A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_Gadianton]

I, on the other hand, was warned sternly by my mission president -- a very, very well-connected MP to top Church leaders -- to avoid studying from anything beyond Mormon Doctrine. That was where the buck stopped. You had the scriptures, the Ensign, the Articles of Faith, Jesus the Christ, Truth Restored/Gospel principles, and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. That was enough. On rare occasions, there was Mormon Doctrine, his obvious favorite and the most potent of all, but, he felt missionaries consulted it too quickly. He warned me, and he was right.

I bear witness to all that everyone in this thread critical of the book Mormon Doctrine, and I am critical of it, has apostatized from the Church for intellectual reasons. It would be rare, yea, near an impossible feat to find a Mormon Doctrine fanatic who has ever left the Church or seriously questioned it. Just sayin', and that's some strong Chapel Mormonism right there the apologists and their apologists can't deal with.

FARMS for all of us in this thread, pro or anti apologist, turned out to be a gateway drug. Had we went no further than Mormon Doctrine, we might all still be in the Church.

I was warned by my MP not to study FARMS materials, and I was warned by my Bishop.

Anyone who says he/she was warned by leaders high in the Church to be wary of Mormon Doctrine, and instead directed to anything published by FARMS for better answers is either atypical, in an extremely rare circumstance, or lying.

[_RayAgostini]

I, on the other hand, was warned sternly by my mission president -- a very, very well-connected MP to top Church leaders -- to avoid studying from anything beyond Mormon Doctrine. That was where the buck stopped. You had the scriptures, the Ensign, the Articles of Faith, Jesus the Christ, Truth Restored/Gospel principles, and A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. That was enough. On rare occasions, there was Mormon Doctrine, his obvious favorite and the most potent of all, but, he felt missionaries consulted it too quickly. He warned me, and he was right.

I bear witness to all that everyone in this thread critical of the book Mormon Doctrine, and I am critical of it, has apostatized from the Church for intellectual reasons. It would be rare, yea, near an impossible feat to find a Mormon Doctrine fanatic who has ever left the Church or seriously questioned it. Just sayin', and that's some strong Chapel Mormonism right there the apologists and their apologists can't deal with.

FARMS for all of us in this thread, pro or anti apologist, turned out to be a gateway drug. Had we went no further than Mormon Doctrine, we might all still be in the Church.

I was warned by my MP not to study FARMS materials, and I was warned by my Bishop.

Anyone who says he/she was warned by leaders high in the Church to be wary of Mormon Doctrine, and instead directed to anything published by FARMS for better answers is either atypical, in an extremely rare circumstance, or lying.

That doesn't explain your statement:

McConkie's and Robinson's books are among the best out there for discovering what Mormonism teaches. Jackson clearly went out of his way to get the best explanations of Mormonism as published by Mormons themselves.

If Church members have "apostatized from the Church for intellectual reasons", that is, not relying on books like Mormon Doctrine (which "keeps the fold intact"), and believe such books contribute to apostasy, how can Jackson use this book for determining "what Mormonism teaches"? One way a skeptic might view this is that Jackson set up a straw man, and that's precisely what Cassandra Hedelius was exposing, that he didn't dig deeply enough nor go back to more authoritative sources.

Yet, you sanction Jackson's choice/s as "the best explanations of Mormonism"?

Or maybe you'd just like to see more apostasy?

[_zeezrom]

The best way to figure out what Mormonism teaches is to invite an 18-yr old missionary to your living room.

[_RayAgostini]

The best way to figure out what Mormonism teaches is to invite an 18-yr old missionary to your living room.

That "department", admittedly, leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately:

Mormon Doctrine remained in print until 2010, when Deseret Book ceased publication, citing poor sales.

In the first place:

...it used a harsh tone and, in the words of Mark E. Petersen, was "full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation."

[_Kishkumen]

Here's the deal:

Evangelicals do not agree with Mormon theology or doctrine.

Even if they understood Mormon theology and doctrine thoroughly, they would probably still not agree.

So, an Evangelical writes a critical book stating why he or she does not agree with Mormonism. It probably fills the function such a thing might serve well enough for a lay readership.

Does the Evangelical necessarily want other Evangelicals to see Mormonism through Mormon eyes?

I highly doubt it.

My guess is this is simply what happens when you belong to a minority religious group with unusual writings and teachings. It's part of the price of admission for standing apart from the crowd.

Personally, I don't give a flip what an Evangelical critic thinks is wrong with Mormonism, other than for intellectual curiosity. I am not going to get all bent out of shape over it. But then, I never really did. Not even on my mission when I was arguing with these people.

