Good book on Mormonism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brennan_Doherty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FLAME: Abanes has publicly made it clear on several occasisons that HE does not accept as ‘valid’ any critique of his methodology based on what he terms ‘LDS sources’.

RA: Friend, you are simply inventing false accusations. I know what LDS sources are and I use them, not only in ONE NATION UNDER GODS, but also INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM.

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Dear Brennan Doherty,

flameburns623 responded to you, “I do NOT recommend Abanes as a primary resource on Mormon history. He is a profoundly anti-Mormon writer who uses biased sources in a way that I found very unbecoming for a purported Christian scholar.”

This is utterly false. One Nation Under Gods actually uses as its primary sources of documentation a wide array of official writings from the church (and unofficial Mormon writings) from well-respected leaders throughout LDS history. These sources are quoted extensively and form the bulk of references: Book of Mormon (original 1830 edition), Book of Mormon (modern edition), Articles of Faith, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, Book of Commandments, Doctrine and Covenants, A Comprehensive History of the Church, Documentary History of the Church, Journal of Discourses, Millennial Star, The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Pearl of Great Price, and Times and Seasons. Internet sources cited in the endnotes of One Nation Under Gods are websites of the above resources that can be accessed by the general public.

flameburns623 also alleged, “In recounting Smith’s life, Abanes exclusively relies upon sources which disliked Joseph Smith, leading the incautious reader to wonder how on earth such a self-evident scoundrel could have ever drawn a following at all.”

Again, this is completely false. I quote from primary sources, including faithful Mormons and non-hostile news sources, diaries, and scholarly books by historians.

But, if you don’t want to trust me, I recommend, Tanner, Vogel, Marquardt, and D. Michael Quinn. But this will require you to get many different books. My whole point of writing One Nation Under Gods was to try to collate as much information from many books into one volume (History). My second book on Mormonism, Inside Today’s Mormonism, concentrates more on LDS doctrine – and it even includes an Appendix by a BYU professor who expressed his own views about why is is a Mormon.
  1. Abanes rarely uses primary sources.
    = TOTALLY FALSE
  2. He uses secondary sources known to be incorrect or which are known to have incorrectly quoted or misused evidence
    = TOTALLY FALSE
  3. His book is inaccurate in numberless places
    = WRONG
  4. He deliberately and self-consciously discounts any and all evidence that does not conform to his agenda
    = WRONG
And BTW, the FAIR-LDS and FARM reviews are rife with false assertions, lies, misrepresentations, and nit-picking that makes them little more than attempts to simply discredit a book in order to keep it from being read.

R. Abanes
Click to expand...
Mr. Abanes:

Assuming that this really is the esteemed author of the book under scrutiny. Thanks your for taking the trouble to register on this site apparently to defend your own work.

For what it’s worth–and it ain’t worth much given the disparity in our training in this area–I bought, own, and had read your book and was not impressed with it, long before I read any reviews or critques of it. I favor Vogel’s work, or even Bushman’s over yours. I just don’t think you did a very good job, for all the work you put into that massive book. Hence your book is not on my ‘short list’ of books I recommend folks read as an intro to Mormonism.

I agree that FAIR_LDS and FARMS sometimes do a sloppy job of critiquing the work of anti-LDS writers. They absolutely love bringing into the fray irrelevant discussions about ad hominem issues. Hence my observation that from where I sit–mostly at lonely security guard posts in the middle of the night, which afford me opportunities to read long history books–FAIR-LDS and FARMS did a poor job of critiquing Vogel but a more convincing job of critiquing you.

On the other hand: you have several books to your credit.

I have . . .none.

Our fellow posters can take all of this into consideration as they review this thread.
 
Richard_Abanes said:
FLAME: Abanes has publicly made it clear on several occasisons that HE does not accept as ‘valid’ any critique of his methodology based on what he terms ‘LDS sources’.

RA: Friend, you are simply inventing false accusations. I know what LDS sources are and I use them, not only in ONE NATION UNDER GODS, but also INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM.

