Good book on Mormonism?

[Mike_Reed]

You gotta be kidding?

Abanes? The guy who poses for his book face shot wearing safari getup?

Dude - show a little discernment. If you want to know about Catholics you don’t go to an 2nd rate anti-Catholic “expose” writer.

There are several excellent books that are critical of Mormonism, but Abanes’ ONUG is not one of them.

There are several books from the believing perspective that are good too.

The authors I would recommend are Shipps, Bushman, Givens, and Quinn. There are several more, but I’d start with these.

I am confident that all of these REAL scholars of Mormonism would (if they read it) agree with my assessment that Abanes’ book is bunk.

David Waltz, a Catholic who participates now and again on the Mormon Apologetics message boards and blogs, certainly knows it is.

 

[Snow]

There are several excellent books that are critical of Mormonism, but Abanes’ ONUG is not one of them.

There are several books from the believing perspective that are good too.

The authors I would recommend are Shipps, Bushman, Givens, and Quinn. There are several more, but I’d start with these.

I am confident that all of these REAL scholars of Mormonism would (if they read it) agree with my assessment that Abanes’ book is bunk.

David Waltz, a Catholic who participates now and again on the Mormon Apologetics message boards and blogs, certainly knows it is.

They are all high caliber, and critical, scholars. Quite the opposite of the professional cult hunter Abanes.

 

[Theodora]

At the moment I am reading a book called A Tale of Two Cities by Rev. William Taylor. This 107-page book is “a comparison between the Mormon and the Catholic religious experiences.” The book is well written in a charitable style. I bought it after I read a thread on this forum highly recommending this book.

You may get the book at Amazon.com To get a closer look at it, here is the link:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=A+tale+of+two+cities+by+William+Taylor&x=11&y=21%between%

 

[Mike_Reed]

At the moment I am reading a book called A Tale of Two Cities by Rev. William Taylor. This 107-page book is “a comparison between the Mormon and the Catholic religious experiences.” The book is well written in a charitable style. I bought it after I read a thread on this forum highly recommending this book.

You may get the book at Amazon.com To get a closer look at it, here is the link:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=A+tale+of+two+cities+by+William+Taylor&x=11&y=21%between%

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to check it out sometime.

Here is an article that I’d recommend reading:
Matthew Grow, “The Whore of Babylon and the Abomination of Abominations: Nineteenth-Century Catholic and Mormon Mutual Perceptions and Religious Identity,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 73, no. 1 (March 2004), 139-168.

Some here may also be interested in my MA thesis on the development of the LDS cross taboo. Much of my thesis discusses LDS/Catholic relations. It should be completed and available to read in a few months from now.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Similar to the Catholic tradition of “Purgatory,” Mormon doctrine teaches that the “Spirit World” is a realm where spirits await the resurrection, the final judgment, and their heavenly reward. “Limbo” or “Purgatory” isn’t “Heaven” in Catholicism.

Just a clarification here, Mormon doctrine cannot ever be called “similar” to Catholic doctrine on “Limbo” or “Purgatory”. Limbo is not an official teaching of the Church. Never was–it was just a theologian’s attempt to reconcile Jesus command of “be baptized” with Jesus’ mercy toward little children. And all who make it to Purgatory are headed for Heaven. In Catholic doctrine, Purgatory is just a purification of temporal effects of sin which hadn’t already been purged. It’s a state–not a place–and it has been argued by theologians that some of this purification can happen right here on earth–so there is no comparison of "spirits await the final judgment and their heavenly reward " like in Mormonism.

As to a book, I know it’s been mentioned before, but what about Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s Guide to Mormon Origins? I believe that he was an LDS Institute teacher so the book is accurate.

 

[BDawg]

Just a clarification here, Mormon doctrine cannot ever be called “similar” to Catholic doctrine on “Limbo” or “Purgatory”. Limbo is not an official teaching of the Church. Never was–it was just a theologian’s attempt to reconcile Jesus command of “be baptized” with Jesus’ mercy toward little children. And all who make it to Purgatory are headed for Heaven. In Catholic doctrine, Purgatory is just a purification of temporal effects of sin which hadn’t already been purged. It’s a state–not a place–and it has been argued by theologians that some of this purification can happen right here on earth–so there is no comparison of "spirits await the final judgment and their heavenly reward " like in Mormonism.

Hi AMGD,

In Mormonism, spirits in the Spirit World can grow and overcome the effects of sin through the Atonement of Christ. So, in some ways this doctrine is *similar *(nobody said identical) to the Purgatory doctrine.

