Good book on Mormonism?

[Mike_Reed]

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.

Don’t you mean “I feel intimidated by 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.

I know that you were publically exposed for taking JK Rowling’s words out of context, for a footnote you published in your book. You remember, don’t you? You remember the recording that was played over the speakers that day, don’t you? The recording of the actual interview that you cited? In your book you tried to discredit Rowling about answering “Yes” to a question asking whether or not she believes in Magic. Then the recording played. And what did the recording say? Go ahead, Rich. I will let you tell the rest of the story. Or would you rather me provide a transcription of the interview? You were pissed off at the moderators that day too, weren’t you? Go ahead, Rich… give us all the dramatic details. This should be fun!

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.

See above.

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

The criticism that I have is that you implied that Rowling had special “Motives” (there is that word again) to convert kids to Witchcraft. What were you saying about scholarly papers, and the wisdom of “imparting motives to people”? (chuckle)

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.

See above.

MIKE REED: [rant - hanegraaff, Grover, editor, blah blah blah]

Convenient that you don’t want to get into this part of the discussion.

**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.

Yeah. It isn’t worth it to YOU. As I speculated… ego. You’ve gotta protect it, don’t you?

**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.

Feel free to “expose” David Waltz. I am sure he would be thrilled to read what you have to say about him. But you don’t want to do that, do you? Because he might actually feel the need to also come to this forum and correct your typical misrepresentations.

RA: I will say, you guys are really pulling out the stops to twist, pervert, and mangle anything you can get your hands on.

You act as though this is coordinated joint effort. It isn’t. I don’t think I know Snow or BDawg (at least, not by their handles they are using). It just happens that most informed people tend to reject ONUG. We could try to recruit Jann Shipps, Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, etc… but frankly, I doubt think your book is worth reading, let alone worth commenting on.

I’m a bit curious, however, as to why you picked this RC forum to launch your assault. Interesting.

RA

There MUST be a reason! Mystery Music please: DUM-dum-DUM!

 

[BDawg]

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

Gee, Richard,

I would have thought that, in the interest of fair and balanced journalism, you would have thought to include mention of how Mormons accommodate statements like these? For instance, you could have mentioned the fact that, in connection with these kinds of statements, Mormons usually point out that Jesus told the 12 Apostles that they would judge the 12 Tribes of Israel.

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28).

Boy, it doesn’t sound so bad for Mormons to say that JS would judge this dispensation, when Jesus already indicated that he would be delegating out the judgment work. But then, the purpose of ONUG wasn’t to help Evangelicals understand Mormon thought, now, was it? The purpose was simply to make the Mormons look bad, by whatever means necessary.

I suppose I’m mean and juvenile for bringing this up, too.

Expelliarmus!

 

[Mike_Reed]

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.

I wouldn’t say that he tricked me. Lets just say that for the sake of argument, I conceded the possibility. As for “Probability”… I am far from convinced. The scales are not tilted in his favor. I agree that his statement (which you quote) seems to expose his ignorance on the topic quite thoroughly.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**BDAWG: **The only reason I posted anything about you here is that someone asked whether your book is a good source on Mormonism.
**RA: **Yes. And rather than say that it has received some very good responses from the non-Mormon world, you made it seem as if everyone (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) have lambasted it as a sloppy, hate-filled, sub-standard, hack job. The truth is that the only truly negative reviews have been from Mormons – surprise, surprise. And even then, for example with FAIR, the arguments/criticism are pathetic. And that will be shown very shortly.

BDAWG: Second, the Evangelical “anti-cult” industry (of which you are a part) disgusts me.
**RA: **Mistake #2. I am a religion journalist who has written on a wide variety of topics that includes issues dealing with cults, the occult, and new religions. Other issues I have dealt with as a religion journalist arenear-death experiences, video games & pop culture, children’s literature, Easter/Lent traditions, racism in America, the militia movement, and doomsday obsessions. So please, stop with the “Abanes is a big bad cult hunter” nonsense.

BDAWG: Your ilk appeals to the lowest common denominator of redneck Christians to stir up bad feelings and false impressions.
**RA: **Your level of ignorance here is crushing. There’s just too much to say here to begin saying anything.