My attitude toward them when they were intoning about why they were right and I was wrong was basically a big "F U" because I think I understood, all those years ago, that they lived in their own glass houses.

Do I really like this silly literature critical of Mormonism? No. But I view it as almost being an inevitable fact of life. Step away from the norms of the herd, and you will be marked as a weirdo.

Don't cry about it. Don't lash out in retaliation. You own your own religion. Screw their opinion.

[_Gadianton]

If Church members have "apostatized from the Church for intellectual reasons", that is, not relying on books like Mormon Doctrine (which "keeps the fold intact"), and believe such books contribute to apostasy, how can Jackson use this book for determining "what Mormonism teaches"?

Not sure I follow, but Jackson would use the book because it's a regarded de facto repository of doctrine, that is pretty faithful to sources.

One way a skeptic might view this is that Jackson set up a straw man, and that's precisely what Cassandra Hedelius was exposing, that he didn't dig deeply enough nor go back to more authoritative sources.

No, she was setting out to put his words in contradiction, and took him way out of context to do so. If one were to argue that Mormon Doctrine creates a strawman, I think that would be rather odd, and one should get his home teachers in the house for a blessing. If the argument is that the strawman is created from Mormon Doctrine, for instance, by selecting the handful of racists things McConkie said, then I might agree. But she accuses him of quoting McConkie 40 something times, so even if he does bring up a shocker or two, McConkie's hits are likely being accounted for as well as his misses -- in terms of political corectness, that is. Your argument here is yours, not hers.

Or maybe you'd just like to see more apostasy?

sure, i'd like to. But if TBMs keep their heads buried in Mormon Doctrine, it isn't likely. The moment they discover "Mormon Interpretor" and begin to follow up, the probability is much higher.

[_RockSlider]

sure, i'd like to. But if TBMs keep their heads buried in Mormon Doctrine, it isn't likely. The moment they discover "Mormon Interpretor" and begin to follow up, the probability is much higher.

Heck I assumed the move from "old school" Mormon Doctrine chapel Mormons to the final retiring of MD was the natural progression to the correlated/mainstreamed Doctrine of today.

For the modern day Mormon, wondering too far from the correlated gospel is likely a sure nail in the coffin of apostasy.

[_RayAgostini]

Not sure I follow, but Jackson would use the book because it's a regarded de facto repository of doctrine, that is pretty faithful to sources.

If you go back to the links and comments I gave previously, you'd see that it never was a "repository of doctrine", defacto or otherwise. How it gained "traction" with the Saints is discussed in Barlow's book.

No, she was setting out to put his words in contradiction, and took him way out of context to do so. If one were to argue that Mormon Doctrine creates a strawman, I think that would be rather odd, and one should get his home teachers in the house for a blessing. If the argument is that the strawman is created from Mormon Doctrine, for instance, by selecting the handful of racists things McConkie said, then I might agree. But she accuses him of quoting McConkie 40 something times, so even if he does bring up a shocker or two, McConkie's hits are likely being accounted for as well as his misses -- in terms of political corectness, that is. Your argument here is yours, not hers.

The "hits and misses" don't bode very well for Jackson's research. I have to admit that I haven't read his book, and I'd be okay with him getting an invite to post here to clarify his views. The bottom line point still remains, though: Why did Jackson use Mormon Doctrine as some kind of "primary source"? Is that what good historians do? I only did two years of a BA in History while at university, but the very first thing I learned is that primary sources Trump secondary sources, because secondary sources lie mostly in "interpretation" of the primary sources. And in a real sense, even "primary sources" reflect the bias of those recording the events, but they are still more reliable than secondary sources. It seems to me that Jackson didn't avail himself of a vast literature on Mormonism beyond, for want of a better expression, "Mormon pop culture" as advocated by Mc Conkie, and simplistic views such as "evolution is a lie of the devil". Frankly, in terms of our progression of knowledge, and far more thoughtful essays tackling the question of evolution and Mormonism, Mc Conkie can only be viewed as (no pun intended) a dinosaur.

sure, i'd like to. But if TBMs keep their heads buried in Mormon Doctrine, it isn't likely. The moment they discover "Mormon Interpretor" and begin to follow up, the probability is much higher.

The book went OP in 1998, and "sales have dropped". Maybe the Saints are more interested today in reading something that stimulates their intellect, rather than a rehash of Mc Conkie?

So far, I like the Interpreter, and partly because it's frank and even "hard-hitting", and not a "speak easy". The over-reaction here to Cassandra Hedelius, who is apparently only a "dumb douchebag apologist", according to the unapologetic like the Reverend Kishkumen, as the Shadow minister for anti-Mormon propaganda in Doctor Scratch's anti-Mormon government designed to rid the earth of "apologetic drivel", who would eat worms and rocks or vampire bat's legs before conceding a point lest his "ever so right" ego be damaged.

