Good book on Mormonism?

[BDawg]

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.

Hi Brennan,

What is the basis for your judgment? Flameburns (a Catholic who has read quite a bit of LDS-oriented literature) thought it was very badly done. Have you read enough literature on the subject to tell whether Abanes has his facts straight, or whether he leaves important facts out, and so on? Or are you just going by the fact that it has lots of footnotes and and an even tone?

Those of us who are giving Richard a hard time here are doing so because 1) we are well read in LDS-oriented literature, 2) we can easily recognize that he has given a very twisted and one-sided rendition, and 3) he is so full of himself that he can’t admit a mistake.

Witness how he said that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World where Joseph Smith is in charge. You may think this is a nitpick, but the fact is that this is exactly the impression Mike Reed complained that Abanes was giving readers in his book, and Abanes denied it. This is a basic fact he got wrong about LDS thought, and Abanes can’t admit that he got it wrong. That should give you a clue about his character.

Frankly, I can’t understand some of the people here. You guys are subjected to a lot of the same kinds of stupid criticisms in anti-Catholic literature as we are, but some of you just don’t get that it’s wise to exercise some caution when looking for information about other faiths. I encourage you to read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and apply the same principles he advocates to studying non-Catholic groups.

 

[BDawg]

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.”

I’m sure it was sheer accident that you accused Snow of leaving out this part after you quoted him including it. No, really. You made yourself look really silly, so I have no doubt it was an accident.

 

[Snow]

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.”

Left out by accident? No, I left it out on purpose and, by the way, what I also left out was this:

“…it is neither absurd, nor laughable, to suppose that the Harry Potter books might lead some children into the world of occultism since the series contains actual beliefs and practices associated with witchcraft and paganism, including: divination, astrology, numerology, familiars, pagan gods/goddesses, spellcasting, potions, necromancy (i.e. communication with the dead/ghosts), mediumship, channeling, crystal gazing, palmistry, charms, arithmancy and magick.”

I left that out, although it makes you look less credible because it wasn’t relevant to your anti-Mormonism, except to point out, perhaps, your state of mind. I left out the part about your biased evangelical bent because that much is painfully obvious.

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.

Is the reviewer wrong about that? Though you ought to be ashamed to admit it, I thought that was your general view.

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

Your welcome, you seem most eager for any props…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Hi Brennan,

What is the basis for your judgment? Flameburns (a Catholic who has read quite a bit of LDS-oriented literature) thought it was very badly done. Have you read enough literature on the subject to tell whether Abanes has his facts straight, or whether he leaves important facts out, and so on? Or are you just going by the fact that it has lots of footnotes and and an even tone?

Those of us who are giving Richard a hard time here are doing so because 1) we are well read in LDS-oriented literature, 2) we can easily recognize that he has given a very twisted and one-sided rendition, and 3) he is so full of himself that he can’t admit a mistake.

Witness how he said that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World where Joseph Smith is in charge. You may think this is a nitpick, but the fact is that this is exactly the impression Mike Reed complained that Abanes was giving readers in his book, and Abanes denied it. This is a basic fact he got wrong about LDS thought, and Abanes can’t admit that he got it wrong. That should give you a clue about his character.

Frankly, I can’t understand some of the people here. You guys are subjected to a lot of the same kinds of stupid criticisms in anti-Catholic literature as we are, but some of you just don’t get that it’s wise to exercise some caution when looking for information about other faiths. I encourage you to read Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and apply the same principles he advocates to studying non-Catholic groups.

Hi BDawg,

I have read other material on Mormonism. One of my cousins became a Mormon and one of my best friends growing up is a Mormon. I’ve also talked a number of times with Mormon missionaries.

When approaching a work like ONUG I do look for documentation (I even read all the footnotes!). Now, if in reading reviews, major flaws or misappropriations are shown to have taken place in the documentation or use of source materials that would concern me. No review I have seen (to my mind) even comes close to showing a serious blunder.

Regarding the argument over where the celestial kingdom is, the issue that really sticks out for me is the fact that one needs Joseph Smith’s approval to get into the celestial kingdom. Because that goes directly to the heart of the issue regarding Mormonism. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? Would God have given him that kind of authority to allow or disallow someone into the celestial kingdom? What is his history? I think ONUG goes a long way towards helping one to discern that question.

I have read a number of anti-Catholic fallacies and I have read Karl Keating’s book. So I do have an idea of what it looks like when research is shoddy or not put into any kind of historical context.

If you have anything weightier regarding ONUG than this debate over a quote I would love to hear it.

God bless.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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

I don’t really consider him anti because to my mind in the book he was just stating his case and reporting his research. In fact, the book did not seem to be trying to twist one’s arm about Joseph Smith or Mormonism. It did not come across as some rant (like a Jack Chick comic book, for example). Plus I care far more about the documentation and final product than I do about whether or not he is considered a “biased” evangelical.