BDAWG: 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.
**RA: **Really? How odd, then, that the highly reputable scholar Frank Beckwith (WHO IS NOW A ROMAN CATHOLIC), who served as a senior editor with Mosser and Owen on The New Mormon Challenge, endorsed my book Inside Today’s Mormonism on Mormon doctrine, as follows:

*“Richard Abanes is part of a generation of Christian writers who have come to recognize that responding to alternative religious movements that challenge traditional Christian theology, such as Mormonism, is not merely a matter of refuting a position. Rather, it requires a careful and thoughtful analysis that takes into consideration the richness and nuances of the positions one is critiquing. Although you may find yourself disagreeing with Abanes on certain points, no one, including believers in Mormonism, will question the charitable spirit in which he offers his case.” *

Write your complaints about me to Roman Catholic and former Evangelical scholar Frank Beckwith. See what he says.

BDAWG: 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.
**RA: **I can’t imagine thinking I know so much when in reality I know so little. I feel more sorry for you than I do for Mike Reed. You have no idea what you’re ranting about. But I wish you the very best Christmas ever.

BDAWG: how about you address your boo-boo about the Spirit World being the Celestial Kingdom?
**RA: **yeah, well, you see I never said “The spirit world is the celestial kingdom.” So, we have a problem right there already. You’re function in a world of delusion(s).

BDAWG: Well, Mike and Richard, hark back to post #38 of this very thread, and you will see one Richard Abanes saying the following: . . . 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.
RA: He doesn’t have to go back to #38, I quoted myself saying that in POST #92, which shows me you’re not reading a thing I write. You’re just ranting.

BDAWG: Tarantallegra! (The Harry Potter spell to make someone dance.)
RA: Please, please tell me you are in high school. Because if you’re an adult…oh dear.

Merry Christmas. There’s no point in going any further with this.

RA

 

[Mike_Reed]

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.

Packing up the marbles and going home so soon?

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

So you admit that you misquoted Brigham Young by changing the meaning of his words? Yes or No? Or did your EDITOR do the misquoting again?

 

[Richard_Abanes]

I wouldn’t say that he tricked me. Lets just say that for the sake of argument, I conceded the possibility. As for “Probability”… I am far from convinced. The scales are not tilted in his favor. I agree that his statement (which you quote) seems to expose his ignorance on the topic quite thoroughly.

Dear Mike, I am going to say this once. We are not in a courtroom. You are not an attorney, and I am not on trial. Nor is a post made in quick passing between coffee breaks at my home office some kind of Master’s Thesis or final edition of a book to be released by Random House.

This is a casual board. And I posted in a casual, glib manner appropriate for the person to whom I was speaking and the subject matter. I also provided the paperback version for the person to read who is more serious about looking at the issue and text. So, please, let’s not start trying to make our interaction here anything more than it is.

If you wanted to take this to a courtroom or into some type of official debate, I guarantee you, I’d be more careful with my words and you, sir, would be the one having his ignorance exposed. Sorry, I don’t mean to play a bit rougher here, but it’s true. So let’s keep everything in perspective, shall we?

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

So you admit that you misquoted Brigham Young by changing the meaning of his words? Yes or No? Or did your EDITOR do the misquoting again?

Mike, you have your answer. Take it or leave it. I’m not going to try to reason with someone who is unreasonable and re-write the same answer ten different ways. TY. You are creating an either-or fallacy distinction, which doesn’t work because of the mixing of categories of readers and terminology.

 

[Mike_Reed]

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.

And I responded to those “details,” and you remain exposed as ever.

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.

Will it be of similar “quality” as the “rebuttal” you have provided on this thread?

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.

Gods over the people of their own creation. Not Gods (capital “G”) over this world (and the Spirit World) and the people inhabited thereon.

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.

Which would likely require them to buy the book. Frankly, I think it (unless one is an apologist) is a waste of money. I It is better to just check it out in the Library.

They can decide. I am not going to argue with you over every sentence you pull out from my 651 page book.

Of course, you want people to BUY the book, so they can find out for themselves.

But what I will do is defend myself and my work against false accusations.

Which… so far as it seems, you have failed to do.

**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.

Um… er. We already discussed what your paperback says. There isn’t much objection over the quote in your paper-back edition (other than my view that it should have also had an explanatory footnote). We are debating the Hard Bound edition because you continue to insist that it was correct all along.

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.

Still no concession.

And if you’re not a Mormon anymore, why are you so vociferously defending Mormonism?