And even if Limbo was not infallibly declared dogma, it certainly was an “official teaching,” since it showed up in the Baltimore Catechism, among other places. Again, this is similar, in some ways, to the LDS beliefs in the “Spirit World,” because both involve places or states in the afterlife that are not heaven or hell, exactly.

As to a book, I know it’s been mentioned before, but what about Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s Guide to Mormon Origins? I believe that he was an LDS Institute teacher so the book is accurate.

Palmer’s book has some serious problems, but it isn’t as bad as those by hysterical cult (and Harry Potter) hunters like Abanes. Palmer comes up with an interesting (if bizarre) explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon that he came up with when Mark Hoffman’s “Salamander Letter” forgery was still believed to be legitimate by most historians. After it was proven a forgery, Palmer stuck with his theory, even though it is really a stretch.

Note to Abanes: Tarantallegra! (I thought you would appreciate that one, since you were a dancer before you started writing books about Harry Potter and the Mormons.)

 

[Richard_Abanes]

You gotta be kidding?Abanes? The guy who poses for his book face shot wearing safari getup? Dude - show a little discernment. If you want to know about Catholics you don’t go to an 2nd rate anti-Catholic “expose” writer.

I don’t think I’ve ever read a more juvenile ad hominem attack in my life. I mean, :clapping: Are you like…12 years old? Oh my goodness. And I’m not even sure what in the world you’re talking about!

RA

 

[Mike_Reed]

Just a clarification here, Mormon doctrine cannot ever be called “similar” to Catholic doctrine on “Limbo” or “Purgatory”. Limbo is not an official teaching of the Church. Never was–it was just a theologian’s attempt to reconcile Jesus command of “be baptized” with Jesus’ mercy toward little children.

Right. I am aware of that, which is why I called Limbo it a “tradition,” not a doctrine.

And all who make it to Purgatory are headed for Heaven. In Catholic doctrine, Purgatory is just a purification of temporal effects of sin which hadn’t already been purged. It’s a state–not a place–and it has been argued by theologians that some of this purification can happen right here on earth–so there is no comparison of "spirits await the final judgment and their heavenly reward " like in Mormonism.

Some people would also say that the LDS understanding of the “Spirit World” is more of a state than a place. Read the link I give, and you will see. At any rate… I wasn’t equating the Catholic “Purgatory” and Mormon “Spirit World” being identical in every way. No… I merely identified them as similar. At least… that is the point I was trying to get across. Perhaps I could have worded my post better. I was paralleling the two, to help Catholics understand the point I was making. The Mormon doctrine of the “Spirit World” is rather distinct from the “Celestial Kingdom.” As you say that Purgatory is “on the way” to heaven… so too is the Spirit World in Mormon thought. Hope I am more clear now. Thanks for the feedback.

As to a book, I know it’s been mentioned before, but what about Grant Palmer’s An Insider’s Guide to Mormon Origins? I believe that he was an LDS Institute teacher so the book is accurate.

Right. Palmer’s book is good too.

 

[BDawg]

Here’s my favorite Richard Abanes quote:

“FARMS, under auspices of BYU, a highly scholarly site, seeks to validate Mormonism on an academic/intellectual level, [but is] highly biased, very unreliable, can be confusing to the average reader due to the use of technical terminology–often misleading due to its use of historical, archaeological, and linguistic arguments unverifiable by persons not possessing higher education.” (Abanes, Richard (2002). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Four Walls Eight Windows. pp. 471–473.)

The info from FARMS is misleading “due to” the fact that the authors there employ arguments that Joe Redneck can’t verify. So much for all those Evangelical Bible commentaries that rely on Greek grammar.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Abanes#cite_note-9

 

[Richard_Abanes]

And now to be a bit more serious. Mike Reed stated: “Again… it is incorrect to equate the ‘Spirit World’ with the ‘Celestial Kingdom’ in Mormon doctrine, just as it would be incorrect to equate ‘Limbo’ or ‘Purgatory’ with ‘Heaven’ in Catholic doctrine.”

First, that you would actually bring this point up again simply proves my initial statement earlier in the thread: “They * love to mince words, slice & dice, and nit-pick at jots & tittles, while missing the big white elephant sitting on their backs. Ah well. It sometimes does make for interesting reading and seeing how people think and analyze things.”

It is amazing to me that you will fight, and fight, and fight, about the most complex, intricate, miniscule point, while simultaneously ignoring volumes of material that strike at the very heart of your entire belief system. You want to debate the words “spirit world” in a passing reference, yet ignore the thrust of the whole passage – indeed, the whole chapter, and the whole book in which that chapter is contained. I suppose, however, that it is a great way to re-direct attention away from the weightier matters dealt with in ONUG and avoid all of those uncomfortable/troubling aspects of Mormonism that my book exposes.

