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

[Finrock]

Good morning Catholic20064. I hope you’re enjoying your weekend!

The reason you can’t depend upon Mormons to answer your questions is that “lying for the Lord” is an article of faith with them as Dallin Oaks has opined.

I’ve seen critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make these kinds of assertions before. To me, at least, it is a curious assertion. Consider what Elder Oaks actually said:

"*I ask myself, ‘If some of these Mormon leaders or members lied, therefore, what?’ I reject a ‘therefore’ which asserts or implies that this example shows that lying is morally permissible or that lying is a tradition or even a tolerated condition in the Mormon community or among the leaders of our church. That is not so.

I suppose most mortals employ some exaggeration and a little of what someone called ‘innocent after-mindedness.’ But does this mean we condone deliberate and important misrepresentations of fact in a circumstance in which they are clearly intended to be believed and relied upon? Never! Lying is sinful, as it has always been, and there is no exempt category for so-called ‘lying for the Lord.’ Lying is simply outside the range of permitted or condoned conduct by Latter-day Saints—members or leaders*" (Dallin H. Oaks, Emphasis added).

Mormons will purposefully cover up their true doctrine. One Mormon poster regularly comes on here and denies certain doctrines of Mormonism because they aren’t in the standard works of Mormonism. King Follet and Heavenly Mother often get denied with a wink.

And then there is President Hinckley’s public denial about Mormonism’s teaching that God was once a man. And then he joked at the next General Priesthood Conference session that he knew what Mormon doctrine was and not to believe everything you read in the newspapers.

I not sure how you’ve made this categorical judgment. My own experience differs from yours. Most, if not all Mormons that I know or have known will do anything they can to help others understand their true doctrine. Through experience I have discovered that for some critics of the church it is often difficult for them to accept that Mormons know and understand their doctrines better than the critics. This seems to be the standard model of discourse:

Critic makes doctrinal claim about Mormonism.
Mormon corrects or denies that the doctrinal claim is true.
Therefore, Mormons are deceitfully denying and coverning up their true doctrines.

It is a silly position that is logically fallacious.

The reality is that many critics overly emphasize non-essential Mormon doctrine (and by implication perpetuating the belief that these non-essential doctrines are somehow central to Mormonism, when in reality they are not), represent misinterpretations as the only truth about Mormonism, or simply misunderstand how Mormons understand a particular point of doctrine. None of this is bad, in and of itself. Often people sincerely believe that the misinterpretations they understand are actually what is true. The ethically dilemma for the critic comes when their misinterpretations or misunderstandings have been show to be incorrect, yet they continue to perpetuate them.

Many Protestant believe that Catholics worship Mary and the Saints. They come here to the Catholic forums (there are at least two threads now on this subject) and assert that Catholics are breaking God’s commandments by worshipping someone or something besides God. Of course, it is false that Catholics worship Mary and Catholics categorically deny this. However, the misrepresentation is still perpetuated by some Protestants. They simply deny that Catholics know their religion.

Here is my question: Knowing that some Protestants misrepresent Catholic doctrines and refuse to believe the corrections that Catholics make to those misrepresentations (presumably out of prejudice towards Catholicism), why would a Catholic then turn around and use the same tactics when speaking of Mormon doctrine (or any other religion for that matter)?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[dianaiad]

Is that the Lutheran Bishop with the bright pink habit and the contagiously huge smile? I think I’ve heard him spell out these three rules on BYU TV before.

I know where Diana stands with respect to #1, and she’s firm in her opinion so she and I’ll will just have to agree to disagree. I’m curious about your opinion on #1, mostly with respect to former member critics (and before we get caught up on what I mean by ‘critic’, let me say a former member who doesn’t agree with a particular facet of the theology).

In such a case, I believe a former member of a religion can theoretically be an accurate witness to the particular theology. I may no longer practice or believe in Mormonism, and indeed I’ve replaced it with a religion I feel is correct, but I don’t think that somehow renders my 20 some odd years experience as void or inadmissible.

It’s not–IF your perception of what that specific doctrine actually IS that you disagree with. There is only one way to figure that out, and that is to discuss it with people who belong to the faith you are criticizing.

They will either agree with your description of that doctrine and you have a really good topic of conversation going, or they won’t and you will find yourself arguing with a strawman; after all, what can your debate opponent say but 'you are quite right, the doctrine you describe is wrong–isn’t it lucky for both of us that I don’t believe that?"

The only other option left is for you to say I don’t care what you believe, I’m telling you what you really believe." You understand how useless that approach is.