Like I said, I am more concerned about accuracy and truth.

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

RA

And most of what is in your book has already been published. Your point?

 

[Mike_Reed]

If you wanted to take this to a courtroom or into some type of official debate, I guarantee you, I’d be more careful with my words and you, sir, would be the one having his ignorance exposed. Sorry, I don’t mean to play a bit rougher here, but it’s true. So let’s keep everything in perspective, shall we?

RA

I am happy to retract any comments that I may have made, which are inaccurate. What I am presenting in this thread is not necessarily the absolutely truth, but rather my own perception of the evidence (as I can best explain it). I have no valid reason (that I am aware of) to believe otherwise, so I ask you to convince me of the contrary. I want some real evidence, like the evidence I have shared with you. I am not just going to take your word for it… as your word has been contradicted by a person I trust: your editor. I did not initiate any attack on you. I defended myself from your seemingly libelous remarks against me when you said I was lying. So take that for what it is worth. Threaten legal action if you want, as you did many years ago on ZLMB (if I remember correctly) after I contacted your publisher Oakes, and rumors started floating around about someone hacking into his email account. Remember your Rant and Rave? Later we learned that the email someone cited was actually published online on your publisher’s website. LOL! Those were the good ol days.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

MIKE REED: Not Gods (capital “G”) over this world (and the Spirit World) and the people inhabited thereon.
RA: ROFL!!! I never said he’d be a God over the Spirit World. Do you even HAVE a copy of my book still, or did you leave it at FARMS when you left the church – and now you’re just quoting from what I cited here on the thread? Or, are you deliberately seeking to just misrepresent me?

MIKE REED: There isn’t much objection over the quote in your paper-back edition (other than my view that it should have also had an explanatory footnote).
RA: Excellent.

**MIKE REED: **We are debating the Hard Bound edition because you continue to insist that it was correct all along.
**RA: **No, we are not debating anything. I explained my intentions behind that hardbound quote. It’s reasonable. It’s understandable. It’s acceptable. Now, does that mean I can’t see how you, as a Mormon (ooops, sorry, you as a reader with a very detailed knowledge of Mormonism) might mis-read that kind of limited wording? No. The fact is that I can indeed understand the problem from your perspective. THAT’S WHY I CHANGED IT IN THE PAPERBACK. This is one issue.

A second issue is: Was my intention to mislead? The answer to that is NO. I in no way attempted to mislead anyone into thinking _____________ [fill in the blank with whatever].

A third issue is: Do I know/Did I know what Mormonism teaches in this area of faith? The answer to that is “YES.”

A fourth issue is: Did I word the text as perfectly as it could have been worded to communicate everything I was thinking in my head at the time of writing? The answer to that is “NO.” Again, this resulted in the paperback version.

You see you cannot reduce it down to the simplistic kind of issue you are trying to make it. What goes on in the writing process – especially regarding an point of reference as complicated as that one quote and how I worded it – cannot be so neatly categorized. You’ll learn that someday, I hope.

Now, my question to you is: Have you ever written a 200,000+ word book with as many hundreds of endnotes as you can find in ONUG? My guess is no. When you have done so, talk to me again. And we’ll better understand each other.

The fact is that imperfectly wording/paraphrasing/summarizing some isolated sentence somewhere in a book the size of ONUG is expected, tbh. That’s what future editions are for – i.e., when possible to clean up typos, editing errors, and wording that could be tighter and better express what was in the mind of the author.

Now, really, you need to let this go of this and not interpret everything through some filter plastered with an image of me created out of a Mormon-influenced bizarre set of misconceptions regarding my motives and persona.

ra

 

[Richard_Abanes]

I am not just going to take your word for it… as your word has been contradicted by a person I trust: your editor.

Now the obvious question: Why trust him? He was fired by the publisher for sub-standard work. You were told he was fired for sub-standard work. On the other hand, I remain in good contact with the publisher, John Oakes. And the paperback has been picked up by one of the most reputable new York publishers of volumes by intellectuals, scholars, and journalists – i.e., Basic Books. But you’ll trust a fired editor over my word. Interesting.

I did not initiate any attack on you. I defended myself from your seemingly libelous remarks against me when you said I was lying. So take that for what it is worth.

