DiscussMormonism.com

It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

Dr. Shades wrote:It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

The author has no say in what his title should be?

The publisher could have suggested a title, but I highly doubt it was wholly up to them.

Also, I think the title is hilariously misleading: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins? To be an insider of Mormon Origins, you'd have to be over 200 years old.

Dr. Shades wrote:It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

I have no idea.

Nor do I think that the answer matters very much.

Whatever its origin, the title poses questions:

Is Grant Palmer really, relevantly, an "insider"?

An "insider" within the Church because of impressive service in CES?

An "insider" in Mormon historiographical circles because of notable scholarly attainments?

Moreover, does he have any particular claim on the trust of faithful Latter-day Saints because of his status as a "longterm LDS educator" (as the jacket blurb describes him)?

Dr. Shades wrote:It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

I recall that he said that (perhaps in his Mormon Stories or Mormon Expression interview). The people at Signature books wanted the title because ... drum roll ... they thought it would sell more books.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

I have no idea.

Nor do I think that the answer matters very much.

Whatever its origin, the title poses questions:

Is Grant Palmer really, relevantly, an "insider"?

An "insider" within the Church because of impressive service in CES?

An "insider" in Mormon historiographical circles because of notable scholarly attainments?

Moreover, does he have any particular claim on the trust of faithful Latter-day Saints because of his status as a "longterm LDS educator" (as the jacket blurb describes him)?

This is so dumb. It reminds of the debate Mormons have with evangelicals about whether they are "christians." In both cases, one side defines the term to exclude/include the other side. But when you don't have much else to attack (like in the case of Palmer's book), look for any little crack you can, shove a crowbar into it, and try to make it as wide as possible.

Simon Belmont wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

The author has no say in what his title should be?

The publisher could have suggested a title, but I highly doubt it was wholly up to them.

Also, I think the title is hilariously misleading: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins? To be an insider of Mormon Origins, you'd have to be over 200 years old.

The publisher came up with the title, and Palmer agreed to it.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:It's my understanding that Grant Palmer didn't choose that title for his book; his publishers chose it for him.

Does anyone deny that?

I have no idea.

Nor do I think that the answer matters very much.

Whatever its origin, the title poses questions:

Is Grant Palmer really, relevantly, an "insider"?

An "insider" within the Church because of impressive service in CES?

An "insider" in Mormon historiographical circles because of notable scholarly attainments?

Moreover, does he have any particular claim on the trust of faithful Latter-day Saints because of his status as a "longterm LDS educator" (as the jacket blurb describes him)?

He probably has a more relevant background to talk about church history than someone who is, say, an expert in Islamic studies.

Buffalo wrote:He probably has a more relevant background to talk about church history than someone who is, say, an expert in Islamic studies.

I agree. I would say any member who has been in the church for many years and especially if they grew up in the church could be viewed as an insider. In the end it is just an attack on Palmer because of what he wrote.

Themis wrote:I agree. I would say any member who has been in the church for many years and especially if they grew up in the church could be viewed as an insider. In the end it is just an attack on Palmer because of what he wrote.

Awesome.

Stay tuned for my new book:

An Mormon Insider's View of anti-Mormonism!

What credibility I'll have!

Simon Belmont wrote:

Themis wrote:I agree. I would say any member who has been in the church for many years and especially if they grew up in the church could be viewed as an insider. In the end it is just an attack on Palmer because of what he wrote.

Awesome.

Stay tuned for my new book:

An Mormon Insider's View of anti-Mormonism!

What credibility I'll have!

How long have you been an anti-Mormon?