Second, no one is EQUATING the “Spirit World” with the “celestial kingdom.” That is an invention that you have created in your own mind about what I stated in my book One Nation Under Gods, p. 175 (hardbound). I nowhere state that the “Spirit World” is the “Celestial Kingdom” (for readers unfamiliar with LDS theology, the CK is the highest tier/kingdom in their realm of heaven). So, your whole premise about what my book states is incorrect.

Third, this is what I say in ONUG (hardbound, p. 175): “Brigham Young, for instance, warned that no one would ever get into God’s celestial kingdom ‘without the consent of Joseph Smith. . . . He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.’”

That was my quick summary/paraphrase for non-Mormons of a very detailed concept (involving multiple tiers/kingdoms in “heaven,” keys of a dispensation, the spirit world, post-mortal missionary work) that Young was communicating to his Mormon listeners. For the sake of ONUG readers, I was encapsulating the primary thust of Young’s main point – i.e., NO ONE can enter the celestial kingdom without the consent of Joseph Smith. You, however, fixated on the word “there” and jumped on it in an attempt to create some outlandish blunder.

But you cannot, by simply ranting and raving about my supposedly awful understanding of LDS belief, make your assertions true (or cancel out the avalanche of other material in ONUG). And no amount of mincing/dicing words up into ridiculously small pieces and arranging them perfectly will turn this particular segment of text into the kind of egregious error you want to make it. Oddly, you actually state in your criticisms of me the very point I was seeking to make: “Brigham Young was merely teaching that Joseph Smith, as head of a dispensation, holds keys necessary for us to enter into the celestial kingdom.”

Yes, Mike. Good Mike. That’s exactly what I said, Mike.

TO BE CONTINUED…*

 

[Richard_Abanes]

PART 2 - Continued
But then you start creating your fantasy: “Abanes uses the elision to create the false impression that Brigham Young was equating Joseph Smith’s status in the celestial kingdom with God’s.”

No, sir. That is not what the elision is used for. And it is precisely this kind of accusation for which you have no proof whatsoever. Again, you should watch your unwise habit of imparting motives to people (i.e., I am deliberately creating a false impression). You cannot impart (directly or indirectly) motive to a person that impugns their character. Disagree with them. Say that they are inaccurate. But if you are hoping to write for anything larger than a FARMS, you should know that a publisher vetting would never allowed that kind of remark due to libel laws (and you, my friend, need to read up on that issue since your previous definition of it is terrifically naive and lacking – i.e., you are woefully ignorant of libel law). This was just a friendly word of warning. As I said, others might not be as forgiving as me.

Now, moving on, you add: “When Brigham Young declared that Joseph ‘reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere,’ the ‘there’ spoken of was not the celestial kingdom, but, rather, the spirit world.”

So true. But as I have previously noted: “I really hate to ask the obvious question, but well, here goes: Where exactly IS the Celestial Kingdom? Hmmmmm, let’s see…Oh, yeah, it’s in the Spirit World that Joseph watches over and reigns supreme.”

Now, here is where we are running into Mormon and non-Mormon differences in uses of terminology, referencing, perspectives, and communication issues. I understand what you are saying about the spirit world – i.e., a place where missionary work is done to those who are not yet prepared to enter “heaven.” Should there be any arguments about what the spirit world is (in official Mormon teachings), let me be clear: "The spirit world is the habitation of spirits. . . . The relative conditions and state of mind in the two spheres of the postmortal spirit world are described by the Prophet Joseph Smith: ‘The spirits of the just are exalted to a greater and more glorious work; hence they are blessed in their departure to the world of spirits. Enveloped in flaming fire, they are not far from us, and know and understand our thoughts, feelings, and motions, and are often pained therewith’ (TPJS, p. 326). On the other hand, ‘The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, and they are their own accusers’ (TPJS, pp. 310-11). Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, Spirit World

ONUG is NOT written to Mormons. It is not a treatise on Mormon Thanatology. It is written to the general public with them in mind and with their limitations in mind. Consequently, I must walk that fine line between adding too much detail and communicating effectively. The general public views the term “spirit world” more generically than Mormons as simply that place where people who are dead continue to exist consciously – period. And that’s how I am using the term. I am not going to pick apart Mormon afterlife complexities to make a fairly simply point in passing – i.e., that in order for a Mormon to get into the celestial kingdom, they must pass the inspection, so to speak, of Joseph Smith.