My statement that you were lying was/is with regard to any statements you have made against my character as it relates to my motives. For example, if you say I deliberately lied, or deliberately mislead, or deliberately used a quote to deceive, then that is a statement about my intentions. And to call you a liar about that is simple: “Those were not my intentions. he is lying.” There. Now, you had better be able to prove otherwise – i.e., that was indeed my intention (e.g., if you have an email wherein I stated to my publisher such intentions). See how it works?

Threaten legal action if you want, as you did many years ago on ZLMB (if I remember correctly) after I contacted your publisher Oakes, and rumors started floating around about someone hacking into his email account.

I don’t recall any of that. Not saying it didn’t happen, but I just have erased all of that to make room for other stuff. So, whatever. It’s like you’re talking about another person. It makes no difference anyway, TBH.

Remember your Rant and Rave? Later we learned that the email someone cited was actually published online on your publisher’s website. LOL! Those were the good ol days.

Don’t remember that either. I am getting old. And I have far more important things to worry about.

RA

 

[BDawg]

Ok, I’ll bite. Let’s look again at what you had to say in Post #92.

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.”

Great. So you did quote yourself saying that the Celestial Kingdom is IN the Spirit World. And not just any “Spirit World”–you specifically mentioned the one that Joseph Smith “watches over and reigns supreme.” Lets see what you had to say about it.

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), (snip)

Ok, so far, so good. But you haven’t explained what you meant when you said that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World that JS heads up. Could there be a rational explanation for this? Let’s see…

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.

Oh, so you are saying that you were interpreting the phrase “Spirit World” as a generic reference to the afterlife? But then, why did you specifically say that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World that Joseph Smith rules over? Is that part of the generic Christian use of the phrase “Spirit World”?

I think perhaps the tension is no so much between brevity and effective communication, as between effective communication of the truth and effective communication of what you want your readers to believe.

Let’s see how your little evasion about “usage” works out when we look at the details.

In the original quotation from your hardcover edition, according to you, you apparently wanted your readers to believe that Brigham Young believed Joseph Smith ruled over the afterlife in general, because that’s how your readers would interpret the term, “Spirit World.” There was no need to compromise brevity by explaining that Brigham Young was using the term differently, because you were already communicating what you wanted your readers to believe. A lie, that is.

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.

That’s true. They would still believe what you wanted, because you never bothered to explain that BY was not using the common meaning of “Spirit World.” Thanks for clarifying the following facts:

1. You knew very well how non-Mormon readers would interpret the quotation from Brigham Young.
2. You knew that this interpretation would make the quotation sound worse to your Evangelical audience than it would if they understood what BY meant.
3. When it was brought to your attention that the quotation, as edited, changed BY’s meaning, you eventually put a more complete version in your paperback edition.
4. But you knew all along that, while this concession might serve to shut up your LDS critics who complained about you changing the meaning, it wasn’t really a concession at all, because your non-Mormon readers wouldn’t understand the difference!
5. Even after this bit of deception was explicitly pointed out to you, you go on a public forum claiming that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World that Joseph Smith rules over.
6. And even after this was shown to be false, you want to cover your tracks by spouting long diatribes about how you weren’t speaking in terms of the LDS version of the “Spirit World.” As if Joseph Smith was supposed to rule over any other version of the “Spirit World”? Please.

Give it up, Richard. Everything you say compounds your lies.

 

[BDawg]

Lieutenant BDawg, Lie Patrol, at your service.

Richard said:

MIKE REED: Not Gods (capital “G”) over this world (and the Spirit World) and the people inhabited thereon.
RA: ROFL!!! I never said he’d be a God over the Spirit World. Do you even HAVE a copy of my book still, or did you leave it at FARMS when you left the church – and now you’re just quoting from what I cited here on the thread? Or, are you deliberately seeking to just misrepresent me?

But the full context of Mike’s comment was this:

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.

So let’s reconstruct the sequence.

1. Abanes, in his book, quoted Heber C. Kimball saying that Joseph Smith would one day be viewed “as a God.” So far, so good. Theosis is a standard Mormon doctrine, after all.
2. But then, Abanes claimed that Mormons in the late 19th century “already viewed their prophet as a god.”
3. Abanes then went on to support this point using the quotation of Brigham Young saying that Joseph Smith was the man in charge of the Spirit World.
4. When Mike pointed this out to Abanes, he dissembled by acting like his accusation the Mormons viewed JS as “already” a God was no different than the standard LDS concept of theosis.
5. Mike then pointed out that the accusation is different than the standard LDS concept.
6. Abanes then said he was “rolling on the floor laughing” because he “never said [Joseph Smith would] be a God over the Spirit World.”

