Why are you repeating yourself without responding to what I have written?
The question is: what does the average john or jane think of the title? It matters very little what Palmer or signature thought when forming the title. It comes across as an actual insider writing the book and this is what the critics play upon. And I believe that this is simon's point. The word 'Insider' has been a key in selling the book, I believe.
And the book's contents? The contents can be judged on their own merits and biasnessas with your book or any book for that matter.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Baker wrote:Yes, of course, never read anything from any author that does not share your bias. Brilliant!
That is not the point. Most people in this day and age go toward books and sites that confirm their own bias. This is especially true with the Internet. We need the group hug experience as demonstrated on ex and postmo sites.
I believe that when taliban Mormons read critical books that paint a different picture from what they are used to, many do not put on their critical thinking glasses and they become wrapped up in the interpretation without attempting to see a different point of view of the facts presented. And thus, the problem.
We see examples of this on this site and post or exmo sites. Most post or ex sites will not allow members of the LDS church to refute the claims made in the ex or postmo posts. Why? Because they are not in the business of debate but of leading people out of the church with group hugs and agreement confirmations.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
And if I would have been on postmo and exmo sites discussing Palmer's book and if I would have given a different interpretation of the facts as presented on those sites that may have been more positive toward the LDS church, I would have been shown the door faster that ice cream melting in 100 degree weather.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Baker wrote:Yes, of course, never read anything from any author that does not share your bias. Brilliant!
We see examples of this on this site and post or exmo sites. Most post or ex sites will not allow members of the LDS church to refute the claims made in the ex or postmo posts. Why? Because they are not in the business of debate but of leading people out of the church with group hugs and agreement confirmations.
Why me, where do you get the most discussion and debate, here? Or at Church on Sunday? With the Missionaries and Home Teachers? Or with the people on this board?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
The question is: what does the average john or jane think of the title? It matters very little what Palmer or signature thought when forming the title.
And these average Joes are not exempt from being corrected the same as you. If these average Joes are members who are unaware of what has been discussed in scholarly circles about Mormon origins for the past thirty years and they think Palmer’s book is going to give them information not contained in their Sunday school manuals, then they are right. However, I think average Joes are smarter than you give them credit for.
It comes across as an actual insider writing the book and this is what the critics play upon. And I believe that this is simon's point. The word 'Insider' has been a key in selling the book, I believe.
Your criticism of the title comes across as contrived for apologetic purposes. The word “Insider” was used to draw attention to Palmer’s 35 years as an LDS educator, which IS the main attraction of the book. I don’t believe anyone has bought the book believing that it was written by a contemporary of Joseph Smith’s.
And the book's contents? The contents can be judged on their own merits and biasness as with your book or any book for that matter.
Bias has nothing to do with the soundness of the evidence and arguments.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not. Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
why me wrote:And if I would have been on postmo and exmo sites discussing Palmer's book and if I would have given a different interpretation of the facts as presented on those sites that may have been more positive toward the LDS church, I would have been shown the door faster that ice cream melting in 100 degree weather.
Living in AZ, I've bought ice cream in 100 degree weather, and it doesn't melt as fast as you would think. I better analogy would be "faster than Joseph Smith's pants hit the floor after marrying a plural wife." or "Faster than Joseph Smith's pants come up, when he hear's Emma outside the bedroom door."
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
LOL. Dark Helmet's little witticisms reflect such a marvelously inaccurate notion of Joseph Smith's plural marriages that they really must be celebrated.
One of the most striking things about a number of Joseph's plural marriages is precisely how dispassionate they were. No sign of lust whatever.
The marriage is performed in Joseph's office. He thanks the officiator, shakes hands with the bride, and, when they've left, returns to his desk.
A difficult thing to account for, given most anti-Mormon paradigms. So better left unmentioned.
***
It's amusing to behold, by the way, how my alleged obsession with Grant Palmer's (false and misleading) claim to "insider" status -- an obsession that led me to edit and publish five (5) reviews of his book that supposedly failed to deal with anything of substance in it -- has apparently continued to fuel this thread even though I haven't posted in it (until now) since the morning of Wednesday, 14 July.
Daniel Peterson wrote:One of the most striking things about a number of Joseph's plural marriages is precisely how dispassionate they were. No sign of lust whatever.
Are you saying Joseph was a poor lover?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Daniel Peterson wrote:One of the most striking things about a number of Joseph's plural marriages is precisely how dispassionate they were.
Almost like he was treating them like prostitutes instead of "wives" that he loved and desired...Im not sure why you think that statement would make anyone feel better about the way Joe treated his secret "wives"/concubines....
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
schreech wrote:Almost like he was treating them like prostitutes instead of "wives" that he loved and desired...I'm not sure why you think that statement would make anyone feel better about the way Joe treated his secret "wives"/concubines....
I don't think that it would be possible, even in theory, to miss the point more completely than you (at least pretend to) have missed it.
Bravo!
And the "Joe" certainly bespeaks your intellectual seriousness. Dialoguing with you would, obviously, be a very valuable use of my time. Unfortunately, though, I've got to . . . chew some gum. Yes. That's it. I'm too busy. Dang.