled his book: An Insider's View of the Third Reich. But Kershaw who is a scholar on Nazi Germany and who just wrote a very successful biography of Hitler could not use such a title based solely on his knowledge of current research.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Hit ... -N10gyoFwC

[_why me]

Kind of like "Truth Restored" - talk about a deceptive title!

That is different. Don't change the goal posts. I think that I have just proven my point very well. Truth Restored would be an opinion. But is it fact? Who knows. We just need to wait until death to find out.

[_why me]

Now Palmer may be could have gotten away with the title: An Insider's View of the Mormon Church. No problem. However even here it would be a little misleading. However, Thomas S. Monson could certainly write a book with such a title. But even he could not give his book the title: The Insider's View of Mormon Origins.

[_schreech]

Kind of like "Truth Restored" - talk about a deceptive title!

How about the title "Mormon doctrine" which, apparently, is not at all doctrinal...these defenders crack me up...

[_stemelbow]

Because it sells more books and gives the wrong impression. Thus, it is misleading. But of course, if the title sells more books, it is good for Palmer and the publisher. And just look at the play it has had on exmormon boards because of the title and its effect on the discussion.

Well its not like its on the best sellers list. If it was to deceive and sell more books it didn't seem to work, right? I mean how many more books were sold because the title said "insider"? We woudln't know. Its just a silly critique, if you ask me.

[_Dan Vogel]

Why Me,

I can understand just where simon is coming from. Palmer can not be an insider because he wasn't there when Mormonism began. Now Cowdery can be an insider and lets face it, if he would have written a book after Joseph Smith was murdered with the same title, all concerned at that time would have read the book and none of us would be LDS since the LDS church would have collasped, espeically if it were an expose of the orgins. The LDS church would not have survived such a book.

But Palmer is not Cowdery. The most that we can get from him based on current research is his own interpretation of Mormonism's orgins. Thus, technically he is not an insider. Now as I understand it, he had a different name for the book but it was the publisher who believed that the name change would give the book an extra kick.

We all understand where Simon is coming from—and now you! The problem is that the complaint is contrived for the purpose of unfairly diminishing the effect of Palmer’s book without bothering to discuss its contents. That’s both an illogical and dishonest apologetic move.

You are joining with Simon in insisting that there can only be one definition of insider, and then in circular fashion defending your definition despite the fact that Palmer or his publisher didn’t use the same definition. Again, that’s both illogical and dishonest.

Signature had every right to try and increase sales by emphasizing Palmer’s 35 years as a church educator—after all they are in business to sell books. There was nothing dishonest about that.

[_Simon Belmont]

You mean the definitions that have already been cited, and which stand in rather embarrassing contrast to your assertions on this thread?

Well, Insider means someone with knowledge that "outsiders" don't necessarily have. Anyone you ask will tell you the same thing. I don't really see how this definition could be confused.

Look: we're all proud of your recent graduation from the U. It doesn't mean you have any expertise vis-à-vis linguistics or exegesis, though (i.e., don't give up your day job at the Salt Palace). But you're flat-out wrong on this. It's time to admit defeat, Simon.

Uh huh, well you just keep finding random people on the Internet to try to pin one of them on me, if that's important to you. I'm glad you've found a hobby that you enjoy.

But for all interested readers: as I've said before, I live (admittedly renting) in CT, my parents live in Provo (I grew up there, too). I do visit Utah a couple of times per year so I still have a connection to the state and enjoy it very much. I love the landscape, the community feeling, and the outdoor activities that are available there. I don't know who the latest person Scratch is trying to pin on me is, but it doesn't really matter I guess.

[_Simon Belmont]

Signature had every right to try and increase sales by emphasizing Palmer’s 35 years as a church educator—after all they are in business to sell books. There was nothing dishonest about that.

That's fine. I didn't say they didn't. I said the title is misleading, dishonest, and wrong.

It is.

But it helps the book make money. That's fine.