What is your Opinion of The Mormon Mirage by Latayne C.Scott

[Finrock]

Hello again Latayne!

Finrock and Dianaiad,

Please remember that this discussion on this board was about the opinions of my book. I didn’t start the discussion nor did I know about it until I found it through a Google alert, though it could be said that because my publishers have asked a broad spectrum of people to review my books, it could be said that by asking Angel Hazard and others to review it I indirectly provoked this.

You’re right about me not wanting to respond. I think I have to some elements. I’m sorry I won’t spar with you if you only want to talk about my books without reading them. And you’re right again because I will be back into no-internet area for three days.

Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com

Your objections in this post are red herrings. Although this thread began with asking opinions on your book, other information has been provided and posted by you and others. My questions and comments have been addressed to these points. I’ve made no attempt to talk about your book directly. The objections and comments raised are independent of your book and do not require that one has read the book. So, insofar as I am concerned, I have not been sparring about your books, but rather about information from your posts, in blogs you’ve linked too, reviews you’ve asked people to look at, and information that you’ve written on your website. Therefore, claiming that you won’t “spar” because I only want to talk about your books without reading them, is fallacious.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[dianaiad]

Finrock and Dianaiad,

Please remember that this discussion on this board was about the opinions of my book. I didn’t start the discussion nor did I know about it until I found it through a Google alert, though it could be said that because my publishers have asked a broad spectrum of people to review my books, it could be said that by asking Angel Hazard and others to review it I indirectly provoked this.

You’re right about me not wanting to respond. I think I have to some elements. I’m sorry I won’t spar with you if you only want to talk about my books without reading them. And you’re right again because I will be back into no-internet area for three days.

Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com

That’s fine, Latayne, I understand real life interfering with internet discussions very well. I’m going to be gone for a week my self, beginning Monday or so, with little to no chance to come on line.

However, remember that I do intend to read your book; have actually ordered it. I am not giving you my opinion of your BOOK…but am analyzing the sort of reviews it is getting, both the content and the viewpoint of the reviewers.

I do note that you haven’t asked any actual Mormons to review it (or have you?) but are only eliciting reviews from those who are already predisposed to disapprove of Mormonism.

Can you understand why reading reviews by Ed Decker and other anti-Mormon authors, as well as reviews like the one you gave as an example of a ‘negative’ (if it was, it was very reluctantly so…) one would make a believing Mormon wary? Especially when a quote like the one David included comes from your book?

Not 'wary" in the 'oh, dear, perhaps she’s going to tell me something about my church that is true and I will have to leave over it…" but “oh, man, here’s another ex-Mormon about to do battle with a straw Mormonism that I neither recognize nor believe in, and why should I waste my time?”

Because right now, from the reviews I have seen, that second description is what I am expecting. Nevertheless, I will read it.If I am wrong, and where I am wrong, I will let you know…and I think that those here on this forum will let you know that I will be honest in that review, no matter what.

Diana

 

[StevieD]

Stevie, you are asking me to show you where the LDS admit to having beliefs that we honestly do not have.

You WILL find information on LDS.org regarding eternal progression, that men and women have to do this together (no marriage, no celestial kingdom—or at least, no exaltation in that Kingdom) and about the priesthood; who can hold it, when and why.

For instance, using the search words “priesthood” and 'black" on that site, you will find 641 articles…some that address the history, some written before 1978 that attempt to explain the prohibition, some written afterword; nothing is hidden, there.

Lessee…“eternal progression” will net you TWO THOUSAND, three hundred and fifteen articles. Wow. That really sounds like we don’t address the issue on our site, doesn’t it?

By the way, if you add ‘women’ to that list, it narrows it down to just, oh, 1051 articles.

So I guess we don’t address that issue, either. Now of course I haven’t read each and every one of those articles., but then you are the one claiming that we believe that men will become gods and women will not, so feel free to search away. I’d be interested to see how you justify that bit of asininity.

It’s not our fault that you would prefer to believe the anti’s over the believers about these things.

I have been to the site you suggested, I can find nothing but an article on basic beliefs which mentions none of the ‘odd’ beliefs held by the LDS (apart from the apostasy that never happened)

 

[dianaiad]

I have been to the site you suggested, I can find nothing but an article on basic beliefs which mentions none of the ‘odd’ beliefs held by the LDS (apart from the apostasy that never happened)

I gave you the search terms, Steve…the same ones I used. Were you unable to find the ‘search’ box?

