DiscussMormonism.com

In Gadianton's thread titled "Shirley Ricks: Screw Family Night," he makes the following prescient observations:

Shirley Ricks, I presume, finds her place in the FROB through the usual nepotistic practices.

So far, so good.

But she's most certainly taken note of the "tactics" and lives up to the publication's now famous arrogance. She follows the well-established "A-B-A" structure of reviewing "friendlies" that resist assimilation by Internet Mormonism.

Take careful note of that last phrase; we'll be returning to it momentarily.

Gadianton summarizes and categorizes the Review's tactics in such cases thusly:

A- Write one or two sentences patronizing an effort to help the church.
B- Fill 97 percent of the review with put-downs and "straining at gnats" as Gee self-describes.
A- Close with a quick insincere compliment, though sometimes quickly summerize the criticism.

Once again, so far, so good.

Now, I'm sure Gadianton didn't really worry too much about the phraseology at the time, but folks such as Meldrum, Yorgason, etc. probably aren't so much resisting assimilation into Internet Mormonism as they are unaware of it. The prophets have never taught it, so who can blame them?

Either way, thought, the net result is the same: FARMS and FAIR and their ilk certainly don't allow mere ignorance to be an excuse for not being assimilated, as their reviews and comments amply demonstrate (e.g. John Gee's).

At any rate, now that we have established the groundwork, I think it apropos to point out that there is a special, privileged class of Chapel Mormon publications that, for some reason, enjoys strict "diplomatic immunity" from the put-downs and insults of the Review, FAIR, etc.: Books by General Authorities.

Interestingly, when General Authorities decide to get on the Deseret Book bandwagon and line their pockets with a little extra cash, the apologetic reviews of the resulting books overflow with as much praise as reviews of one of their own, even though the General Authorities themselves are the chief advocates of Chapel Mormonism.

So, when it comes to a FARMS review of a book by a Chapel Mormon, the book isn't judged on the (de)merits of the book itself; it's judged by whether the book's author is a General Authority or merely one who takes seriously the General Authorities. This in spite of the fact that, at the end of the day, the content of the book(s) under review is largely the same.

This suggests, to me, that the Internet Mormons know, deep down or otherwise, their own limits. When their backs are against the wall, they know which Mormonism is the real Mormonism.

What are your thoughts on this?

.

Shades wrote: but folks such as Meldrum, Yorgason, etc. probably aren't so much resisting assimilation into Internet Mormonism as they are unaware of it.

Perhaps this is true prior to getting the hatchet job from FROB. Afterwards, the chances of them ever becoming Internet Mormons are reduced substantially, I believe it would be appropriate to say at this point, Meldrum is resisting assimilation.

Shades wrote:Interestingly, when General Authorities decide to get on the Deseret Book bandwagon and line their pockets with a little extra cash, the apologetic reviews of the resulting books overflow with as much praise

Shades wrote:When their backs are against the wall, they know which Mormonism is the real Mormonism.

Now these are some fascinating contributions and deserve careful consideration. I'd be cautious in saying that the praise is equal to their own, I mean, I'll be on the lookout for compliments that reach the heights of Scratch's gems from "Warfare", but how likely is that?

I will note that the very first review ever, is by the senior apologist John Welch, and it's of ETB's book "A Witness and a Warning". And yes, plenty of praise flows from Welch's pen. If I were to go through all the harsh criticisms of Midgley's regarding McConkie and Millet's book, I wonder how much of it should also apply to Benson's book? I would imagine Midgley would be very hard pressed to explain how Benson's interpretation of the Book of Mormon is something "few people should want to miss" and McConkie's is essentially worhtless.

To me, it raises the question of whether apologetics is in open rebellion against the church and gunning for complete takeover, yet knowing when to hold fire, or whether deep down it's all a bunch of game-playing and gospel hobby-horsing that ends when the prophet speaks, and the SCMC is watching.

Gadianton wrote:To me, it raises the question of whether apologetics is in open rebellion against the church and gunning for complete takeover, yet knowing when to hold fire, or whether deep down it's all a bunch of game-playing and gospel hobby-horsing that ends when the prophet speaks, and the SCMC is watching.

The latter, not the former.