So, now that you have that picture in your mind, I offer you the reading from the paperback version of ONUG, where I made as simple addition of text so people like you would stop complaining. The added text changes nothing, and in fact, makes it sound just that much worse, IMHO:

“Brigham Young, for instance warned: ‘(N)o man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. . . . (E)very man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.’ He explained: ‘[Smith] holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation – the keys to rule in the spirit world; and he rules there triumphantly. . . . He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.’”

There. This extended quote changes NOTHING for the average, popular, non-Mormon reader who is reading the text. But let me go ahead and predict now what you will do. 1. Completely ignore what the paperback states. 2. Keep pushing your arguments about the text in the hardbound. 3. Tell others that I had no answer for you when you nailed me. 4. Keep insisting that I know nothing about LDS theology so no one should read ONUG. 5. Continue attributing to me false motives, beliefs, and actions.

Sigh. Oh well.

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MIKE REED: I know a bit about your claims against JK Rowling… including your footnoted assertion about her believing in Magic. Remember your public embarrassment several years during that wonderful debate with Connie Neal? (chuckle) Why don’t you tell us all about that eventful day?
**RA: **Mike, I feel sorry for you. To say you know a “bit” about my views regarding Harry Potter is an understatement. You shouldn’t talk about issues you know practically nothing about.

And as for the debate I had with Connie Neal back in (what year was that?), it was an awesome day for both me and Connie. So, I have no idea what little fantasy you have floating around in your head. But feel free to keep enjoying it.

Oh, BTW, my position on HP has been consistent. It was always my concern and the concern of others that SOME children/teens MIGHT turn to magick, occultism, and witchcraft out of curiosity piqued by Potter (because of its realistic depiction of certain occult elements).

Interestingly, several years down the road now, it is none other than MTV – after an in-depth look at the newest generation of Wiccans and neopagans – that has validated in no uncertain terms the concerns that many evangelicals (including me) had expressed so long ago. MTV declared:

“A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle “The Craft” and the “Harry Potter” series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one).” Far From Devil Worship And ‘Harry Potter,’ Young Witches Explain What They’re Really About

So, Mike, now go argue with MTV and leave me alone about Harry Potter. But I guess if you don’t really have any ammunition other than misrepresenting my views of Harry Potter, I can understand your obsession.

MIKE REED: [rant - hanegraaff, Grover, editor, blah blah blah]
**RA: **Again, you really must watch your tone and accusations. It’s going to get you into trouble one day. None of this is even worth answering.

MIKE REED: David Waltz, a Catholic who participates now and again on the Mormon Apologetics message boards and blogs, certainly knows it is.
**RA: **ROFL. Nice effort to pull in the Roman Catholics here. Why don’t you try telling them what else your “Roman Catholic” friend believes. I’m sure they’d find the rest of the story very interesting.

**SNOW: **Quite the opposite of the professional cult hunter Abanes.
RA: OH NOES!!! A full-scale attack!!! Just FYI, it’s odd that I don’t see 'cult hunter" anywhere on my job description or in any of my professional bios. Hmmm. Maybe that’s written on the back of my book on Lent and Easter traditions? No, not there. Oh! Maybe “cult hunter” is in the bio of my book that extols the virtues of video games? Hmmmm, no, not there either. Oh well.

BDAWG: it isn’t as bad as those by hysterical cult (and Harry Potter) hunters like Abanes.
**RA: **Wow, you guys are really out with pistols drawn, aren’t you? Wow. I must be doing sometihng right.

**BDAWG: **Note to Abanes: Tarantallegra! (I thought you would appreciate that one, since you were a dancer before you started writing books about Harry Potter and the Mormons.)
RA: Ahhh, the tried and true weapon of choice when nothing substantive is available – personal insults, mockery, derision, and subtle insults. Anyone ever tell you guys that you’re actually not very nice.

**BDAWG: **The info from FARMS is misleading “due to” the fact that the authors there employ arguments that Joe Redneck can’t verify. So much for all those Evangelical Bible commentaries that rely on Greek grammar.
RA: I will say, you guys are really pulling out the stops to twist, pervert, and mangle anything you can get your hands on. I’m a bit curious, however, as to why you picked this RC forum to launch your assault. Interesting.

RA

 

[AMDGtoo]

And even if Limbo was not infallibly declared dogma, it certainly was an “official teaching,” since it showed up in the Baltimore Catechism, among other places.