Or is it something else—

Your contention is that since you found nothing on the website that denies that men will become gods but women will not, that therefore we believe it?

 

[davidould]

Just after I posted my last comment, I was notified that someone had reviewed The Mormon Mirage and called it “dangerous.” tinyurl.com/nfrdp7

He believed that the information – and the way I presented it – was too strong to give to a Mormon, and perhaps to a Christian. In particular, he noted that he believed I used sarcasm to get my point across. (I’m wondering about that – I believe that God, through the Old Testament prophets, and Jesus in dealing with the Pharisees, used sarcasm. Maybe I’m wrong about that?)

I tell you all that because I have told you that all the reviews have noted that I was compassionate and gentle. So, I want to be open and let you know that apparently a Christian saw it otherwise, even to the point of being dangerous.

Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com

Hi Latayne (and others).

Not quite right!
I said that it was commendably dangerous in that it was so well researched and presented.

I did, however, raise a question as to the sarcastic (or at least, as it came across to me) or one might say “polemic” nature of some of the writing. Nevertheless, I am able to heartily recommend the book.

 

[davidould]

Hi Latayne (and others).

Not quite right!
I said that it was commendably dangerous in that it was so well researched and presented.

I did, however, raise a question as to the sarcastic (or at least, as it came across to me) or one might say “polemic” nature of some of the writing. Nevertheless, I am able to heartily recommend the book.

Some of the writing.

I think that’s what I would like to empahsise. It was really just moments rather than a general hostile tone. Readers on this forum should be aware of that.

 

[Finrock]

Good morning davidould. It is a pleasure to meet you!

Welcome to the forums.

Hi Latayne (and others).

Not quite right!
I said that it was commendably dangerous in that it was so well researched and presented.

I did, however, raise a question as to the sarcastic (or at least, as it came across to me) or one might say “polemic” nature of some of the writing. Nevertheless, I am able to heartily recommend the book.

I appreciate your clarification on the review your provided. I did have a question, however, to clarify something in your post here. You state that you are able to “heartily recommend the book.” If you don’t mind, can you say in what way you recommend the book? I guess what I mean is that are you recommending the book because you feel it accurately portrays what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches as doctrine or are you recommending it in a different capacity? Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[kikkichan]

Stevie,

 It's there:

I have been to the site you suggested, I can find nothing but an article on basic beliefs which mentions none of the ‘odd’ beliefs held by the LDS (apart from the apostasy that never happened)

For instance, the 2 specific things you commented on:

re: Godhood and women

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained the companionship role of the priesthood and women: “In the true Patriarchal Order man holds the priesthood and is the head of the household, … Woman stands at his side a joint-inheritor with him in the fulness of all things. Exaltation and eternal increase is her lot as well as his. (D. & C. 131:1–4.) Godhood is not for men only; it is for men and women together. (D. & C. 132:19–20)” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 844)

re: Blacks and the priesthood

President Spencer W. Kimbal - 1974
—Blacks and the priesthood: I am not sure that there will be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.(Ensign » 1974 » February – D. Mitchell)

re: President Spencer W. Kimball - 1978
—In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.(Ensign » 1978 » November – N. E. Tanner)

-kc

 

[dianaiad]

Some of the writing.

I think that’s what I would like to empahsise. It was really just moments rather than a general hostile tone. Readers on this forum should be aware of that.

David…

If a book’s aim is to get believers away from their belief, and/or to keep non-believers from becoming believers, there cannot be any such moments. None. It may not seem fair to the author or to those who agree with him/her, but it is, nevertheless, true.

Why?

Because the believers will zero in on those moments and use them to show that the author’s agenda is negative and personal; one moment such as the one you quoted in your review can, and will, justify the believer into dismissing the entire book as ‘just another anti’publication’ or 'just another bitter ex…" and not worth the read, even if the rest of the book is actually accurate.

…and they would be absolutely right to do so. Consider; this is a book, not an off the cuff internet conversation. Presumably that book has been proof-read, edited, revised…so that statement isn’t simply an ‘oops.’ It was deliberately put there, and thus reflects the true feelings of the author.

I don’t know if you read my review of your review (now that’s taking rhetorical analysis a bit too far…but I don’t have LaTayne’s book yet) but it wasn’t at all difficult for me to get annoyed at the way she portrayed our view of what hell is in a completely inaccurate manner–and did so to make a very negative critical point. She was sarcastic–and she used a strawman to be sarcastic with. That is not going to endear her to Mormon readers.