RA
Click to expand...
I was citing the Wikipedia article about you from memory:
Wiki article:
. . . .In One Nation Under Gods, Abanes states that “scholarly sources” from a particular pro-LDS website run by an organization called FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) are not reliable . . . .
Click to expand...
Of course–for other who read this–wikipedia is a nice quick source for general info, but the nature of the resources suggests it ever and always ought to be taken with reserve. And I was not making a direct quote but only referencing it from memory.

EDIT: By the way I only learned today–from that Wiki article–that you have published a second book on the topic in question. Congratulations to you: I expect I will be buying it ere long.
 
F: Assuming that this really is the esteemed author of the book

RA: I don’t think I am all that esteemed, tbh.

F: I bought, own, and had read your book and was not impressed with it

RA: A valid opinion. What is not a valid assertion are some of the other things you state that are contradicted by fact. And that will be up to the other readers to determine who decide to look at the contents of the books 140-ish pages of ennotes.

F: I favor Vogel’s work, or even Bushman’s over yours.

RA: Vogal is excellent. Bushman, not so much.

F: I just don’t think you did a very good job, for all the work you put into that massive book.

RA: A valid opinion, I can respect.

F: I agree that FAIR_LDS and FARMS sometimes do a sloppy job of critiquing the work of anti-LDS writers.

**RA: **Agreed.

F: a more convincing job of critiquing you.

RA: Again, we can agree to disagree.

F: I was citing the Wikipedia article about you from memory:

RA: Not exactly the place to get the most precise material, imho.

F: a second book on the topic in question.

RA: The second one is mostly doctrinal – most definitely from an evangelical perspective, taking to task the arguments put forth for the doctrines of LDS from FARMS, FAIR, BYU profs, and assorted other LDS apologists. So, this one really deals with doctrinal matters and disagreements between LDS and evangelicalism, if that is what you’re interested in.

I wish you the best in all your readings.

peace,

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Dear Brennan Doherty,

flameburns623 responded to you, “I do NOT recommend Abanes as a primary resource on Mormon history. He is a profoundly anti-Mormon writer who uses biased sources in a way that I found very unbecoming for a purported Christian scholar.”

This is utterly false. One Nation Under Gods actually uses as its primary sources of documentation a wide array of official writings from the church (and unofficial Mormon writings) from well-respected leaders throughout LDS history. These sources are quoted extensively and form the bulk of references: Book of Mormon (original 1830 edition), Book of Mormon (modern edition), Articles of Faith, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, Book of Commandments, Doctrine and Covenants, A Comprehensive History of the Church, Documentary History of the Church, Journal of Discourses, Millennial Star, The Latter-day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate, Pearl of Great Price, and Times and Seasons. Internet sources cited in the endnotes of One Nation Under Gods are websites of the above resources that can be accessed by the general public.

flameburns623 also alleged, “In recounting Smith’s life, Abanes exclusively relies upon sources which disliked Joseph Smith, leading the incautious reader to wonder how on earth such a self-evident scoundrel could have ever drawn a following at all.”

Again, this is completely false. I quote from primary sources, including faithful Mormons and non-hostile news sources, diaries, and scholarly books by historians.

But, if you don’t want to trust me, I recommend, Tanner, Vogel, Marquardt, and D. Michael Quinn. But this will require you to get many different books. My whole point of writing One Nation Under Gods was to try to collate as much information from many books into one volume (History). My second book on Mormonism, Inside Today’s Mormonism, concentrates more on LDS doctrine – and it even includes an Appendix by a BYU professor who expressed his own views about why is is a Mormon.
  1. Abanes rarely uses primary sources.
    = TOTALLY FALSE
  2. He uses secondary sources known to be incorrect or which are known to have incorrectly quoted or misused evidence
    = TOTALLY FALSE
  3. His book is inaccurate in numberless places
    = WRONG
  4. He deliberately and self-consciously discounts any and all evidence that does not conform to his agenda
    = WRONG
And BTW, the FAIR-LDS and FARM reviews are rife with false assertions, lies, misrepresentations, and nit-picking that makes them little more than attempts to simply discredit a book in order to keep it from being read.

R. Abanes
Click to expand...
Mr. Abanes,

Thanks for responding on this thread, I appreciate it. It’s not usually the case that we get to have the actual author respond to a post. Maybe I’ll start a new thread on Pope Benedict’s book “Jesus of Nazareth” and see what happens :rolleyes: .