In Catholicism we get attacks from Protestants, atheists, secularists, you name it. And if it’s a valid argument (or even if it’s not) we have to deal with the argument and evidence itself.

I read the review. One part of it that stood out to me was the assertion that one reason Richard Abanes might describe Mormonism as a cult was because his definition of Christianity was “exceedingly narrow.” Exceedingly narrow?! If Mormonism qualifies as a Christian religion then I guess the dogma on the Blessed Trinity and the nature of God are optional. Plus, from what I understand, Richard Abanes considers Catholicism Christian even though he strongly disagrees with certain doctrines and other aspects of it.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

1. we are well read in LDS-oriented literature,

That means nothing, since you can be well-read and twisting facts, statements, history, and everything else as well.

1. we can easily recognize that he has given a very twisted and one-sided rendition,

That’s an opinion, like anyone else’s opinion. And by virtue of it being your opinion, that means it is not fact, as you seem to want to make it. Others, whose opinions are just as valid (if not more so because they have nothing to lose) say otherwise (read the back cover and other reviews of the book).

1. he is so full of himself that he can’t admit a mistake.

Really? Here: I make mistakes all the time!! There. Happy? And there’s some mistakes, typos, and mis-edits in ONUG – like in any book. Satisfied? The last time I checked I was a human. Now what?

Witness how he said that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World where Joseph Smith is in charge. You may think this is a nitpick, but the fact is that this is exactly the impression Mike Reed complained that Abanes was giving readers in his book, and Abanes denied it.

That’s been answered. And for reasonable-minded folk, it’s a reasonable answer. Continuing to spit out the same argument won’t make it any truer, nor will it make my response any less reasonable and understandable – for those who care about being reasonable. Nit-pick away, my friend. Nit-pick away. But you might want to pay at least 100th of that much attention to Joseph Smith and his tall tale – now THAT is worthy of a closer examination.

Frankly, I can’t understand some of the people here.

They’re thoughtful Christians.

“…it is neither absurd, nor laughable, to suppose that the Harry Potter books might lead some children into the world of occultism since the series contains actual beliefs and practices associated with witchcraft and paganism, including: divination, astrology, numerology, familiars, pagan gods/goddesses, spellcasting, potions, necromancy (i.e. communication with the dead/ghosts), mediumship, channeling, crystal gazing, palmistry, charms, arithmancy and magick.”

GO argue with MTV: “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.

RA

 

[zerinus]

Regarding the argument over where the celestial kingdom is, the issue that really sticks out for me is the fact that one needs Joseph Smith’s approval to get into the celestial kingdom. Because that goes directly to the heart of the issue regarding Mormonism. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? Would God have given him that kind of authority to allow or disallow someone into the celestial kingdom? What is his history? I think ONUG goes a long way towards helping one to discern that question.

First of all, there is nothing in LDS scripture that says Joseph Smith decides who goes into the Celestial Kingdom and who doesn’t. Secondly, don’t the Catholics believe that Peter stands at the Pearly Gate, deciding who goes into heaven? I believe it is derived from Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23. That was the authority Jesus gave to Peter and to the Apostles. If Peter could do it, I don’t see why Joseph Smith couldn’t!

zerinus

 

[tortdog]

Gospel Principles is the best book hands down for what you are trying to find. It is an easy read and lays out exactly what the LDS Church believes. A Catholic would readily find disagreement with these principles, without having to run to an anti-Mormon source, e.g., the nature of the Godhead.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

First of all, there is nothing in LDS scripture that says Joseph Smith decides who goes into the Celestial Kingdom and who doesn’t. Secondly, don’t the Catholics believe that Peter stands at the Pearly Gate, deciding who goes into heaven? I believe it is derived from Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23. That was the authority Jesus gave to Peter and to the Apostles. If Peter could do it, I don’t see why Joseph Smith couldn’t!

zerinus

Hi zerinus,

I was going by this quote (which was being discussed in this thread:

"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.’

Granted, that may not be a part of LDS scripture, but since Brigham Young is an actual prophet according to the LDS church I thought those words have weight.

There is no Catholic doctrine that Peter stands at the pearly gates to let people in or not. The only time I hear about that is as part of a joke.

 

[tortdog]

Granted, that may not be a part of LDS scripture, but since Brigham Young is an actual prophet according to the LDS church I thought those words have weight.

Brigham Young said a lot of things. And later prophets have at times disagreed. A prophet is only a man. He’s not perfect. When the LDS Church canonizes a prophet’s statements, you can know that it treats those words as scripture.

 

[BDawg]

Hi zerinus,

I was going by this quote (which was being discussed in this thread:

"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.’

Granted, that may not be a part of LDS scripture, but since Brigham Young is an actual prophet according to the LDS church I thought those words have weight.

