An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_Hades]

Dan Vogel,

I appreciate your candor.

[_why me]

Palmer knew that the title was misleading. But he did nothing about it. And not we have exmormons referring to that book as if an insider wrote it. And that is misleading.

I suspect Palmer's definition of "insider" is different from yours, why me. And if that is so, then he wasn't being misleading at all.

It wasn't Palmer's original title. He had a different title of the book. It was the publisher's idea to give it that title. Of course, signature books had a reason for doing so if true. Much better for the critics to buy the book with the Insider included in the title.

[_Andy]

Buffalo,

I think the first paragraph above is my answer. They don't have to have an excuse for not subjectively meeting your tastes. They objectively fall in line with other scholarly publications found within their genre as I listed.

best, mikwut

No, they don't. Apologetics is not a scholarly endeavor, no matter who is doing it - especially when you try to mix apologetics with history. No credible historian can be an apologist.

Farms is the Mormon equivalent of the Discovery Institute.

AMEN AND AMEN

[_LDSToronto]

Grant Palmer had no access to exclusive information, and Grant Palmer was not a member of any relevant specific group.

I'm a member of the National Geographic Society. But if, based on that, I claimed to have "insider" knowledge about the origin and inner workings of the Society, I would be misleading my audience.

it seems petty, to me, that people here won't admit the obvious: The title of the book was misleading hype.

When I first saw this book for sale (I can't recall where), I did not take it seriously because of it's title. I felt the same as Daniel - the title of the book is misleading, because honestly, what is a 'Mormon Insider' and who can really claim that title, beyond a select few?

Then I heard a few people talk about the book, and how it was a good summary of some of the main critical arguments found in apologetics. While this didn't sway me completely, it did soften my view a bit.

However, once I heard Grant Palmer interviewed on Mormon Expressions, I immediately bought the book. While it's not perfect, it is an easily digestible entry point regarding some of the common arguments found in the great debate. The book is not an end point, nor is it an in-depth survey of all points. But it does allow one to enter the pool without drowning.

The title of the book was initially a barrier to entry, but once I was able to get past that, I did find the book useful.

H.

[_Tarski]

I'm curious as to why Palmer's work within the CES disqualifies him as a Church "insider."

It doesn't.

He is a church insider.

He is not an insider of Mormon origins.

He is an insider w.r.t Mormonism and he has a view of it's origins. No one has tried to attack the title by pretending they don't know what is meant except you. Why are you being obtuse?

[_Simon Belmont]

He is an insider w.r.t Mormonism and he has a view of it's origins. No one has tried to attack the title by pretending they don't know what is meant except you. Why are you being obtuse?

That's fine, Tarski, and Palmer is as much an insider of Mormonism as I am.

The title should have been "A Mormon Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

As it stands "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" indicates that Palmer is an insider with regard to Mormon origins. If the title had been "An Insider's View of Mormonism" that would be acceptable, since Grant Palmer is an insider of Mormonism and can therefore have an insider's view. If the title had been "Grant Palmer's View of Mormon Origins" that would be fine, because Grant Palmer, like anyone else, can have a view of Mormon origins. That does not make them an insider to the events of the 1820s-30s.

[_Themis]

He is an insider w.r.t Mormonism and he has a view of it's origins. No one has tried to attack the title by pretending they don't know what is meant except you. Why are you being obtuse?

And he continues with this stupidity. LOL

[_Simon Belmont]

And he continues with this stupidity. LOL

Let me put this in perspective:

Would I be telling the truth if I wrote a book entitled:

"An Insider's View of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence?"

I am an American, after all.

[_Themis]

Let me put this in perspective:

Would I be telling the truth if I wrote a book entitled:

"An Insider's View of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence?"

I am an American, after all.

Sure you could be telling the truth. I would have to decide in what way you are using insider, but one thing for sure is I would not think you had to be living back then in order to have a view on the subject.

[_Buffalo]

He is an insider w.r.t Mormonism and he has a view of it's origins. No one has tried to attack the title by pretending they don't know what is meant except you. Why are you being obtuse?

That's fine, Tarski, and Palmer is as much an insider of Mormonism as I am.

The title should have been "A Mormon Insider's View of Mormon Origins."

As it stands "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" indicates that Palmer is an insider with regard to Mormon origins. If the title had been "An Insider's View of Mormonism" that would be acceptable, since Grant Palmer is an insider of Mormonism and can therefore have an insider's view. If the title had been "Grant Palmer's View of Mormon Origins" that would be fine, because Grant Palmer, like anyone else, can have a view of Mormon origins. That does not make them an insider to the events of the 1820s-30s.

Have you tried Hooked On Phonics?