Hi BDawg–

Read up. Limbo is not an official teaching of the Church (even if some Bishops in Baltimore decided to put a few words about it in Catechism #3). What comes from the Pope and all the Bishops of the Church united with the Pope makes official teaching.

Palmer comes up with an interesting (if bizarre) explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon that he came up with when Mark Hoffman’s “Salamander Letter” forgery was still believed to be legitimate by most historians. After it was proven a forgery, Palmer stuck with his theory, even though it is really a stretch.

About Grant’s book, BDawg–

Don’t know, it seemed to make sense that Joseph Smith, Jr. didn’t want his family broken up by all the different Protestant concerns, and the historical fact that the KJV of the Bible (which at the time included the apocrypha) was extensively borrowed by Smith from the library at the time of the writing of the BOM also makes some sense. And as far as the theory of the dark fairytale “The Magic Pot” being a source did seem a touch odd (and I can see your admitted connection to the forgery “Salamander Letter”) but not when one realizes the folk magic connection and the fact that the book was also available to JS at the time. (I guess that’s why the LDS thought the “Salamander Letter” to be true.)

The book seemed benign, but informative, to me.

 

[Mike_Reed]

And now to be a bit more serious. Mike Reed stated: “Again… it is incorrect to equate the ‘Spirit World’ with the ‘Celestial Kingdom’ in Mormon doctrine, just as it would be incorrect to equate ‘Limbo’ or ‘Purgatory’ with ‘Heaven’ in Catholic doctrine.”

First, that you would actually bring this point up again simply proves my initial statement earlier in the thread: “They * love to mince words, slice & dice, and nit-pick at jots & tittles, while missing the big white elephant sitting on their backs. Ah well. It sometimes does make for interesting reading and seeing how people think and analyze things.”*

Correction. I didn’t bring this up in the thread. Someone else did. And I didn’t start criticizing you about it until you–rather than concede the point in my review–defended yourself, denying the inaccuracy of your published claim.

It is amazing to me that you will fight, and fight, and fight, about the most complex, intricate, miniscule point, while simultaneously ignoring volumes of material that strike at the very heart of your entire belief system.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MIKE REED: And I didn’t start criticizing you about it until you–rather than concede the point in my review – defended yourself, denying the inaccuracy of your published claim.
RA: And rightly so. I posted a more detailed response, as you see.

**MIKE REED: **“My belief system?” Correction. It is not my belief system any more. In case you never heard, I left Mormonism about 4 years ago. I am agnostic now.
RA: Okay, now THAT ONE takes me by surprise. I had no idea. There’s hope for you yet. But actually, in all seriousness, sorry. I am sure it was not easy.

MIKE REED: “Unfortunately, addressing all the errors in Abanes’s book is not possible in a short essay. An earlier reviewer was right: 'A topic-by-topic discussion, looking at the evidence and evaluating it, would require a book as long as the book being reviewed.”
**RA: **A good response that allows notihng else to be said. But of FAIR’s lengthy list is indicative of what you were going to write, then it’s best you remained silent. FAIR will receiove my response soon enough.

MIKE REED: "Just prior to the quote, you noted that Heber C. Kimball asserted that Joseph Smith would one day be viewed “as a God”; and then you went on to say, “In truth, comments by early Mormon leaders, especially after Smith’s death, indicate that at that time the Saints already viewed their prophet as a god.”
**RA: **And exactly what does every mormon aspire to be? I’ll let you answer that. Moreover, I’ll let the readers go back even before that quote and read the rest of everythng I noted, which sets up the isolated passages you are now quoting. They can decide. I am not going to argue with you over every sentence you pull out from my 651 page book. But what I will do is defend myself and my work against false accusations.

**MIKE REED: **No… The erroneous claim was “invented” by you, when you wrote, “Brigham Young, for instance, warned that no one would ever get into God’s celestial kingdom ‘without the consent of Joseph Smith… He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.’” (HB, p. 175). According to your quote as you have it, “There” would mean the “Celestial Kingdom,” but this is not what Brigham Young actually said.
RA: Ahhhhhhhh, perfect. I refer everyone to predictions #1 and #2 in POST #92 above: “But let me go ahead and predict now what you will do. 1. Completely ignore what the paperback states. 2. Keep pushing your arguments about the text in the hardbound.” Thank you, Mike.

MIKE REED: Until you concede these facts, there is no point on moving on to other things you have written in your book.
RA: Your wish is my command. Merry Christmas. And as I stated, FAIR will get there appropriate response soon. And if you’re not a Mormon anymore, why are you so vociferously defending Mormonism?

