Charity = responsibility?

[_Chap]

I could put it another way, too. In reviewing books critical of Mormonism, which should come first? The need for charity? "Bless this book." Or the need for a critical review? Should "charity" come first, here? Shut down the MI, and send them all off to a retreat where they learn "charity first"?

Here's an idea: give the book a critical review, but stick to the book and leave the personality and spirituality of the person who wrote the book (as well as other impertinent and prejudicial details) out of it.

It seems like a reasonable and wise course of action to me.

I think the principle of maximum charity has to be applied here: some of the people under discussion really have no idea what an academic book review is supposed to be like, and have only seen the kind of stuff that gets called a 'review' on Amazon. There is a particular professional discipline to be learned here, that I have seen quite well summed up as follows:

...the contents of the book as a whole are accurately and fairly described; the purpose of the book and the qualifications of the authors are outlined; and the book is placed into a scholarly literature.

The first purpose - that of ensuring that "the contents of the book as a whole are accurately and fairly described" must be dominant in any review. But the second purpose, to ensure "the purpose of the book and the qualifications of the authors are outlined;" would allow for some discussion of Meldrum himself: it would be reasonable to note whether or not he had any academic training in the areas he discusses (but probably not to suggest that he is an apostate pawn of Satan), and it would be reasonable to ask what purpose the author is trying to achieve by writing the book - and if the answer is thought to be 'to enrich himself by persuading people to go on fee-paying tours run by him', then one might present one's reasons for so thinking. But it would be probably not be a sign of a good review if the writer did not allow for any intellectual motivation as well, and a poor editor who published such a simplistic review.

[_Kishkumen]

There is a particular professional discipline to be learned here, that I have seen quite well summed up as follows:

...the contents of the book as a whole are accurately and fairly described; the purpose of the book and the qualifications of the authors are outlined; and the book is placed into a scholarly literature.

The first purpose - that of ensuring that "the contents of the book as a whole are accurately and fairly described" must be dominant in any review. But the second purpose, to ensure "the purpose of the book and the qualifications of the authors are outlined;" would allow for some discussion of Meldrum himself: it would be reasonable to note whether or not he had any academic training in the areas he discusses (but probably not to suggest that he is an apostate pawn of Satan), and it would be reasonable to ask what purpose the author is trying to achieve by writing the book - and if the answer is thought to be 'to enrich himself by persuading people to go on fee-paying tours run by him', then one might present one's reasons for so thinking. But it would be probably not be a sign of a good review if the writer did not allow for any intellectual motivation as well, and a poor editor who published such a simplistic review.

This is a topic that deserves its own thread.