The Cassius agenda, I'm afraid to say, is looking more and more like an old Abbott and Costello straight-jacket re-run of the pre-1978 dogmatic Mc Conkie.

Kishkumen in particular is not interested in any "further light and knowledge" on any subject on Mormonism. He got owned by Scratch long, long ago.

[_Gadianton]

One more point, Ray, if Cas's argument was that Jackson was trying to create a straw man by citing McConkie, how do you explain the fact that she actually doesn't engage a single one of those citations? She only references McConkie to say that he cited him 40 times, more than he does "official sources" per his paraphrase of Robinson that she takes out of context. Her only point in bringing up McConkie was to demonstrate a supposed contradiction, and she failed.

In contrast, she extensively engages points Jackson makes as responses to Stephen Robinson's work. If his effort was to create a "straw man" by citing sources that are untrustworthy -- Mormon Doctrine being untrustworthy in the eyes of your friend you respect at church -- then shouldn't his appeal to Robinson also be a part of his straw man ploy, especially since Cas spends a great deal of effort on these points? You're up against a wall here, because it would seem Robinson and McConkie would have to go down together, and while the apologists may often be dismissive of McConkie, Robinson is one of their own. He's in with the apologists, big time.

McConkie and Robinson are two great sources. I'm open minded enough to include Robinson even though he's an apologist as a great source, even though he's probably an Internet Mormon, because when it comes to abstract stuff that isn't subject to secular criticism such as how the atonement works, he seems to be accepted by Mormons generally, used in seminary etc.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Ray:

What do you think Hedelius's goal was? I suppose you could say, "It was to review Jackson's book." But it's never as simple as that, is it? Her "review" goes well beyond the text: she means to attack Jackson as a scholar, as a writer, as a researcher, as a Christian, and as someone with good intentions. Why, I have to ask, is it in any way relevant to suggest that Jackson is looking to "capitalize" on the Romney campaign? Wouldn't that be rather like saying that the MI is trying to do the same, since 2/3 or so of DCP's Patheos posts are paeans to Romney, and that he actually doesn't give two squats about Romney but wants to drum up sympathy for his Mopologetic pet projects? This was not just a "review" of the material; I think Jackson is right to sum it up as an "axe job." Dan Peterson would like to suggest that this sort of thing is the "coin of the realm," but I think you would be hard pressed to find many "reviews" out there that spend their time questioning the author's motives w/r/t money. E.g., "I found Stephen King's latest novel to be boring drivel, plus he clearly hasn't kept up with current research on the occult. Plus, we can't help but fault him since he clearly seems to be trying to cash in on the vampire fad." Is that a "review"--let alone an "academic" review--that helps you to understand the book? Or, is the intention just to trash the book and to discourage you from reading it?

And as for this:

The "hits and misses" don't bode very well for Jackson's research. I have to admit that I haven't read his book, and I'd be okay with him getting an invite to post here to clarify his views. The bottom line point still remains, though: Why did Jackson use Mormon Doctrine as some kind of "primary source"?

What about Mormon Doctrine is wrong? What is it that Elder McConkie--one of the Lord's Anointed--said that was wrong or incorrect? And if Jackson isn't supposed to turn to the man who was arguably the Church's last real theologian, then where should he turn? Dr. Robbers asked a valid question earlier: if you sat someone down with the Standard Works and offered them a million dollars if they could successfully piece together and describe LDS doctrine just by examining those texts, would they be able to do it? E.g., would they understand the entirety of the temple ceremony on the basis of those books? What about the priesthood ban, or the doctrine of the pre-existence? What about the draconian elements of the Word of Wisdom?

If you cannot accurately glean Mormon belief and doctrine from the Standard Works, where are you supposed to turn? Mormon Doctrine seems like a perfectly reasonable place. Jackson might have tried contacting some of the Religious Education faculty at BYU, too. But then again, as well all know, one of the US newspapers tried this with a professor named Randy Bott, and we all know what happened to him. At that point, we got the real clarification from the real arbiter of doctrine: the LDS newsroom. So we're reduced to understanding doctrine on the basis of PR shadow puppets and propaganda.

Ultimately, I think that the Mopologists are most pissed off simply because Jackson consulted the word of an apostle rather than, say, the FAIR Wiki or back issues of the FARMS Review. Then again, even as I say that, I realize that Hedelius says that Jackson actually tried to talk with the folks at FAIR, and they basically blew him off and kept tossing out the disclaimer that their stuff "isn't official."