I would like to have seen a review of Mc Conkie's Mormon Doctrine (unless I missed it). Even when I joined the Church I was warned by a couple of astute members that this book was one "to be wary of". I recall some members bringing their standard works to Church, when President Kimball was strongly encouraging such, and many had Mormon Doctrine almost as if it was part of the standard works. Mc Conkie's influence in shaping Mormon doctrine (in the minds of members) has been examined by Phillip Barlow.

In the late 1980s I undertook my own personal "review" of this book, and the faulty premises and conclusions became obvious. Considering that this book is still in print, and my last edition was the 19th printing (paperback), it would indeed have been a worthwhile review. It could have been a timely warning to members too, such as the one I was given upon joining the Church.

A check of Amazon shows that it has had 24 customer reviews. As one review noted:

Do not buy this book if you want an official view of what Mormons believe. After McConkie published this book he was FORBIDDEN by the combined voice of the first presidency of the church to ever republish it, even if he corrected the 1067 errors they found it contained.

President McKay's (president of the church at the time) office notes read "The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkie's book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be republished, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections in his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."

Further notes reiterate those points. Years McConkie later approached the fragile elderly McKay and requested permission to reprint the book. McKay gave permission, but that does not Trump the combined voice of the First Presidency of the church which had forbidden a further edition, and who alone can authoritatively give "Mormon doctrine".

Ray A wrote:I would like to have seen a review of Mc Conkie's Mormon Doctrine (unless I missed it). Even when I joined the Church I was warned by a couple of astute members that this book was one "to be wary of". I recall some members bringing their standard works to Church, when President Kimball was strongly encouraging such, and many had Mormon Doctrine almost as if it was part of the standard works. Mc Conkie's influence in shaping Mormon doctrine (in the mind's of members) has been examined by Phillip Barlow.

In the late 1980s I undertook my own personal "review" of this book, and the faulty premises and conclusions became obvious. Considering that this book is still in print, and my last edition was the 19th printing (paperback), it would indeed have been a worthwhile review. It could have been a timely warning to members too, such as the one I was given upon joining the Church.

A check of Amazon shows that it has had 24 customer reviews. As one review noted:

Do not buy this book if you want an official view of what Mormons believe. After McConkie published this book he was FORBIDDEN by the combined voice of the first presidency of the church to ever republish it, even if he corrected the 1067 errors they found it contained.

President McKay's (president of the church at the time) office notes read "The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce are. McConkie's book, 'Mormon Doctrine' recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be republished, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections in his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."

Further notes reiterate those points. Years McConkie later approached the fragile elderly McKay and requested permission to reprint the book. McKay gave permission, but that does not Trump the combined voice of the First Presidency of the church which had forbidden a further edition, and who alone can authoritatively give "Mormon doctrine".

And yet, we're supposed to follow our leaders. Zig. Zag. Zig. Zag. Through the maze in the dark wearing dark glasses.

What do I think of your opening post?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Gadianton wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:but folks such as Meldrum, Yorgason, etc. probably aren't so much resisting assimilation into Internet Mormonism as they are unaware of it.

Perhaps this is true prior to getting the hatchet job from FROB. Afterwards, the chances of them ever becoming Internet Mormons are reduced substantially, I believe it would be appropriate to say at this point, Meldrum is resisting assimilation.

Yeah, you make a good point. Maybe I was the one who wasn't careful with his phraseology. :-)

Daniel Peterson wrote:What do I think of your opening post?

I'm embarrassed for you.

Why?

Have any of your reviewers, for example, given a General Authority the Meldrum treatment?

Dr. Shades wrote:Have any of your reviewers, for example, given a General Authority the Meldrum treatment?

None of "my reviewers" have given Meldrum "the Meldrum treatment."

We've reviewed two General Authority books that I can recall, though there might perhaps have been a small handful of others. Both were devotional books. Neither made any scholarly claims that required analysis or critique. We believe in the Book of Mormon, and we enthusiastically support devotional approaches to it.

Peterson wrote:Both were devotional books. Neither made any scholarly claims that required analysis or critique. We believe in the Book of Mormon, and we enthusiastically support devotional approaches to it.

By far the most accurate and on point description of Clark/Sorenson works on Book of Mormon historicity.

Bravo.

Joey

By far the most accurate and on point description of Clark/Sorenson works on Book of Mormon historicity.

This is completely meaningless, since you obviously have not read either author very much or very carefully. But then you are one of those who already know it all and don't need to read no stinkin books in order to know what they say, right?