I have read your book and thought it was excellent and well documented; congratulations and thank you for writing it. It was also interesting and not a dull read. I have loaned it out a couple of times. I recommended it to my friend because I also like the tone of it. Plus, as you mentioned, it puts a lot of important information and history in one volume. I’ll also tell my friend about your new book; glad you mentioned it.
 
Hello Brennan,

Thanks for the kind words. And I’m glad I was able to assist you. Actually, the LDS book I mentioned is already a couple years old. My newest book is actually on Eckhart Tolle, his book “A New Earth,” and Oprah Winfrey. An article just came out today about it:

VETERAN APOLOGIST

And you also might be interested in this **rather lengthy interview **that discusses Tolle. I hope this book helps you and others as well.

peace in Him,

RA
 
Richard_Abanes said:
Hello Brennan,

Thanks for the kind words. And I’m glad I was able to assist you. Actually, the LDS book I mentioned is already a couple years old. My newest book is actually on Eckhart Tolle, his book “A New Earth,” and Oprah Winfrey. An article just came out today about it:

VETERAN APOLOGIST

And you also might be interested in this **rather lengthy interview **that discusses Tolle. I hope this book helps you and others as well.

peace in Him,

RA
Click to expand...
Mr. Abanes,

I read your interview. I am glad people like you are tackling false teachers like Eckhart Tolle. I know Catholic Answers is also offering a 3 hour interview with Sharon Lee Giganti who was deep into the New Age movement before she converted to Catholicism.

Here is a shorter radio interview with her for anyone interested:

catholic.com/radio/event.php?event=5208&full=true&date=2008-06-20

And a brief synopsis she has written on this subject:

sharingthetreasures.org/pdf/warning_about_course_in_miracles.pdf

God bless Mr. Abanes and keep up the good work!

Brennan
 
Brennan:

Herein is the review by FARMS on Richard Abanes’ book. If other reviews, preferably by Evangelicals or Catholics, happen along I will provide links to those as well. Keep in mind that FARMS is an LDS apologetic organ, and read the review with that in mind. It does seem better than a review I read earlier today by FAIR-LDS. The advantage of the FAIR-LDS review is that it listed a number of the historical issues the reviewer felt showed the flaws in ONUG.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=527&q=abanes

Hope this is helpful. Keep in mind that I and Richard Abanes are brothers in Christ and that we each agree that LDS doctrine does not accurately represent the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. My disagreements with Mr. Abanes are not meant to suggest that I do not strongly disagree with LDS teaching.
 
religioustolerance.org/lds.htm

There’s the link to the LDS section of ReligiousTolerance.org–an excellent website for countless religions and faiths.

There LDS section is about the history, the practices, beliefs, the good times, and the negative sides… It’s very balanced, neutral, and expresses a general view on the Mormon faith.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
Blade_and_Blood said:
religioustolerance.org/lds.htm

There’s the link to the LDS section of ReligiousTolerance.org–an excellent website for countless religions and faiths.

There LDS section is about the history, the practices, beliefs, the good times, and the negative sides… It’s very balanced, neutral, and expresses a general view on the Mormon faith.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
Click to expand...
religioustolerance.org is not a good source, it misrepresents the beliefs and teachings of all religions.
 
flameburns623 said:
Brennan:

Herein is the review by FARMS on Richard Abanes’ book. If other reviews, preferably by Evangelicals or Catholics, happen along I will provide links to those as well. Keep in mind that FARMS is an LDS apologetic organ, and read the review with that in mind. It does seem better than a review I read earlier today by FAIR-LDS. The advantage of the FAIR-LDS review is that it listed a number of the historical issues the reviewer felt showed the flaws in ONUG.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=1&id=527&q=abanes

Hope this is helpful. Keep in mind that I and Richard Abanes are brothers in Christ and that we each agree that LDS doctrine does not accurately represent the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. My disagreements with Mr. Abanes are not meant to suggest that I do not strongly disagree with LDS teaching.
Click to expand...
Hi Flameburns,

Thanks for the link to the review and I look forward to any other reviews by Catholic or Evangelical authors.

I read the review and the phrase “Strain at a gnat…” comes to mind. I acknowledge that you do not agree with LDS doctrine.