**
MIKE REED: **TO BE CONTINUED…
RA: That’s already been posted, silly.

RA

 

[Mike_Reed]

**

PART 2 - Continued
But then you start creating your fantasy: “Abanes uses the elision to create the false impression that Brigham Young was equating Joseph Smith’s status in the celestial kingdom with God’s.”

No, sir. That is not what the elision is used for. And it is precisely this kind of accusation for which you have no proof whatsoever. Again, you should watch your unwise habit of imparting motives to people (i.e., I am deliberately creating a false impression).

Fair enough. I publically retract my “mind reading” attempt here. You are correct that I shouldn’t have done that. The fact remains, however, that your quote changed the meaning of Brigham Young’s statement.

You cannot impart (directly or indirectly) motive to a person that impugns their character.

I find it interesting that you have done the same thing repeatedly on this thread, and yet you are apparently oblivious of your hypocrisy.

Disagree with them. Say that they are inaccurate. But if you are hoping to write for anything larger than a FARMS, you should know that a publisher vetting would never allowed that kind of remark due to libel laws (and you, my friend, need to read up on that issue since your previous definition of it is terrifically naive and lacking – i.e., you are woefully ignorant of libel law). This was just a friendly word of warning. As I said, others might not be as forgiving as me.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Now, moving on, you add: “When Brigham Young declared that Joseph ‘reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere,’ the ‘there’ spoken of was not the celestial kingdom, but, rather, the spirit world.”

So true. But as I have previously noted: “I really hate to ask the obvious question, but well, here goes: Where exactly IS the Celestial Kingdom? Hmmmmm, let’s see…Oh, yeah, it’s in the Spirit World that Joseph watches over and reigns supreme.”

The Celestial Kingdom is NOT “where” the Spirit World is either. Carefully reread your remark above. You ask the question, “Where exactly IS the Celestial Kingdom”… and the location that you answer this question with is “the Spirit World.” This means that you are (apparently) asserting that the Celestial Kingdom is where the Spirit World is… but this simply is not an accurate representation of Mormon Doctrine, or the general beliefs of the Mormon Mainstream.

Now, here is where we are running into Mormon and non-Mormon differences in uses of terminology, referencing, perspectives, and communication issues. I understand what you are saying about the spirit world – i.e., a place where missionary work is done to those who are not yet prepared to enter “heaven.” Should there be any arguments about what the spirit world is (in official Mormon teachings), let me be clear: "The spirit world is the habitation of spirits. . . . The relative conditions and state of mind in the two spheres of the postmortal spirit world are described by the Prophet Joseph Smith: ‘The spirits of the just are exalted to a greater and more glorious work; hence they are blessed in their departure to the world of spirits. Enveloped in flaming fire, they are not far from us, and know and understand our thoughts, feelings, and motions, and are often pained therewith’ (TPJS, p. 326). On the other hand, ‘The great misery of departed spirits in the world of spirits, where they go after death, is to know that they come short of the glory that others enjoy and that they might have enjoyed themselves, and they are their own accusers’ (TPJS, pp. 310-11). Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, Spirit World

What are you trying to prove by your information above? That your initial claim that the Celestial Kingdom is “where” the Spirit World is? And that your initial quote therefore was accurate after all? No. The information you give does not validate your initial claim published in your book.

ONUG is NOT written to Mormons. It is not a treatise on Mormon Thanatology. It is written to the general public with them in mind and with their limitations in mind. Consequently, I must walk that fine line between adding too much detail and communicating effectively. The general public views the term “spirit world” more generically than Mormons as simply that place where people who are dead continue to exist consciously – period. And that’s how I am using the term.

Right. I understand that. And because this is how you use the term, you take Brigham Young’s words out of context, and change the meaning of his quote. The Celestial Kingdom is not “where” the Spirit World is, according to Mormon Doctrine.

I am not going to pick apart Mormon afterlife complexities to make a fairly simply point in passing – i.e., that in order for a Mormon to get into the celestial kingdom, they must pass the inspection, so to speak, of Joseph Smith.

I know you aren’t willing to do this. And consequently, you mislead your readers into thinking that Joseph Smith currently reigns in the Celestial Kingdom “as a God,” comparable to God the Father. You may think this is ok… but to me, this is a huge problem in your book. Much of what you publish is misleading.