Your experience as a Mormon has left you well armed to debate…with Mormons. It does not, however, leave you qualified to instruct people of other faiths about Mormonism. You ARE qualified to instruct people in the faith you now identify with, because only you are the expert in your own beliefs.

Ok, end of pontification.

 

[Angel_Hazard]

Indeed.

Too bad it was so, (how can I put this gently…)

completely skewed, twisted and out to lunch. For instance, regarding the LDS view of women:

Short history lesson: Unlike the vast majority of American women, Mormon women have ALWAYS been allowed to vote in local community affairs, and while Wyoming was the first territory to give women the official right to vote, Utah followed six weeks later, and Utah women were the first to actually exercise that vote. Before then, Brigham Young was sending women back east to medical school so that they could become physicians–if you found a woman doctor west of the Rockies, you can almost be certain that she was LDS.

The US government required Utah to remove the rights of women to vote in order to become a state (a requirement that it did not require of Wyoming, by the way) and the women themselves agreed; they voted THEMSELVES out of that right, upon the promise of the men that they would immediately restore that right as soon as they held the state constitutional convention. The men kept their promise. Even with that short revocation of the right to vote, Mormon women were voting for 18 years before another state granted that right (Idaho…another heavily Mormon state), and THIRTY TWO YEARS before any other state or territory in the nation granted women the right to vote.

At the moment, Utah has the highest national average of high school graduates (92%) and their school system is one of the best in the nation. Utah has a college graduation rate of over 30%, (Utah is still about 76% LDS) whereas Rhode Island, the only state with a percentage of Catholics that comes even close (63%) has a 27.2% college graduation rate.

If there is one thing that Mormons do, it’s stress education.

Yes, we also stress the importance of family life–but if we say that it is important for a woman to be a wife and a mother, we also state that it is important to be a husband and father–in equal measure. Those two jobs are THE most important jobs anybody can have, and I’m not going to apologize for that one.

As well, this poster wrote that a widow may not remarry in the church. She can even remarry in the TEMPLE…and in some cases do so “for time and all eternity” not just 'until death parts you."

So that statement is just false. As in, not true. There are lots of remarried widows, and they are every inch as married as YOU are. (if, of course, you are…)

I’m concentrating on this guy’s weird ideas of the LDS idea of women…there is no way I can do justice to the rest of his rather strange presentation of things.

I would love to see you tell a Mormon woman that she is ‘chattel’ and see the reaction…well, wait…I think you just saw that.

One last note, because I can deal with it quickly: we do not believe that the CHURCH was taken from the earth. We believe that the priesthood authority was lost. There is, y’know, quite a difference between the two concepts. To say that the church was taken implies that everything was removed: all truth, all faith, all hope, all belief, all doctrine…it wasn’t.

Thank you Dianaiad for your reply and the history info

 

[Angel_Hazard]

But religion? Every person is an expert in their own faith. In terms of religion, you ARE the certified mechanic; you know precisely what you are seeing when you look under the hood, because nobody knows YOUR religion precisely the same way you do, and so you are the only one who CAN compare.

Good point

 

[Angel_Hazard]

I also think it’s important to distinguish between what individual people might believe and what particular religious organizations teach or have done.

The stupidest form of “apologetics” I’ve ever seen is a person telling a particular Mormon or Catholic person what it is they believe.

Good point

 

[Angel_Hazard]

My goodness. I was away from my computer all day and amazed at all that went on with this discussion board. I mentioned in my first post that I travel a lot and will be leaving in the morning for a week of camping; so my lack of response to whatever you say about this present post won’t be because I’m unwilling to respond, just unable.

First of all let me say that I appreciate the supportive comments some have made. This is the first discussion board I’ve ever posted on where people list their religious preferences and I never thought to look for that on individual posts. Because of that, I thought the first person who said I had an axe to grind etc. was Mormon. My mistake, and I apologize.

My point in posting was to remark upon the fact that people who have not read my books have made public comments about my motives and methods. I see that this has continued, especially from Mormons.

Secondly, I still stand behind the Consumer Reports analogy. They are reliable because they take into account not only the manufacturer’s claims, but also those who “test drive” the products. I was one who test drove Mormonism for ten years. I loved it. That’s why I 'm not bitter.

Now, I’ll try to address as many of the other questions/issues as I can which deal directly with my own post here.

