Sethbag wrote:For example, he says he would never consider the Quinn and Compton works anti-mormon, and equivocated about Larson's book, whereas I think the overwhelming majority of the LDS membership would class all three authors' works into the "anti-Mormon" rubric.
So what? Remember, the Church is a large body of people with varied opinions.
What does this comment even mean in the context of the article in the New Era. Ok, so there's a lot of people in the church, and there are some varied opinions. How does this change that the church is attempting, via this article, to steer young LDS people toward avoiding material based on their feelings, and with the assumption that all such material is obviously false and that God is witnessing that to us via those negative feelings?
Ray, I don't want to argue with you back and forth about what you and I mean. I'd like to hear what you think about the article from the New Era.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote: I'd like to hear what you think about the article from the New Era.
I have never agreed with the concept that one should not read what critics of the Church are saying, but for some members I think this advice from the GA might be helpful. But we have Gaz here, and he hasn't lost his faith, so it doesn't apply to him. In the end, Seth, the fact is that every member has something called "agency". They can choose to adhere, or ignore what this leader is saying. When my local leaders asked me to seriously consider stopping reading "anti" literature (it was not a condition for anything, including entry to the temple), I said, sorry, but I will continue to read what I want, and I find this literature interesting, controversial, and most of all thought-provoking, and I think it's important to know these things. Signature books and its local outlet in Sydney made a small fortune out of me back in the 80s. I became friendly with the then owner, and asked him what his policy was in regard to this controversial literature, and he said that he would never prohibit members from reading what they want, and would order for me anything I wanted, but he didn't openly display these books in his store. Maybe it's different now, I don't know. I don't believe this is censorship, censorship is when you prohibit people from reading certain literature. The GA was giving advice. Counsel. And here's an irony - FARMS writers are probably the ones most acquainted with both controversial and anti-Mormon literature.
Polygamy Porter wrote:LOL look at the dumbass review, obviously left by a chapel Mormon:
That's not the point. The point is that the book is available in LDS bookstores, and reviewers are entitled to express their opinions, even if it sends you into an uncontrollable fit of anger.
Polygamy Porter wrote:Mormons and their self induced emotional epiphanies...
Well it's not grass or Polygamy Porter beer "inducing emotional epiphanies".
Polygamy Porter wrote:LOL look at the dumbass review, obviously left by a chapel Mormon:
That's not the point. The point is that the book is available in LDS bookstores, and reviewers are entitled to express their opinions, even if it sends you into an uncontrollable fit of anger.
Ask Dan about his theory as to why the lords bookstore was selling Grant Palmer's evil book, right up to mere days before his "court of luv"...
Polygamy Porter wrote:Ask Dan about his theory as to why the lords bookstore was selling Grant Palmer's evil book, right up to mere days before his "court of luv"...
Maybe you missed this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I don't know what else to say, really. I've said from the beginning that various people will understand different things under the term anti-Mormon. I can say it yet again, but I've already been repeating myself.
I'm not following some of the arguments. First, its that LDS bookstores don't sell "anti-Mormon"/controversial books, but when it's discovered that they do, the criticism shifts. What would you like? That LDS bookstores do, or do not sell anti-Mormon books?
My opinion from reading this thread is that Mormons are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It's a no-win situation.
Polygamy Porter wrote:Ask Dan about his theory as to why the lords bookstore was selling Grant Palmer's evil book, right up to mere days before his "court of luv"...
Maybe you missed this:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I don't know what else to say, really. I've said from the beginning that various people will understand different things under the term anti-Mormon. I can say it yet again, but I've already been repeating myself.
I'm not following some of the arguments. First, its that LDS bookstores don't sell "anti-Mormon"/controversial books, but when it's discovered that they do, the criticism shifts. What would you like? That LDS bookstores do, or do not sell anti-Mormon books?
I have never said they do not sell books considered by many to be "anti". I thought that it was odd how they did sell Palmer's book for nearly two years. But once word of his court of luv surfaced the books disappeared from the shelves... Yet many of the source books that Palmer cited or had the same sources as his book, remained in stock and some even on the shelves..