To be continued…

 

[Mike_Reed]

part 2 (continued)

Richard Abanes: So, now that you have that picture in your mind, I offer you the reading from the paperback version of ONUG, where I made as simple addition of text so people like you would stop complaining. The added text changes nothing, and in fact, makes it sound just that much worse, IMHO:

“Brigham Young, for instance warned: ‘(N)o man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. . . . (E)very man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.’ He explained: ‘[Smith] holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation – the keys to rule in the spirit world; and he rules there triumphantly. . . . He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven.’”

The quote at least makes it possible for informed people–those who already know the distinction between the Mormon understanding of the Spirit World and the Celestial Kingdom–to understand exactly what Brigham Young was saying.

I further stated in my review, “In his paperback edition, Abanes makes the wise decision to give Brigham Young’s quotation in its entirety. However, he does not clarify the difference between these two postmortal realms by providing an explanatory footnote.” There remains the potential that your readers will be misled. Don’t you care about that?

You may think it is now worse for Mormons, but that is not my concern. Like I said, I am not Mormon any more. I am more concerned about accuracy and truth.

There. This extended quote changes NOTHING for the average, popular, non-Mormon reader who is reading the text. But let me go ahead and predict now what you will do. 1. Completely ignore what the paperback states.

Nope.

1. Keep pushing your arguments about the text in the hardbound.

Yep. So long as you cotinue to deny that your initial quote changed the meaning of Brigham Young’s words.

1. Tell others that I had no answer for you when you nailed me.

Nope.

1. Keep insisting that I know nothing about LDS theology so no one should read ONUG.

Nope.

I didn’t say that you know “nothing” about LDS theology. And I don’t believe that now. Rather, I think you are ignorant of “some” basic LDS teachings.

1. Continue attributing to me false motives, beliefs, and actions.

Sigh. Oh well.

RA

Again… if you believe that the Spirit World is “where” the Celestial Kingdom is, then this would be a wrong belief. If you modify Brigham Young’s words, and change the meaning of what he actually said, then this would be a wrong action. If you continue to insist that you were never wrong about what you have done… then I can’t help but conclude that you have wrong motives. Frankly… it seems to me that you are willing to defend yourself at all cost, even when you are proven wrong. What are the motives behind such behavior? Ego? Perhaps.

 

[BDawg]

**BDAWG: **Note to Abanes: Tarantallegra! (I thought you would appreciate that one, since you were a dancer before you started writing books about Harry Potter and the Mormons.)
RA: Ahhh, the tried and true weapon of choice when nothing substantive is available – personal insults, mockery, derision, and subtle insults. Anyone ever tell you guys that you’re actually not very nice.

**BDAWG: **The info from FARMS is misleading “due to” the fact that the authors there employ arguments that Joe Redneck can’t verify. So much for all those Evangelical Bible commentaries that rely on Greek grammar.
RA: I will say, you guys are really pulling out the stops to twist, pervert, and mangle anything you can get your hands on. I’m a bit curious, however, as to why you picked this RC forum to launch your assault. Interesting.

RA

I’ll tell you my motivation.

First, you started posting here, and I have been hanging around the CAF Non-Catholic Religions board for quite a while. Check my profile. The only reason I posted anything about you here is that someone asked whether your book is a good source on Mormonism.

Second, the Evangelical “anti-cult” industry (of which you are a part) disgusts me. It gives me a very low opinion of a large swath of Christianity, even though I know a number of very thoughtful, nice Evangelicals. Your ilk appeals to the lowest common denominator of redneck Christians to stir up bad feelings and false impressions. If you make any attempt at all to achieve some kind of balanced presentation, it is only enough to support some line about how “Mormons are mostly really nice people, but so obviously deceived that it is almost inconceivable that they fall for it.” Fine, but the fact is that we have any number of reasonable arguments for our case, but people in your line of work generally can’t fathom the (perfectly mundane) idea that there can be reasonable arguments for multiple, contradictory positions. Educated, reasonable people have come to realize that most people who disagree with them about important issues at least have some decent reasons for their beliefs.

Your writing isn’t as hysterical and lowbrow as some (e.g., Jack Chick or Dave Hunt–at least you try to keep an even tone) but it is still lowbrow garbage. I mean, really–just read over the quotation from your book I posted, and consider how an educated person would interpret that.

I contrast counter-cult authors like you with people like Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, who actually made a reasonable attempt to address our best arguments, instead of settling for stirring up Joe Sixpack in the pew. The counter-cult industry embarrasses intelligent Evangelicals like Mosser and Owen, and for good reason.

Third, I throw in a few Harry Potter spells into my posts as a little dig at someone (YOU) who is something of a comic figure for me. So I’m not that nice–I already knew that. But take a look at yourself, Richard, and see why my funnybone gets some mileage out of you. Some dancer/actor decides to be a “freelance journalist” who goes around exposing other religious groups and pop culture phenomena for the benefit of Joe Sixpacks who can’t understand real arguments. You seem to be all worked up about just about everything.

