DiscussMormonism.com

Simon Belmont wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:
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.

Simon Belmont wrote:

Dan Vogel wrote:
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.

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.

Baker wrote:

why me wrote:Kind of like "Truth Restored" - talk about a deceptive title!

Dan Vogel wrote: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.

jon wrote:Simon, care to comment on the book's content as opposed to just the title...?

why me wrote:

jon wrote:Simon, care to comment on the book's content as opposed to just the title...?

History books can not escape the biasness of the author. Historians can have the same facts and yet, interpret them in different ways. Such is history. Why would simon be interested in Grant's viewpoint?

Dan Vogel wrote:Simon,

Yours is only one definition, and by the dictionary it is the third informal definition. More importantly, it’s not the one intended by the publisher or author. Why do you continue to use the fallacy of question-begging definition? Didn’t they teach you logic at the Y?


Palmer, according to his own definition, is a scholarly insider to current research on Mormon origins—which includes both interpretations and new sources of information—and outsiders are members of the church who (either through intellectual laziness or under the influence of church authorities) are unaware of what is known about Mormon origins.

Simon, it is you who misrepresents and misleads the public about Palmer’s book. You are using the wrong definition to level an ad hominem attack on Palmer.

Let me try this again: Albert Speer wrote a book entitled: Inside the Third Reich. He could have entitled the book: An Insiders View of the Origins of the Third Reich because he was an actual insider to the origins of the third reich. No problem.

Palmer was not an insider when Mormonism was founded. He came on the scene much later. :=) Regardless how much research he does, he is not an insider. The title is misleading. Likewise if any current historian of the third reich would have the title: An Insider's View of the Origins of the Third Reich they would be lying. The same may be said of Palmer. He was not an insider when Mormonism began.

The title was chosen as a sales means. Nothing more.