1. My statement about the LDS Heavenly Mother as quoted in my book was what I was told when I was a Mormon. I don’t believe Catholics worship Mary.
2. I disagreed with the assessment that all the book reviews were by ex-Mormons – I think the figure someone quoted was 11 out of 11 or something like that. That person was referring I guess to the reviews of Latter-day Cipher and Mormon Mirage. (Mormon Mirage has only 5 reviews, unless you count the editorial review.) So – I stick by what I said. The two books are reviewed as near as I can tell by 6 ex-Mormons and 10 never-Mormons. Pretty close to the 1/3 I said.
3. Dianaiad, you must not know much about how Amazon reviews are posted. I can indeed ask someone to review a book, or one of my publishers can ask someone to review a book, but I don’t post the reviews. In fact, many of the the reviews were posted by people who I did not ask to review it. Anyone can review any book.

If anyone wants to see more reviews other than just Amazon ones, go to the latayne.com/reviews section of my site.

Or— you can just read one of my books yourself.

Latayne C Scott

Thank you for your reply.

After rereading my last question, I apologize for the way I worded it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

–only the true believer of any faith can represent it fairly.

I don’t agree with this. It discourages honest inquiry, thus leaving people open to deception.

 

[Angel_Hazard]

Guys I found a blog that will be reviewing The Mormon Mirage on June 30th.

The blog’s url is reviewtime365.blogspot.com/

 

[StevieD]

Your best source of information about what the church believes is www.lds.org. As someone wrote very recently on another thread, asking an ex-member of any religion is a little like asking the ex-boyfriend what the girl is like. You aren’t going to get objective or accurate information.

As your missionaries are instructed to omit or play down the more ‘colourful’ of your ‘church’s’ beliefs (multiple gods, you can become a god -if you are a male- etc). Why should we trust the official sources to be any more truthFUL? The fact is that you can learn what almost any religion believe from their official sources fully and completely, the LDS is an exception to this general rule and, in this case anyone **would be better off going to an unhappy former consumer than the ‘seller’. The fact that the BoM purports to be an historical record has been comprehensively disproved by many scientific disciplines. Do they mention this fact on the site?
**
mormonproblemsblogspot.com

 

[RosaryGirl_777]

Guys I found a blog that will be reviewing The Mormon Mirage on June 30th.

The blog’s url is reviewtime365.blogspot.com/

Angel_Hazard I’m the writer of ReviewTime, its cool that my blog is one that you found interesting enough to mention. The review will hopefully be posted on the 30th, that’s the day I’m shooting for anyway. A review will also be posted on amazon and other sites.

If you’d like to stay updated on reviews you can follow ReviewTime on Twitter at twitter.com/ReviewTime

God bless you

 

[Catholic20064]

Finrock and other LDS:

How can any doctrine by non-essential if the LDS Church teaches it is true? That seems like nonsense to me.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Finrock and other LDS:

How can any doctrine by non-essential if the LDS Church teaches it is true? That seems like nonsense to me.

We have something comparable. The Church *approves *for belief certain Marian apparitions, like Lourdes and Fatima, but no one is required to believe it.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

First of all, after publishing 15 books, I’ve stopped being surprised that so many opinions of my books are advanced by those who have not read them.

To clarify, my opinion wasn’'t on the content of the book, but on the disposition someone should take prior to reading it. In other words, is someone published a book called Find Out the REAL STORY Behind Latayne C.Scott or something, I would be equally skeptical, and cautious about taking the claims at face value or in isolation. That’s not to say in either case that the books are wrong. But it would be uncharitable of me to take the “REAL STORY” tell-all, without asking you (or someone sympathetic or at least unbiased towards you) for your side.

I depart from some of the LDS posters, in that I don’t think it’s a bad idea to read your book; I just think it shouldn’t be read *in isolation *from someone presenting the other side. Your book isn’t even remotely unbiased: you’re writing to expose Mormonism, and you’ve said on your blog that you believe Mormonism is a cult. You’re not a researcher attempting to document the history and beliefs of the LDS faith. Of course, *biased *doesn’t mean *inaccurate, *but biased **does **mean more likely to present the legend or partial-truth.

I noticed that a couple of Mormons gave their opinions.

I’m not Mormon, but you realized that in your follow-up, and that’s fine. It was an easy mistake to make, given the context, I suppose.

Mormons say that you don’t go to a Chevy dealer or owner to find out about Fords so you should ask them about their religion. That is an important part of investigation – but that’s why you have Consumer Reports, too, right?

I agree with this sentiment. But Consumer Reports is an attempt to be unbiased and analytical. It’d be like reading a scholarly account of LDS history and beliefs.