It seems to me that the critical point at issue is whether Abanes used the Brigham Young quote about Joseph ruling in the Spirit World to support his point that Mormons “already viewed their prophet as a God.”

So, Richard, was the BY quote meant to support this point?

If not, what did you use to support this point?

 

[Snow]

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

Like, would it be more juvenile than, like, oh, say - calling someone someone like 12 years old?

What I am talking about is your highly biased and pejorative view of the Church of Jesus Christ, LDS… and, are you not the guy who posed for a picture on at least one of his books with a safari hat on?

It reminded me of a journalist named Aphrodite Jones who wrote a book about the Knoller dog mauling case in San Francisco. She kinda attractive but her picture on the back of the book is of her in a short business skirt with boots on, carrying a briefcase and pretending to talk on a cell phone… as if to say, I am too busy being a journalist and pretending to talk on this cell phone to actually stop and let you take my picture.

Does it make her a worse writer for it? No, of course not, but it gives you some insight into the kinds of affects she will adopt to self-promote.

 

[Mike_Reed]

MIKE REED: Not Gods (capital “G”) over this world (and the Spirit World) and the people inhabited thereon.
RA: ROFL!!! I never said he’d be a God over the Spirit World. Do you even HAVE a copy of my book still, or did you leave it at FARMS when you left the church – and now you’re just quoting from what I cited here on the thread?

No. I have three copies of your book still. The paperpack, hardbound, and your uncorrected proof that I cited in my review.

Or, are you deliberately seeking to just misrepresent me?

I am definitely not trying to misrepresent you. You didn’t say this explicitly, but this is the conclusion that (as I read it) naturally follows from the passage in your HB edition, especially because you paired Brigham Young’s quote with Heber C. Kimball’s: “Heber C. Kimball proclaimed that one day the world would look upon Joseph ‘as a God.’ In truth, comments by early Mormon leaders, especially after Smith’s death, indicate that at the time the Saints already viewed their prophet as a god. 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.’”

If Joseph Smith is acting in the Celestial Kingdom in the same sphere, capacity, and calling as God is in the Celestial Kingdom, then this would mean that he is currently one of our Gods (capital “G”) and a God in the Spirit World. Contrary to what you imply… what Kimball said would happen to Joseph Smith in the future, and was not “already” the case.

This is what I was trying to get across. I now realize that you don’t currently hold this position (whether that position has been changed, I remain skeptical).

**MIKE REED: **We are debating the Hard Bound edition because you continue to insist that it was correct all along.
**RA: **No, we are not debating anything. I explained my intentions behind that hardbound quote. It’s reasonable. It’s understandable. It’s acceptable. Now, does that mean I can’t see how you, as a Mormon (ooops, sorry, you as a reader with a very detailed knowledge of Mormonism) might mis-read that kind of limited wording? No. The fact is that I can indeed understand the problem from your perspective. THAT’S WHY I CHANGED IT IN THE PAPERBACK. This is one issue.

Your initial post here didn’t seem so “understanding.” This is what you said: “Yeah, I look at some of those comments by FAIR - FARMS guys and just shake my head. This is a good example [you quote my review about the BY quote] …] 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.”

A second issue is: Was my intention to mislead? The answer to that is NO. I in no way attempted to mislead anyone into thinking _____________ [fill in the blank with whatever].

Regarding the quote in question… I am open to the possibility that you didn’t intend to mislead. But as for your claims against Grover, I am even less confident. And not only because Grover rejects your accusation, but also because the un-published galley doesn’t support your position; also, it is hard to believe you because an almost identical error (on the following page even) remains in your “revised” paperback edition. Like the other quotes you had out of context in your hardback edition–which the book asserted were acts of violence rather than accounts of sporting events–you again pull a wrestling quote out of context and said that the quote described a minister’s reaction to Smith “Hitting” him. You wrote, “According to Grant, Smith hit the preacher and threw him to the ground so violent that the minister ‘whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head.’” (HB 179) Much like the other quotes (of wrestling and stick-pulling), you take this wrestling quote our of context. To me… this appears to be beyond coincidence, and in fact seems to be a “fingerprint” traceable to you and you only. I know you don’t like to hear that, and you may be offended by it, but this is really how I perceive the situation.