There is no Catholic doctrine that Peter stands at the pearly gates to let people in or not. The only time I hear about that is as part of a joke.

Hi Brennan,

What do you think of the Bible passages Z referenced? Jesus clearly said the Twelve Apostles would judge the 12 Tribes of Israel. Given that, why would it be so weird for Mormons like Brigham Young to have believed that Christ would have Joseph Smith (who was an Apostle, in our view) judge the people of his time?

This is one reason why I don’t think much of Abanes’s book, or your judgment about literature on Mormonism, frankly. Abanes was clearly trying to dig out everything he could to put Mormonism in a bad light. But he didn’t come up with anything new–anti-Mormon authors had been screeching about that particular quotation for decades. So even if he were approaching the subject from a particular point of view, a responsible “journalist” would ask himself, “How do the Mormons typically answer this objection?” And he would have easily found these Biblical passages quoted by any number of LDS authors.

What would a responsible journalist do at that point? One of two things. If he were a little bit stupid, though still honest, he would have reported what the Mormons had to say in response. If he were both intelligent and honest, he would have said to himself, “Gee, it doesn’t make sense for Christians to object about Mormons thinking that judgment of certain groups would be given to their prophets and Apostles, when Jesus clearly said the Apostles would be given judgment of certain groups. Maybe I should just drop that line of argument, and focus on substantive issues.”

But Abanes didn’t do that, because he isn’t very intelligent or honest.

Now what about you, Brennan? I know nothing about you, except what you have posted on this thread. Does it really bother you that Brigham Young thought JS would be given judgment over those who lived in his time? Is that really a substantive issue? Or are you just another person who wants to come up with whatever ammo you can against another group, paying little attention to fairness in argumentation?

 

[majick275]

Brigham Young said a lot of things. And later prophets have at times disagreed. A prophet is only a man. He’s not perfect. When the LDS Church canonizes a prophet’s statements, you can know that it treats those words as scripture.

sometimes. the mormon church has in the past changed canonized scriptures in doctrinally significant manner. one example would be the D&C that has JS words denouncing polygamy and stating that LDS did not practice that (even though they did at the time). this was later removed by a different “prophet”. to say that only canonized words of LDS prophets are scripture is inaccurate. the D&C clearly states otherwise. current examples can easily be found in the temple ceremony which is NOT in canonized scripture yet clearly is essential to exaltation in mormon theology. nobody expect mormon prophets to be other than human. however, when addressing the LDs church officially such as in general conference, there is a commonly held belief among LDS that they will not lead the church astray and are speaking as God.

so we can easily see that mormons as a church have, under the direction of their prophet, acted in direct contradiction to their scriptures, have changed such contradictory scriptures to adapt to changes in doctrine and practice and continue to regard a number of non-canonized teachings and practices as doctrinally essential.

 

[tortdog]

one example would be the D&C that has JS words denouncing polygamy and stating that LDS did not practice that (even though they did at the time). this was later removed by a different “prophet”.

Any cites or references to this assertion?

 

[flameburns623]

I want to weigh in here a bit. First: I don’t have the credentials to suggest that Richard Abanes’ book is “badly done”. It does set off alarm bells for me, for some reason, that his work is highly skewed and not at all fair to his subject. He defends for example the use of Philastius Hurlburts’ tabloidesque 19th-century ‘expose’ of Mormonism, but never to the best of my recollection cites any of the people who admired Joseph Smith and/or the Mormons and/or those who wrote positively of him.

I think that some element of Joseph Smith’s character was a self-conscious charlatan. Over and beyond that however–I think that other elements in Smith suggest he believed very strongly in what he was doing. Smith was a very complex character and Richard’s sole intention was to paint him and other LDS characters exclusively in the blackest of all possible terms. Richard Abanes–and I have seen this as well in some of the posts here and on another message board recently–does not seem to like nuance and/or ambiguity very much.

I like people who are equally critical of Smith–such as Dan Vogel and Robert Hullinger–because their research gives a more complete view of who Joseph Smith is and why people have found him fascinating over the past 150-plus years. Some of this is more personal taste than real reason-giving or academic study.

I should note that I just expunged my library of a number of books, including virtually my whole library of Mormon material. The only books on Mormonism I still own are the two "idiots guides’ books–man I wish they would come up with better titles for that series–and Richard Abanes’ One Nation Under Gods. (Frankly I kept the latter not because I like the book but because I have opportunity to interact with the author, and want to give him the chance to convince me that I have made a mistake in my own judgement). My point is that I at least respect Richard Abanes’ work enough to keep it around.

And after all–HE did the work involved to write a whole book on the subject. (And another one later on which I have yet to read). I’m just a guy who posts on Catholic web-forums. Factor that in when judging this whole matter.

 

[BDawg]

Any cites or references to this assertion?

