Out of Mormonism

[Reid]

Has anyone Catholic or Mormon alike read this book?

It is written by Judy Robertson.

I found many things in this book interesting and pecular.

 

[gryskull]

Reid:

Has anyone Catholic or Mormon alike read this book?

It is written by Judy Robertson.

I found many things in this book interesting and pecular.

Yes, I have and she and her husband are the founders of concernedchristians.com. I have some of their materials. You might want to get their “witness to mormons” materials. But the best book i’ve read so far about the lds church is by isaiah bennette, “Inside mormonism.” It’s a pretty detailed book. Catholic answers has it.

 

[boppysbud]

I highly recomend “Inside Mormonism”. It is a very objective and honest book that lays out the beleifs and history of Mormonism without taking sides one way or the other.

Unlike a lot of other books like the works of the Tanners, “The Godmakers” and others of that type Mormons can not say it is an “anti-Mormon” book.

I am wondering if any for the Mormons here have read “Inside Mormonism” and what their opinions are of it.

 

[Casen]

I haven’t read *Inside Mormonism * yet but FARMS has a review of it by Barry Bickmore which admits the book is absent the hate and most rediculous distortions found in most anti- books but accuses it of uncritically accepting many anti-mormon charges and focusing on the most selacious aspects of the history, painting a distorted view. Bickmore suggests the reader can find a much better comparison between the two religions elsewhere.

Here’s a quote:

*It is especially egregious that such books should be published by Catholic Answers, a prominent Roman Catholic apologetics organization. For years, Catholic Answers has defended Catholicism against the hate-filled anti-Catholic literature often published by fundamentalist critics, some of whom the Latter-day Saints also know very well. However, when the organization turns its attention to the Church of Jesus Christ, its editors publish material that uses the same methods they decry with respect to their own critics. Karl Keating, director and founder of Catholic Answers, writes the following regarding Loraine Boettner’s book, Roman Catholicism, which relies heavily on the testimony of former priests to establish “what Catholics really believe”:

These are the books-written by disaffected ex-Catholics or by people who never have been Catholic but who have made their mark in the world by pushing unadorned bigotry-from which Boettner gets his juiciest information. Relying on them for the straight story on the Catholic Church is like relying on a political candidate to tell you all the good points about his opponent. . . .

Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their books should be read and used with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the books betray the least hint of rancor.

It is my hope that the reader will apply the same standard when assessing Bennett’s writings.*

Another quote:

This book is riddled with problems, including serious distortions of church history and doctrine. Bennett’s work is heavily dependent on that of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, whom he praises profusely (IM, p. 513). The only “caution” Bennett mentions is that “the Tanners are now Fundamentalist Protestants, members of The Christian and Missionary Alliance. Their sola scriptura bias occasionally shows up in their analyses.” But much more can and should be said. Bennett does not realize that the Tanners have long been shown to employ faulty historical methods such as out-of-context quoting, questionable use of ellipses, and innuendo. In the analyses that follow, clear instances where Bennett borrowed information from the Tanners (without attribution) and then apparently put little or no effort into checking their interpretations will be examined in detail.

Last quote:

Unfortunately, when it is convenient for him, Bennett argues from the assumption that only a literal, historical reading will do, when to take such a stance would disqualify most of the messianic prophecies cited by New Testament writers like Matthew. Prophetic, typological (as opposed to allegorical) interpretation of the scriptures has plenty of precedent in the Roman Catholic (not to mention Jewish) tradition, and it defies the narrow sort of “rules of hermeneutics” fundamentalists like to recommend.

 

[gryskull]

Casen:

I haven’t read *Inside Mormonism *yet but FARMS has a review of it by Barry Bickmore which admits the book is absent the hate and most rediculous distortions found in most anti- books but accuses it of uncritically accepting many anti-mormon charges and focusing on the most selacious aspects of the history, painting a distorted view. Bickmore suggests the reader can find a much better comparison between the two religions elsewhere…

If Inside Mormonism can do a better comparison…what other comparison? I’d like to know where Isaiah Benette went wrong. If you look at most of his quotations you’ll see that it is mostly from D&C, Pearl of Great Price, The teachings of (President), and some outside resources. I may be wrong but I think that was a pretty good book.