A third issue is: Do I know/Did I know what Mormonism teaches in this area of faith? The answer to that is “YES.”

Ok. Good. And now all I ask for is a concession that your initial quote in the HB edition of ONUG changed the meaning of BY’s words. I don’t think that is too much to ask.

A fourth issue is: Did I word the text as perfectly as it could have been worded to communicate everything I was thinking in my head at the time of writing? The answer to that is “NO.” Again, this resulted in the paperback version.

Great. I will take that as the concession that I have been waiting for. Thanks.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

Okay, I don’t consider Richard Abanes “anti-Mormon” (or anti-Catholic for that matter). I recommended his book “One Nation Under Gods” because I considered it well written, well researched, and well documented. And the tone of it was good. My friend I recommended it to is reading it for a second time and her daughter (who is dating a Mormon) will be reading it over Christmas break. I certainly don’t consider the book “2nd-rate” in the least.

 

[Mike_Reed]

You see you cannot reduce it down to the simplistic kind of issue you are trying to make it. What goes on in the writing process – especially regarding an point of reference as complicated as that one quote and how I worded it – cannot be so neatly categorized. You’ll learn that someday, I hope.

Now, my question to you is: Have you ever written a 200,000+ word book with as many hundreds of endnotes as you can find in ONUG? My guess is no. When you have done so, talk to me again. And we’ll better understand each other.

It is funny that you should say that. Just last month I stated on a message board that writing a thesis is very hard work. Certainly not 200,000+ words, but it is indeed a significant task that is very challenging to me. I mentioned this on the message board, and said (paraphrasing here), “I wonder how many FARMS reviewers have actually written a book the size of the one that they write reviews for? If a reviewer has written a book that size, would they be more sympathetic and less critical?” My own personal answer to that question is “Yes.” If I had written a book the size that you have written, I think I would’ve been much less critical of ONUG. Maybe my spiritual demise (leaving the Church) has helped too, I don’t know.

I looked it up. Here is the link to my thread, if you are interested: mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7982

The fact is that imperfectly wording/paraphrasing/summarizing some isolated sentence somewhere in a book the size of ONUG is expected, tbh. That’s what future editions are for – i.e., when possible to clean up typos, editing errors, and wording that could be tighter and better express what was in the mind of the author.

Agreed.

Now, really, you need to let this go of this and not interpret everything through some filter plastered with an image of me created out of a Mormon-influenced bizarre set of misconceptions regarding my motives and persona.
ra

I will work on that. For the moment, I still struggle with you (seemingly) using your editor as a scapegoat. Feel free to discount my implied personal statement, “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.” I could have phrased that better. But also notice that, just before this quote, I additionally said, “Abanes inadvertently changes the meaning of a statement made by Brigham Young.”

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Great. I will take that as the concession that I have been waiting for. Thanks.

If that’s what it will take for us to be able to go forward and talk about stuff that, tbh, would probably be a lot more fun and interesting, then cool.

It is funny that you should say that. Just last month I stated on a message board that writing a thesis is very hard work.

It is. Now, multiply it into however many it would take to fill up as many pages as ONUG. You can get an idea of what I went through to complete that monster.

Certainly not 200,000+ words, but it is indeed a significant task that is very challenging to me.

Yeah, absolutely. An MT will be a major accomplishment. Best of luck. Seriously, I mean that It’ll be an accomplishment.

“I wonder how many FARMS reviewers have actually written a book the size of the one that they write reviews for? If a reviewer has written a book that size, would they be more sympathetic and less critical?” My own personal answer to that question is “Yes.”

I agree.

Maybe my spiritual demise (leaving the Church) has helped too, I don’t know.

Maybe. Personally, I think it has indeed enabled you to speak a bit more openly with me. And I hope our future conversations will go beyond how we interacted as Mormon vs. EV. I do wish you all the best as your journey continues.

I still struggle with you (seemingly) using your editor as a scapegoat.

Mike, I am being completely honest with you – that guy was the worst ever.

For example, I flew to New York at one point to meet John Oakes and see the publishing house. I met Grover and we sat in the office and with some free time decided to start at the beginning of the manuscript to begin editing. It was exciting.