So maybe Joe Sixpack should get worked up about whatever dangers to society are on your list this week. Maybe they need an expert to bring the subject down to their level. So here comes the expert, Richard Abanes, to explain it to them. But the fact is that I don’t think you have the horsepower under the old hood to be an expert on anything. I mean, look at your little pontification about the Spirit World in LDS thought. How many books about Mormonism have you written, and you still don’t understand that kind of basic stuff that every LDS kid knows? How can anyone possibly trust YOU to explain LDS thought in a way that is accurate and fair? If you can’t be trusted to do that, then we can assume that you probably spend plenty of time knocking down straw men.

But don’t dare question Richard Abanes’s bona fides as an expert on _____!!! No sooner does a Catholic poster criticize your book on this forum, than you show up to defend your honor! What, do you do daily Google searches of your name to see if anyone has criticized you? And every time someone brings up a substantive issue with your scholarship, your responses are whiny diatribes about how your critics are so juvenile and mean. Fine, but could you also insert some substantive arguments to defend against these criticisms?

Like…how about you address your boo-boo about the Spirit World being the Celestial Kingdom?

Stupefy!

 

[Richard_Abanes]

The issue is very simple for those who care to see my explanation. It’s not as nefarious as you make it sound.

But for whatever reason, you need to believe whatever it is that you believe about my intentions and how that isolated sentence reads (despite my painful simple explanation about general readership).

Fine. You’ve made your accusations. I’ve given my response that explains the hardbound text, coupled with a revised quote from the paperback with yet more explanation. And neither are good enough for you. Awesome. Have a nice Christmas.

If you want to draw diagrams of the Mormon afterlife, and where the Spirit World is in relation to Smith’s various kingdoms (you might want to use a layout similar to the various kingdoms in Disneyworld), feel free to do so. However, in ONUG it is sufficient for me to simply try and communicate to the average reader that there is a world of spirits that Mormons must pass through – a realm of the dead, if you will – and Smith’s “GO AHEAD” is needed for them if they want to get into the Celestial Kingdom, which technically, although still a world of spirits, is not the technical (“Spirit World”).

RA

 

[BDawg]

First, that you would actually bring this point up again simply proves my initial statement earlier in the thread: “They * love to mince words, slice & dice, and nit-pick at jots & tittles, while missing the big white elephant sitting on their backs. Ah well. It sometimes does make for interesting reading and seeing how people think and analyze things.”

It is amazing to me that you will fight, and fight, and fight, about the most complex, intricate, miniscule point, while simultaneously ignoring volumes of material that strike at the very heart of your entire belief system. You want to debate the words “spirit world” in a passing reference, yet ignore the thrust of the whole passage – indeed, the whole chapter, and the whole book in which that chapter is contained. I suppose, however, that it is a great way to re-direct attention away from the weightier matters dealt with in ONUG and avoid all of those uncomfortable/troubling aspects of Mormonism that my book exposes.

Second, no one is EQUATING the “Spirit World” with the “celestial kingdom.” That is an invention that you have created in your own mind about what I stated in my book One Nation Under Gods, p. 175 (hardbound). I nowhere state that the “Spirit World” is the “Celestial Kingdom” (for readers unfamiliar with LDS theology, the CK is the highest tier/kingdom in their realm of heaven). So, your whole premise about what my book states is incorrect.*
Richard,

It’s fun to see someone like you squirm so much. For instance, in the quotation above, you say that “no one is EQUATING the ‘Spirit World’ with the ‘celestial kingdom.’ That is an invention that you have created in your own mind about what I stated in my book One Nation Under Gods, p. 175 (hardbound).”

You even tricked a nice guy like Mike into admitting that maybe you didn’t mean the passage in your book that way, even though your doctoring of the Brigham Young quotation gave that impression.

Well, Mike and Richard, hark back to post #38 of this very thread, and you will see one Richard Abanes saying the following:
Richard Abanes:

I really hate to ask the obvious question, but well, here goes: Where exactly IS the Celestial Kingdom? Hmmmmm, let’s see…Oh, yeah, it’s in the Spirit World that Joseph watches over and reigns supreme.

So, Your Expert-On-Everything-Ness, now that you’ve been caught in this rather obvious fib, let’s add a little rhythm and choreography to the squirming.

Tarantallegra! (The Harry Potter spell to make someone dance.)