Dealing with Anti-Mormon Literature, p. 14

[_Daniel Peterson]

So not even the Tanners count as "anti-mormon" literature now?

Did I say that?

No.

I didn't say it.

If I had wanted to say it, I would have said it.

But I didn't say it.

Don't waste my time.

Of course the brethren consider the Tanners "anti Mormon". You know they do.

I assume they do.

I didn't say that they didn't.

I believe their claims are far more troubling than the wild Decker claims you cite above.

I agree.

I didn't cite Decker's lunacy because I find it "troubling." The request was for a specimen of anti-Mormon notions that aren't found in serious scholars, even critical ones.

Their claims are usually factually based,

At least in some sense, yes.

So whether or not Tanner was a scholar with what he did with the material, he presented an abundance of historical material.

That was the "strength" to which I referred.

[_beastie]

Daniel,

Would it be too much to ask for you to remember the context of this conversation? It's a waste of MY time when you do not remember to place my comments to you in the context of this thread.

Your response to the clear evidence that church leaders discourage members from reading "anti Mormon" literature was to insist on separating "anti Mormon" literature from "controversial" literature. So, given the context of this entire thread, for you to insist there is no taboo against reading the Tanners seems to imply that they are not "anti Mormon" literature. If they are, then there is a taboo against reading them, whether or not you, or any other member, agrees with that taboo.

Just what literature do you think the brethren have in mind when they caution members not to read "anti Mormon" literature? You have seemed to insist it would not be Quinn or Compton, but this makes little sense to me. Members would be far more inclined to doubt after reading the careful, scholarly work of these authors than after reading the work of Ed Decker, whom you cited as an example. If the point behind not reading "anti Mormon" literature is to not encourage doubt, then Ed Decker is hardly a good representative, because his wild claims are laughable to anyone who has been active LDS.

The question is whose work is more prone to cause doubt?

[_silentkid]

That's just as twisted.

Explain.

Responding to critics is just a small part of what FARMS does. And FARMS is only a part of the Maxwell Institute. The Middle Eastern Texts Initiative and the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, the other two principal components of the Maxwell Institute, don't respond to critics nor even deal with Mormonism at all.

That's great. It's also not pertinent to this discussion.

I doubt that very many members of the Church will ever "need" to read Suhrawardi's The Philosophy of Illumination or to consult a CD of Syriac manuscripts from the Vatican Apostolic Library. But I think that even those who don't give a fig for the Tanners might still find Royal Skousen's critical edition of the Book of Mormon text fascinating, and I can't believe that reading Ed Decker is a prerequisite to appreciating our recent volume on Oliver Cowdery.

I doubt that the majority of members even know these works exist. Why is that? As for the rest of your post...please, try to stay on topic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

for you to insist there is no taboo against reading the Tanners seems to imply that they are not "anti Mormon" literature.

No it doesn't.

Do you know what a taboo is?

I do. If I felt there were a taboo against reading the Tanners, I would say so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's great. It's also not pertinent to this discussion.

Then you shouldn't have made a misleading assertion about it.

I'm getting bored.

[Guest]

There's no "taboo" on reading the Tanners. I can see one of their books from where I'm typing right now.

But this thread isn't about you, although it might seem that way. Would the New Era article be interpreted as discouraging the reading of Tanner publications or not?

Oh, he's just saying that in the hope there are some little followers lurking around who will be impressed .
Are you referring to me, Lucretia? If so, could you please explain what on earth you're talking about?

hahahahaha

[Guest]

That's great. It's also not pertinent to this discussion.

Then you shouldn't have made a misleading assertion about it.

What are you talking about??? Misleading assertion??? I presented an example about a member's view (my sister) of what constitutes anti-mormon literature. I presented a reason why she wouldn't even read material that dealt with criticisms of Mormonism, even if that material is not "anti-mormon" in nature. Both of these points relate to the OP. You may not agree with them. That's fine. I'm sorry I didn't include every facet of the meaningful work that FARMS and the Maxwell Institute is involved in. I didn't feel that was pertinent to this discussion. FYI...I explained to my sister that your comments about the translation process on the PBS special were not anti-mormon, and that you were one of the pre-eminent scholars of Mormonism (maybe an exaggeration, correct me if I mis-spoke). I've been trying to get her to read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling to no avail.

[_beastie]

You're playing semantics, Daniel.

Here's the definition of taboo:

proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable: taboo words.

So you're saying this definition doesn't fit in this case? LDS leaders are identifying the reading of anti-mormon literature as improper or unacceptable.