So there we sat - him w/ one copy and me with another. I kept marking typos, misspelled words, misplaced endnotes, etc etc. and noticed he wasn’t marking anything. He was just sort of staring at the page and scanning it. I had to say, “Hey, did you catch this…?” he’d answer, “HUh? Oh, uhm, no.”

And then it’d happen again. And again. And again. i was more than a little nervous at that point. But given the deadline and my confidence in John, I figured maybe he was just making some kind of cursory scan.

Oh, BTW, my manuscript WAS NOT late (which he seemed to imply). That is an absolutely a lie. I have never been late on 20 manuscripts. The book was right on time. In fact, I think I just MIGHT have the FedEx bill to dated with when I sent in the full manuscript and it does NOT match whatever date you mentioned in your review (I’d have to re-check and dig, but I do believe that is the case with the date on the FedEx bill – if I do indeed have it). I had the bill still when your review came out and looked at it. I am unsure if I have it now.

Anyway, Grover is the one you should not have believed. Oakes fired him for good reason.

peace,

RA

 

[Snow]

Okay, I don’t consider Richard Abanes “anti-Mormon” (or anti-Catholic for that matter). I recommended his book “One Nation Under Gods” because I considered it well written, well researched, and well documented. And the tone of it was good. My friend I recommended it to is reading it for a second time and her daughter (who is dating a Mormon) will be reading it over Christmas break. I certainly don’t consider the book “2nd-rate” in the least.

You don’t think he is anti? That he didn’t start from a pre-conclusion that The Church of Jesus Christ was bad - wrong - whatever… that he is merely a disinterested party presenting an honest and non-biased view?

Here’s what a non-LDS review had to say about that:

“A more serious and penetrating criticism is the fact that Abanes stands a long, long way from the position of an unbiased journalist or scholar. Abanes seems to have dedicated himself to “exposing” cults and informing people about all of their horrible practices - something which has led him to take some rather indefensible positions, for example regarding Harry Potter:… However, it would be a fallacy to reject his arguments and conclusions merely because his background is that of a biased evangelical. Some of his arguments fail entirely on their own,”

atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/OneNationUnder.htm

 

[Richard_Abanes]

Here’s what a non-LDS review had to say about that:“A more serious and penetrating criticism is the fact that Abanes stands a long, long way from the position of an unbiased journalist or scholar. Abanes seems to have dedicated himself to “exposing” cults and informing people about all of their horrible practices - something which has led him to take some rather indefensible positions, for example regarding Harry Potter:… However, it would be a fallacy to reject his arguments and conclusions merely because his background is that of a biased evangelical. Some of his arguments fail entirely on their own,”

Oh, please, please, please do quote more, but first, let’s start with that convenient ellipses you used after “Harry Potter…” Here’s what you left out – I am quite sure by sheer accident: “However, it would be a fallacy to reject his arguments and conclusions merely because his background is that of a biased evangelical.”

And then, AFTER your second set of ellipses following “on their own…,” you neglected to mention that the reviewer THEN cites my view that Mormonism, THEOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, is a “cult.” This is a heated and widely debated issue that both the reviewer and I can disagree over. But then the reviewer goes on to say (again, points you left out):

Nevertheless, while his bias may undermine his evaluation of the status of Mormonism as a religion, it does not necessarily undermine his research into Mormon history and beliefs. By and large, that can stand on its own because he goes to great lengths to document and quote what Mormons have said and done in the past. Unless he is using phony material, he makes an excellent case that Mormons have adopted and promoted some rather bizarre positions which, apparently, they would rather the outside world forget.

Abanes’ primary goal is to expose the contradictions in and falsehoods about Mormon doctrines and Mormon history which have accumulated over the years. His account is, therefore, chronological in nature - starting from the Joseph Smith’s earliest work and moving down through today. With over 100 pages of footnotes, it is well-researched and certainly very readable. It should not, however, be read in an uncritical manner.

Interesting material for you to not include…Thanks for bringing it up, though, and giving me the chance to mention this very positive review of the book, that also states:

“Abanes does not provide us with any radical new findings about Mormonism or new, creative arguments about the nature of Mormon beliefs.What he does do, however, is collect together valid and important critiques and questions into a single volume - and that in itself is a worthy accomplishment.”

Again, mentioning this review is appreciated.

RA