Now, It WILL endear her to people already predisposed to dislike or disbelieve in Mormonism, but I can’t help but wonder if God really needs that sort of help. When someone who is convinced by her book that Mormons are a ‘mirage’ finds out that her presentation of our beliefs is the mirage, what happens then?

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon kikkichan. I hope you are doing well today!

Thank you for your post. Although somewhat unrelated, I couldn’t pass up an opportunity to point out a real world example of how doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is defined and becomes official and binding. You quoted the 1978 revelation pertaining to the priesthood:

President Spencer W. Kimball - 1978
—In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.(Ensign » 1978 » November – N. E. Tanner)

Here, you can see the process where the President of the Church received revelation. The President’s counselors accepted and approved of the revelation. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve, who unanimously approved of it, as also did the other General Authorities. Finally, it was presented before the general body of the Church. This is the established order of the Church. Here is how doctrine is received and made official and binding. I bring this up because so much of what our critics find at fault with the Church, even when it has been taught or spoken by a Church leader, is often outside of established, true, and binding doctrine of the whole Church.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[kikkichan]

Finrock,

…

Thank you for your post. Although somewhat unrelated, I couldn’t pass up an opportunity to point out a real world example of how doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is defined and becomes official and binding. You quoted the 1978 revelation pertaining to the priesthood:

Here, you can see the process where the President of the Church received revelation. The President’s counselors accepted and approved of the revelation. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve, who unanimously approved of it, as also did the other General Authorities. Finally, it was presented before the general body of the Church. This is the established order of the Church. Here is how doctrine is received and made official and binding. I bring this up because so much of what our critics find at fault with the Church, even when it has been taught or spoken by a Church leader, is often outside of established, true, and binding doctrine of the whole Church.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Hi. Yes my post was somewhat unrelated to the subject of the thread. I was responding to someone’s comment (on this thread) who was unable to find specific authoritative info re: LDS beliefs. One specific area he was looking for pertained to the 1978 revelation. I found the info I posted on lds.org.

I have to admit that I did find the process–from revelation - to - official doctrine–(esp. now with your added detail) very interesting. Thanks!

I also found the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism” lib.byu.edu/Macmillan/ very informative, but not necessarily authoritative.

thanks,
-kc

 

[zaffiroborant]

Rebecca, if you can show me one book written about any faith by a non-member of that faith that is fair, accurate and objective, I would allow your point.

But there isn’t any. It’s not possible—and the inquirer has no way of knowing WHERE that book is incorrect, or how slanted the bias is. He will then have to go to the believers to check things out anyway.

C’mon…since when is it ever a good idea to go ABC plumbing for an opinion about CBS plumbing, the competing company down the street?

Well then your apostles (Oakes and Ballard) should shut up about the Trinity.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well then your apostles (Oakes and Ballard) should shut up about the Trinity.

No doubt.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No doubt.

You know it really in a way supports Dianad’s view that a non-member can’t really state the views of a religion. Do you suppose that any LDS here will admit that both Oakes and Ballard were wrong to say what they said in their Conference Speeches or their Ensign Articles? Anyone want to bet on it? Me I think LDS will read both and see a valid description of the Trinity and not see any problem with the subsequent destruction of that description. It is exactly what Dianad projects on any ad on this site yet refuses to see with anyone associated with the LDS church.

 

[dianaiad]

Well then your apostles (Oakes and Ballard) should shut up about the Trinity.

Do you understand the difference between identifying a specific doctrine (such as the trinity) and explaining our views of it, and attacking the beliefs, way of life and members of an entire RELIGION?

There is a big difference between saying “bananas should be yellow, not orange” and “oranges are disgustingly sour, they poison the body and they have the color of the dying sun: they are cursed for all eternity”

Discussing the doctrine of the trinity as we believe it should be is very different from writing books condemning, vilifying and lying about Catholicism as a whole.

 

[dianaiad]

You know it really in a way supports Dianad’s view that a non-member can’t really state the views of a religion. Do you suppose that any LDS here will admit that both Oakes and Ballard were wrong to say what they said in their Conference Speeches or their Ensign Articles? Anyone want to bet on it? Me I think LDS will read both and see a valid description of the Trinity and not see any problem with the subsequent destruction of that description. It is exactly what Dianad projects on any ad on this site yet refuses to see with anyone associated with the LDS church.

Ok, you are trying to have this both ways. You are upset if a Mormon calls anybody who disagrees with Mormonism an anti-Mormon; that’s not fair, you cry. How awful.

