A number of books produced by the publisher related to Mormon history have been considered controversial. Some authors view this as "quality liberal thinking on controversial LDS topics."[2] Terryl Givens states that the publisher is "the main vehicle for publications that challenge the borders of Mormon orthodoxy."[3]
Signature Books is sometimes at odds with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), an organization of Mormon scholars and apologists which promotes orthodox Mormon historical scholarship. Author Simon Southerton referred to Signature Books as "a perennial thorn in the side of FARMS."[4] One example was Signature Book's publication of Grant H. Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. The publication of this book immediately resulted in five negative book reviews by FARMS.[5]
So it sounds like Signature Books is on the up and up.
As all memories are over time. I do remember what I took away from having read the book. The clip of another reader encapsulated that quite well.
We’re going in circles. Careful, we might lose huck (probably did a long time ago).
You apparently have a concern with the content of my feelings and conclusion after having read the book. You haven’t made one comment on the content. As I said before, you’re jumping up and down and side to side but you’re not addressing the content of what I’m saying.
It blows your mind. You can’t accept it.
Like I said, blows your mind. You are one of those “traditionalists”.
Regards,
MG
I read the book some time ago, this review seems to fit what I thought about it at that point…
This is exactly why people who aren't fluent in Hebrew and Greek should not be writing scholarly books on Hebrew and Greek texts. As a Latter-Day Saint who is currently in the process of applying to graduate school in a related field, I was intrigued at the concept of This is My Doctrine. Having finished it, I am disappointed in its execution for a multiplicity of reasons.
First, Harrell's heavy reliance on secondary literature was infuriating in almost every chapter. He took nuanced subjects such as the Adam-God doctrine and Asherah as Yhwh's consort, and stated an opinion as fact. Having spent a little time reading the dialog behind the latter subject, I knew that there is scant evidence for Harrell's argument, which was slightly infuriating. This kind of shoddy scholarship characterized the book. The work really would have benefited had Harrell hired an undergrad fact checker.
I also felt that Harrell often left his readers hanging. While the development of Mormon theology is a difficult subject to confront, conclusions are necessary. There weren't any. At the end of every chapter, let alone the book, I felt as though I was left with information on the development of doctrines, but I was left to sort it out for myself. Aren't conclusions the point of writing?
The book is also a highly sensationalist piece. While it had useful information that needs to be addressed, it also popularized material that should have been more carefully crafted into something that isn't laughable.
On a positive note, I personally feel that this is a topic that should be addressed. It's incredibly interesting to piece together the different stages of doctrine's evolution. This is particularly true when we're looking at how other 19th century denominations viewed things like Satan and the pre-existence. It gives the birth of the Mormon church a background, where I think we sometimes treat it as if it took place within a cultural vacuum. In the end, had the book been more carefully researched, it would have been a blessing to the scholarly community.
Some food for thought. IHQ, as I said on another thread I’ve been actively involved for a good part of the day yesterday and so far today on this board. I need to step away for now. I’ve enjoyed the ‘back and forth’ with you and am happy to let you continue the conversation with whoever wants to participate.
I think we can both feel good about presenting our own point of view.
As per typical, it appears MG still gets off cluttering up threads by shitposting and then accusing others of shitposting when they call him out on it. How very glad I am for the “ignore” feature on this board.
Some food for thought. IHQ, as I said on another thread I’ve been actively involved for a good part of the day yesterday and so far today on this board. I need to step away for now. I’ve enjoyed the ‘back and forth’ with you and am happy to let you continue the conversation with whoever wants to participate.
I think we can both feel good about presenting our own point of view.
I need to take a breather.
Good day!
Regards,
MG
Your self awareness seems to have gone the same way as your marbles.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
As per typical, it appears MG still gets off cluttering up threads by shitposting and then accusing others of shitposting when they call him out on it. How very glad I am for the “ignore” feature on this board.
Trite but true.
Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then craps all over the board.
Some food for thought. IHQ, as I said on another thread I’ve been actively involved for a good part of the day yesterday and so far today on this board. I need to step away for now. I’ve enjoyed the ‘back and forth’ with you and am happy to let you continue the conversation with whoever wants to participate.
I think we can both feel good about presenting our own point of view.
I need to take a breather.
Good day!
Regards,
MG
Your self awareness seems to have gone the same way as your marbles.
I feel fairly confident in my self awareness. Enough to know that I have weaknesses. I do know that I feel confident in presenting my own point of view. As much as I suppose that you do.
And when I need to take a breather from seeing that we’re dancing in circles, I will do so.
As per typical, it appears MG still gets off cluttering up threads by shitposting and then accusing others of shitposting when they call him out on it. How very glad I am for the “ignore” feature on this board.
Trite but true.
Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then craps all over the board.
As per typical, it appears MG still gets off cluttering up threads by shitposting and then accusing others of shitposting when they call him out on it. How very glad I am for the “ignore” feature on this board.
Trite but true.
Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then craps all over the board.