My opinion from reading this thread is that Mormons are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. It's a no-win situation.
That is the quandary that they have setup for themselves..
Polygamy Porter wrote:I have never said they do not sell books considered by many to be "anti". I thought that it was odd how they did sell Palmer's book for nearly two years. But once word of his court of luv surfaced the books disappeared from the shelves...
harmony wrote:How to know which is which? That's easy. If it's sold in a Deseret bookstore, it's okay. If not, beware.
I doubt that that is true for any serious Mormon reader. It certainly isn't the case in my neighborhood. Nor is it true of my extended family. Nor -- again with the proviso that we need to be talking about actual readers -- does it seem to accurately characterize the Latter-day Saints with whom I grew up in California, nor the Latter-day Saints I've met while traveling (in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Latin America). If you have evidence to support your claim, I would enjoy seeing it.
Perhaps someone has commented on this, I do come late to the discussion. . . but, isn't this a case of Anecdote 1 contradicting Anecdote 2?
We can only base our reality on the things we perceive. My experience is similar to Harmony's comment. All of my associates, while growing up, had the same experience. No one that I know personally has had your experience.
This is not me disagreeing with you or trying to prove your comment false. This is me making certain that everyone is aware exactly what was being presented and how little it means.
Well, can we just sum it up by saying that the New Era article would agree that "anti Mormon" literature one should avoid is literature that:
1 - contains controversial material that could be used to challenge LDS truth claims
2 - makes a believing Mormon feel bad
3 - could reasonably cause doubt
Does anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs of what constitutes "anti Mormon" literature, disagree that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the article?
I think the LDS leadership is currently experimenting with trying to be tolerant of information they formally would have disapproved of, like Compton's book. Remember that the authors of Mormon Enigma were not allowed to talk about their research or book in church meetings.
Personally, I think it's only the "LDS intelligentsia" - those I believe Daniel is calling a "serious reader" - of the LDS church that would view Quinn's book as NOT "anti Mormon". My father is a "serious reader" but he viewed Mormon Enigma, for example, as anti Mormon literature that should be avoided (and tried to get my then husband to "use his priesthood" to prevent me from continue reading anti Mormon literature). So by "serious reader", Daniel really means someone who seriously studies church history, and that is the population that, if they retain belief, forms the LDS intelligentsia. You know who they are - the people who think that regular members who haven't ferreted out facts like Joseph Smith married other men's wives on their own are lazy. Most believers who post on boards like Z, FAIR, or MAD, are LDS intelligentsia, even if they've never written a word. And perhaps because they avoid talking about these things at church, and talk openly about these things mainly to one another, their perceptive gets skewed on how the non-intelligentsia - you know, the lazy ones who haven't found out the controversies on their own - would interpret a caution like the one in the New Era article.
I don't think Quinn views his work as anti-mormon either, but I have very little doubt that the majority of LDS definitely would view it as anti-mormon. And it would be even more troubling to one's testimony than any silly Decker work, because it is so well documented that the reader is compelled to accept the controversial statements as fact.
This is what I've been trying to get across to Daniel. Which type of literature is more likely to cause a believer to doubt? Ed Decker's work or Michael Quinn's work?
So if the point of the caution about reading "anti Mormon" literature is to prevent members from reading information that could make them doubt, then which type of literature should really be avoided?
Based on my personal experience, if LDS leaders don't really mean to convey that members just shouldn't read material that has controversial claims that could make one doubt, they are doing a very, very bad job. The vast majority of LDS I knew/know personally believed that members should not read material with controversial claims that could make one doubt. Does anyone disagree with this statement?
As an aside - are there other religions aside from LDS that have an obsession with their members not doubting? The mainstream Christian churches I've had experience with don't manifest that obsession, and many view doubt as normal. So why is the LDS church so paranoid about doubt? I'm wondering if this is exclusive to "the only true" type of religions. If you doubt, you may end up burned for eternity or something. Or you may end up involuntarily divorced from your family for eternity. The longer I am outside Mormonism the stranger this particular facet appears. Is it because Mormonism is a high cost religion, in terms of time and money? If believers doubt, they may be less willing to invest so much.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.