The section of the original D&C in question was written at a time when polygamy was not practiced. Read Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon to see what the LDS doctrine about polygamy is, and always has been.

 

[BDawg]

Smith was a very complex character and Richard’s sole intention was to paint him and other LDS characters exclusively in the blackest of all possible terms. Richard Abanes–and I have seen this as well in some of the posts here and on another message board recently–does not seem to like nuance and/or ambiguity very much.

Hi flameburns,

Thank you for making this point. I do not want to give the impression that I think most of the quotations and so on in Abanes’s book are false, or anything like that. (Some are doctored, but most probably aren’t.) Rather, the point is that anyone (like you) who has read a few real history books about Joseph Smith and the Mormons can easily pick out the fact that Abanes leaves out a whole lotta stuff–and for the most part it’s all on one side of the coin. If you tend to be critical of Mormonism, then you can appreciate what Abanes has collected together to some extent. But it’s still clear that this CANNOT be treated as a one-volume introduction to Mormonism if you want a realistic picture.

Would you agree with that assessment?

 

[zerinus]

Hi zerinus,

I was going by this quote (which was being discussed in this thread:

"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.’

Granted, that may not be a part of LDS scripture, but since Brigham Young is an actual prophet according to the LDS church I thought those words have weight.

I am sure it does; as much as the Catholic belief (or joke) of Peter at the pearly gate does.

There is no Catholic doctrine that Peter stands at the pearly gates to let people in or not. The only time I hear about that is as part of a joke.

Where does it come from then? It sounds like good doctrine to me. Didn’t Jesus promise his Apostles that they should “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel”? (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30.) And didn’t Paul say that “the saints shall judge the world”? (1 Cor. 6:2.) If they are going to judge them, then they will be deciding who will go to heaven and who won’t, right? So if Peter, the Apostles, and even the Saints can do it, can you tell me a good reason why Joseph Smith Can’t?

zerinus

 

[flameburns623]

Hi flameburns,

Thank you for making this point. I do not want to give the impression that I think most of the quotations and so on in Abanes’s book are false, or anything like that. (Some are doctored, but most probably aren’t.) Rather, the point is that anyone (like you) who has read a few real history books about Joseph Smith and the Mormons can easily pick out the fact that Abanes leaves out a whole lotta stuff–and for the most part it’s all on one side of the coin. If you tend to be critical of Mormonism, then you can appreciate what Abanes has collected together to some extent. But it’s still clear that this CANNOT be treated as a one-volume introduction to Mormonism if you want a realistic picture.

***Would you agree with that assessment?/***quote]

Pretty much.

Let’s see if Richard weighs in and blasts me outta the water.

 

[BDawg]

Really? Here: I make mistakes all the time!! There. Happy? And there’s some mistakes, typos, and mis-edits in ONUG – like in any book. Satisfied? The last time I checked I was a human. Now what?

Hi Richard,

Sorry, but I meant substantive mistakes. For instance, you said that the Celestial Kingdom was in the Spirit World that Joseph Smith is supposed to rule over, and then you claimed that you were using the term “Spirit World” in a generic Christian sense to denote “the afterlife.” Taken at face value, the first statement is a blatant falsehood. Taken with your subsequent explanation in mind, the first statement makes no sense, because JS isn’t in charge of the “the afterlife” in general, in anyone’s view.

That’s been answered. And for reasonable-minded folk, it’s a reasonable answer. Continuing to spit out the same argument won’t make it any truer, nor will it make my response any less reasonable and understandable – for those who care about being reasonable. Nit-pick away, my friend. Nit-pick away. But you might want to pay at least 100th of that much attention to Joseph Smith and his tall tale – now THAT is worthy of a closer examination.

Yes, you have answered. And as I just pointed out, your answer makes no sense. It seems to me that your “reasonable-minded” people, must translate to “those who read below a 4th grade level,” in normal English.

So please tell us again why you said, in post #38, that the Celestial Kingdom is in the Spirit World that JS rules over. I’m dying to know why you would say that JS rules over “the afterlife” in the generic sense. After all, your statement was in the context of accusing your Mormon critics of being wrong to take you to task for making a false statement about the issue.

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.

In what sense, exactly, were your critics (like Mike Reed) wrong about this point?

In what sense, exactly, was your statement in post #38 correct?

It can’t be correct if you were using the term “Spirit World” to mean “afterlife,” so why not do a rewind and try to come up with a better explanation?

Or, better yet, you could even (dare I hope?) just admit that you misspoke, and said something totally false. That would at least raise my opinion of you slightly (as if you care.)

 

[tortdog]

The section of the original D&C in question was written at a time when polygamy was not practiced. Read Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon to see what the LDS doctrine about polygamy is, and always has been.

I was under the impression that you claimed that LDS scripture had been changed to fit a situation. Merely pointing out differences between the Book of Mormon and the D&C does not equate to that.