So Joseph Smith engaged in sporting games, and yet the footnote acknowledges he also at times engaged in actual fights.

Quotes are given that Joseph Smith was the greatest man who ever lived on the face of the earth, and that the Saints would have understood an unmentioned qualification that it was excepting Jesus Christ. Then quotes are provided which basically say Joseph Smith was the greatest man to ever live excepting Jesus Christ. Wow. Ok. So Joseph Smith is on at least a par with Moses, Elijah, and John the Baptist, or even above them since apparently only Jesus Christ was above him. How the mighty have fallen!

Or this:

“Abanes inadvertently changes the meaning of a statement made by Brigham Young. “Brigham Young, for instance,” according to Abanes, “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).28 But Brigham Young was merely teaching that Joseph Smith, as head of a dispensation, holds keys necessary for us to enter into the celestial kingdom.29 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. 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 Joseph Smith only decides who gets into the celestial kingdom and only reigns as supreme a being (supreme being?) in the spirit world, not the celestial kingdom. Whew! What a relief! For a second there I thought Joseph Smith had been handed more power than any man (or Pope) who ever lived!

Again, thanks for the review. To me, if that is what they are nitpicking at, it only lends more credence to Mr. Abanes’ book.
 
Hi Brennan,

Rough Stone Rolling is very good, and I wish more Mormons would read it. (I’m a Mormon myself.) Also, you ought to check out Mormonism for Dummies.

BDawg
 
BDawg said:
Hi Brennan,

Rough Stone Rolling is very good, and I wish more Mormons would read it. (I’m a Mormon myself.) Also, you ought to check out Mormonism for Dummies.

BDawg
Click to expand...
I had the privilege of hearing Bushman speak at a stake fireside (when I was still a MOrmon) and he represents real hope for the CES. He was very bold in proclaiming that the CES has dropped the ball in many areas and shouldn’t worry so much about outside opinion when presenting the facts. His type of thinking could really help the Mormon community develop a more coherent and thoughtful theological approach.
 
RebeccaJ said:
That would require orthodoxy…Mormonism has none.
Click to expand...
Not at all… they could easily develop a system of thought which is somehow open ended but establishes clear procedures and investigates the consequences of what IS known in Mormonism. Sure it’s possible.
 
Dirk_Skene said:
I read one by a former morman woman. It was called Secret Ceremonies by Deborah Laake. Weired & strange.She goes into the whole temple ceremony stuff & how all morman men think they will be gods, and that our god (little “g” on purpose this time) is not so hot because he only has 1 planet. A good morman will have many planets under his control. Down right silly.
Click to expand...
The strange dicotomies and contradictions or Mormonism were too much for this sensitive and liberal woman–the book accounts her descent into mental illness. A few years after the publication, Laake suffered a brutal battle with cancer and committed suicide. Our prayers should be with her.
 
My beef with Abanes is if you read carefully, about what he considers valid Christianity and what he considers to be a “cult”, the Catholic Church is, by Abane’s defintions, a non-christian cult.
 
Hey B,

Yeah, I look at some of those comments by FAIR - FARMS guys and just shake my head. This is a good example: “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.”

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.

They love to mince words, slice and dice, nit-pick at jots and 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.

Oh, and BTW, just FYI, here’s what I actually wrote on p. 175 to flesh out the precise meaning of what Young was saying:

“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.’”

Sounds pretty clear to me. How about you??? 😃

RA
Sigh…😛
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
My beef with Abanes is if you read carefully, about what he considers valid Christianity and what he considers to be a “cult”, the Catholic Church is, by Abane’s defintions, a non-christian cult.
Click to expand...
Friend, yo yo yo, PLEASE don’t put words in my mouth, mmkay? 🙂 :o

Here, for the record, you can quote me: “Roman Catholicism is NOT a non-Christian cult.”

There. Better? 😃

peace,

RA
 
nebula said:
Not at all… they could easily develop a system of thought which is somehow open ended but establishes clear procedures and investigates the consequences of what IS known in Mormonism. Sure it’s possible.
Click to expand...
Not in Mormonism. If they established clear procedures today, you’d find that every prophet and apostle before today failed whatever procedure you came up with. The only clear procedure they have is to feel good about Mormon teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top