When it comes to the book of Karl Keating “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” Karl was actually quoting the errors of the book “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner. Then he shows what the Catholic Church really teaches citing official catholic documents.

I want to know where Mr. Keating went wrong in his criticism on the book “Roman Catholicism?”

 

[TOmNossor]

gryskull:

If Inside Mormonism can do a better comparison…what other comparison? I’d like to know where Isaiah Benette went wrong. If you look at most of his quotations you’ll see that it is mostly from D&C, Pearl of Great Price, The teachings of (President), and some outside resources. I may be wrong but I think that was a pretty good book.

It would be quite easy to create a book much longer than Inside Mormonism filled with historical accounts of Catholics doing horrible things while proclaiming their devotion and alignment with the Catholic church; or historical accounts that show, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes doing horrible things; or a collection of Biblical and ECF (Saints even) quotes that produce hopeless contradictions within the Catholic Church.

Such a book would quote St. Thomas Aquinas rather infrequently and always in a limited fashion. It would not talk about a day (or even an hour) in the life of Mother Teresa. It would not provide explanations as to how worshiping Saint is not the same as worshiping God. It would not explain how Pope’s teaching heresy does not disprove the infallibility doctrine.

You like Catholics and Fundamentalism by Keating? So do I!!!
Catholics and Fundamentalism:

Now it may well be that a man leaving one religion for another can write fairly, without bitterness, about the one he left behind. But it stands to reason that most people who suddenly think they have an urge to write about their change of beliefs just want to vent their frustrations or justify their actions. Their books should be read and used with discretion, and they should not be used at all as explanations of the beliefs of their old religion if the books betray the least hint of rancor.

---

The Catholic Answers tracts on Mormonism are quite poor. I assume they are Isaiah Bennett’s material, but unfortunately the author is not specified.

While I have not read Inside Mormonism, gauging by what I have heard (in the above quote and from other Catholics even), my time with Catholics and Fundamentalism was much better spent.

You do err when you do not choose to compare Best to Best. If I were to become a Catholic I would not want to be a Catholic like Pope John XII. I would not hold to errant beliefs that result in crossing the line between Dulia and Latria. Why should I use such beliefs and men as the gauge upon which to assess the validity of the Catholic Church?

I think Newman’s, Keating’s, Hahn’s, and …’s view compared to Barker’s, Bushman’s Peterson’s and …’s view are far more illuminative than is a comparison of Honorius as presented by FCFC or Brigham as presented by FMFC. Perhaps such things are less fun and too much work for message board discussions, but truth is derived when the best is compared to the best. This is the path I recommend if you are searching. If you are not searching and/or you do not have this kind of time, then I recommend that you recognize that FMFC and FCFC stand as pillars of how not to think.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

Reid:

Has anyone Catholic or Mormon alike read this book?

It is written by Judy Robertson.

I found many things in this book interesting and pecular.

Haven’t read it yet, though I would like to.

I’m wondering…what does everyone think of the book By The Hand Of Mormon by Terryl Givens? I just picked it up yesterday.

 

[Casen]

I have not read that one yet but I’m a fan of Terryl Givens and enjoyed The Later-day Saint Experience in America, which he also wrote.

I’d be interested to hear what you think after you read it.

 

[boppysbud]

I am really sorry for this but I made a mistake in recomending Inside Mormonism, it was a case of mistaken identity. I have never read that book at all and must in fairness withdraw any recomendations.

The book that I was thinking about is called
“Mormon America” by Richard and Joan Ostling. This book is fair and objective. Let me include just a little from the preface to ssshow what I mean:

“… we were encouraged during this project when a distinguished faculty retiree at Brigham Young University remarked that perhaps only outsiders could produce the sort of book we had in mind-namely, a candid but nonpolemical overview written for non-Mormons and Mormons alike, focusing on what is distinctive and culturally significant about this growing American movement. If we have suceeded, the outsiders will find some fascinating information and want to learn even more.
and the insiders will see themselves portrayed fairly while learning some things they would not have known otherwise”

This book was published by Harper-Collins not a tiny independent fundie publisher.

Richard Ostling is not an unknown but is a respected religion writer for Associated Press, and has interviewed personally both Spencer Kimball and Gordon Hinkley. This is not an “anti” book by any stretch of the imagination.