Members are strongly cautioned against reading anti-mormon material. The Tanners produce anti Mormon material. Hence, members are strongly cautioned against reading the work of the Tanners.

Aside from your semantic footsies, we agree on that point.

Where we disagree is whether or not church leaders would strongly caution members against reading the works of Quinn.

Which material would be more inclined to provoke doubt? Ed Decker's or Mike Quinn's?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Peterson's favorite ways of dealing with the issues:

1. Say something out of context
2. Twist someone's words
3. Make a dumb joke
4. Get all blissed out

Did I miss anything?

[_harmony]

1. the type of folks you meet in your travels would seem likely to be the same sort of folk you are: educated, erudite, upper middle to upper socio-economic class. They're likely not the average Mormon.

Evidence, please?

My travels have typically taken me to ordinary wards in ordinary stakes in Los Angeles and Centerville and Perth and Hong Kong and Zürich and St. Louis and London and Taipei and Charlotte.

That sort of travelogue sounds pretty exotic to someone whose never been more than 300 miles from home, Daniel. Especially the foreign places. Somehow, I think you just don't typify the average Mormon.

Of course, as I said, we have to be talking about serious readers. If you want to argue, based on your impression of Mormon wheat farmers and plumbers, that Mormons don't read Nietzsche and Kant, I respond that non-Mormon wheat farmers and plumbers don't tend to read Nietzsche and Kant, either. Neither LDS nor non-LDS residents of the slums of Lima devote much attention to Bertrand Russell.

You're changing the parameters of the OP. We're talking average Mormons, not what you'd call "serious readers". Just your average member, reading in his Ensign or his teenager's New Era about avoiding anti-Mormon books. So what your "serious reader" Mormons or non-Mormons read isn't quite the same thing as what the average Mormon reads.

2. the folks in your neighborhood are likely to also be educated, upper middle to upper socio-economic class. Again, not the average Mormon.

That's true about my neighborhood. And their reading habits are just about what I would predict for non-Mormons of comparable socio-economic class. They don't actually read much on Mormonism, whether from Deseret Book or anywhere else. But they've all read The DaVinci Code, Angels and Demons, and the Harry Potter books.

You're changing the parameters again, Daniel. We aren't talking about non-Mormons. We're talking about the average Mormon and what he reads when he reads.

3. we're talking about average folks. Folks with a little education, folks who are simply putting one foot in front of the other, folks like the people in my stake and my surrounding stakes. Lower middle to middle class folks who don't have a lot of time or money to spend on books. So they go with what they know has passed the Prophet-test: anything in Deseret Book.

That casual readers aren't particularly adventurous readers should come as no surprise to anybody.

So you agree that the average LDS reader is very likely to read only what is Prophet-tested: anything in Deseret Book. And that the Brethren's admonition to avoid anything else is the reason why. "Follow the prophet" isn't just for Primary children.

The question is, are Mormon reading habits much different from analogous non-Mormon reading habits? Who keeps evangelical bookstores in business? Who reads the Left Behind novels, and Frank Peretti? How many mainstream Christians have been buying up Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens? My bet is, not many. Though their sales numbers are quite good, relative to the overall number of potential American readers Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens actually haven't sold all that many books. Is this because Southern Baptists, marginal Catholics, lukewarm Methodists, and non-church-going Presbyterians are obeying implicit or explicit orders from their denominational hierarchs, or merely because few people read much, and even fewer people read adventurously?

Actually, no. That's not the question at all. We're talking about the reading habits of the average Mormon, and the influence the Brethren have on that. And we're also talking about using feelings as an indicator of truth. What we aren't talking about is the reading habits of non-Mormons.

Not everyone is like you and your circle, Dr Peterson. You live in a different world than most members, just like our leaders. You are not the average. You don't even come close to the average. So how can you profess to speak for the average Mormon? How would you ever know what he reads?

My relatives are construction workers, truck drivers, builders, farmers, welders, insurance agents, housewives, engineers, accountants, businessmen.

You know virtually nothing about me. You never have, though you've issued confident declarations about me for many years. Your notion that I live in a protected bubble is pure illusion.

[/quote]

I know you are a professor at BYU. That alone puts you 'way outside the average Mormon's world. You're a world traveler. That also puts you outside the average Mormon's world. You are a published author and a respected academic. That also puts you outside the average Mormon's world.

We aren't talking about your relatives. Perhaps they are average Mormons. But you, Dr Peterson, are not. What you read matches what you are. There's no surprise in that. But for you to make some claim about the average Mormon is just ludicrous. You just aren't one, and it's likely you weren't one, even in your youth. Average Mormon guys grow up to be something other than published world renowned university professors.