The fact is, though, that I do not do that. Simple disagreement with a doctrine is not being anti. Simply stating one’s own beliefs is not being anti every other belief. Belief in the tenets of the Catholic catechism is not being anti-Mormon…and simply expressing our beliefs about the trinity is NOT being anti-Catholic, any more than a Jew celebrating the Sabbath is being anti either one of us.

You might want to figure out what your definition of anti is, sir…and then allow us to use it too. If simply believing, and talking about, beliefs that differ from yours is being anti-Catholic, then simply being Catholic is anti-Mormon. If that is so, stop criticizing.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Ok, you are trying to have this both ways. You are upset if a Mormon calls anybody who disagrees with Mormonism an anti-Mormon; that’s not fair, you cry. How awful.

The fact is, though, that I do not do that. Simple disagreement with a doctrine is not being anti. Simply stating one’s own beliefs is not being anti every other belief. Belief in the tenets of the Catholic catechism is not being anti-Mormon…and simply expressing our beliefs about the trinity is NOT being anti-Catholic, any more than a Jew celebrating the Sabbath is being anti either one of us.

You might want to figure out what your definition of anti is, sir…and then allow us to use it too. If simply believing, and talking about, beliefs that differ from yours is being anti-Catholic, then simply being Catholic is anti-Mormon. If that is so, stop criticizing.

I’m not defining anti, you are and you have one definition for the authors of the books advertised and a different one for Ballard and Oakes. They both are doing what you say these authors are doing. Neither one gives an accurate description of theTrinity and they go on to tear up their strawtrinity. Why is it ok for them to distort others beliefs?

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not defining anti, you are and you have one definition for the authors of the books advertised and a different one for Ballard and Oakes. They both are doing what you say these authors are doing. Neither one gives an accurate description of theTrinity and they go on to tear up their strawtrinity. Why is it ok for them to distort others beliefs?

Question. Does either man claim that the Catholics believe the version of the trinity they are arguing against?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Question. Does either man claim that the Catholics believe the version of the trinity they are arguing against?

They give it as “the” understanding of the Trinity. Do the LDS believe that Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Orthodox and so forth all have different beliefs regarding the Trinity?

But it really doesn’t matter. Ballard and Oakes are not members of a faith that believes in the Trinity, and thus they are not qualified to explain it since only a true believer can give an accurate explanation.

 

[Latayne]

Well, Dianaiad.

Here’s what you said:

*we do NOT believe that people who go to hell are 'burned forever with unquenchable fire." That particular view of hell is so foreign to what we teach and believe as would make an LDS reader wonder if you get anything at all RIGHT.

If you remember your time as a Latter-day Saint, you should remember that we believe true hell to be, not physical suffering, but rather the complete absence of God. Those there have nothing but despair and regret; "outer darkness,’ Latayne, is not considered to be volcano central. If I were to describe it in physical metaphors, it would be utterly cold…and there aren’t all that many people headed there, come to think of it. To us, ‘hell’ (the hell to which you could condemn murderers et. al.) is still a kingdom of heaven.
*

You missed the point completely in 3 major ways.

1. You are arguing about the LDS concept of hell and how badly I missed it – on the basis of a quote from someone else. You say you’re going to read my book. My book on page 255-256 does say of the LDS view of hell is that it is temporary – except, as Apostle Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine says of “those who have wholly given themselves over to satanic purposes. . .They go on forever in the hell that is prepared for them.”

1. The LDS hell does include fire. McConkie’s definition # 1 (under the heading, “Hell”, p. 349 in my 1966 edition) says that “there they welter in the vengeance of eternal fire.” He cites D&C 76:105-106: “These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work. . .”
2. And you missed the point completely of the quote from my book. Joseph Smith taught that the Mormon god “dwells in everlasting burnings.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1977), 347.) If Mormons are right, and after earth life they go to dwell with their god, they will be with him in everlasting burnings.

BUT if all Mormonism has said about God being three separate people, their inability to keep the New Testament church from the gates of hell and instead allowing it to descend into a complete apostasy for 1700 years, and men becoming gods after death – if all of this is false and has led millions of people away from the true and living triune only God – then the Mormon church will indeed be in danger of a very real burning hell: “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8.

People can suppose all they want about my motives for writing what I write.

Without even knowing it, I was poised over that lake when I was a Mormon. I don’t want anyone else to run that risk. I believe God’s words in Ezekiel 33:8 --“When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand.”

I write to warn. That’s why I write about Mormonism.

Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com