I also noted that I was characterized as writing all the time about Mormonism. Sorry, only 4 of my 15 books deal with Mormonism. I’ve also written hundreds, maybe thousands of magazine articles, and only four or so deal with Mormonism.

Even if you’ve written on a lot of other topics, you’ve written 4 books and a handful of magazine articles attempting to disprove Mormonism, and run a blog with the same goal.

“An axe to grind”? Would you call St. Paul’s look back at his own past and his constant battle with Judaisers an axe to grind? What about Jesus calling His own people out of the grip of the Pharisees?

No, but if St. Paul didn’t write the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or some other book “exposing” Judaism. He criticized certain Jews, but almost always he criticized them directly, rather than telling a third-party about what hypocrites they were. Also, Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is God, so even if they’re attacking a group we don’t know intimately, we can take them at their word. When later (uninspired) Christian writers write against the Jews, and tell of their practices, I take it with a grain of salt.

Do you want to know about Mormonism from someone who lived it faithfully and loved it dearly? With hundreds of footnotes and documentations you can check out for yourself? Then check the Mormon Mirage out of the library (I’m not asking you to buy a book, you see.) Make sure you have the edition published in 2009, because the Mormon Church has changed so many of its doctrines and practices that no book published about it that’s over 10 years old can be accurate.) Read it and then respond if you think I am bitter, angry, or have an axe to grind.

Consider me the “consumer reports” advocate on Mormonism for you, if you’d like. If you have questions about it, I will do my best to give you documentation – not opinions – about it.

Yours and His,
Latayne C Scott
www.latayne.com

I respect what (I think) you’re trying to do with the book. Like you, I don’t think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the authentic Church created by Jesus Christ. And I’m sure that if I were a convert from Mormonism, I’d feel even more strongly about this. And I think letting people, especially Mormons themselves, know why you think this is good. But just because many of us sympathize with where you’re coming from, it doesn’t follow that we need to just accept at face value everything you say in the book. I’m pleased that you have lots of footnotes, and eagerly await the upcoming review of it on reviewtime365.blogspot.com/. I hope you can understand my hesitation about the fairness and accuracy of the book, but I’ll certain withhold judgment until and unless I should read it.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

We have something comparable. The Church *approves *for belief certain Marian apparitions, like Lourdes and Fatima, but no one is required to believe it.

I was just going to point this out along with a few other examples:

• Recently His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI stated that it is permissible for Catholics to believe in aliens. That doesn’t mean belief in aliens is a requirement, to be held de fide.
• The past three supreme pontiffs of the Catholic Church have stated that acceptance of the theory of organic evolution via natural selection is compatible with the Catholic faith. Again, it isn’t necessary, but is allowed.

Similarly, speculation about the wife (or wives) of God is permissible in Mormonism yet there is no defined doctrine in the LDS church about her (or them).

It’s considered a trivial aspect of theology. Just as it doesn’t make a difference whether God created us directly via creation or indirectly via evolution, with respect to salvation; it also doesn’t matter in Mormonism if God has one wive, two wives, or twenty. The Plan of Salvation is still the same nonetheless.

 

[zerinus]

I depart from some of the LDS posters, in that I don’t think it’s a bad idea to read your book; I just think it shouldn’t be read *in isolation *from someone presenting the other side.

Thank you Belloc for your fair minded observations and comments. I don’t think that any LDS posters have said that it is a “bad idea” to read the book. I think they mean that one should take it with a pinch of salt, for the same reasons that you have correctly stated.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Actually, I’m a bit of a fanatic on this issue.

I honestly believe that one should get information about doctrine and beliefs (and the history of the evolving nature of them, if there is one) ***ONLY FROM THE BELIEVERS. ***

I don’t think I can stress that enough. In fact, I’m going to go back and mess with the font and the colors for emphasis:

Get your information about doctrine and beliefs only from the believers.

However, if you are looking at historical fact, that is, who did what and where? For that you go to objective, NON religious sources and read them along with the believer’s version.

But you never, never, never NEVER go to an ex-member or a fervent opposing view for either doctrine or history.

Ever.

…and yeah, I use that in my own life and researches. If I want to know something about Catholicism, I will ask a Catholic in good standing with the church, preferably a religious true believing scholar. I won’t ask an ex-Catholic who is now a Mormon, I don’t care HOW much I may trust and like that person. He might not mean to be inaccurate or biased, but he will be; he can’t not–and I have no way of knowing how far or broad that bias lies.

Whereas, with the true believer, I know precisely where and in what direction the bias lies, and thus won’t be blindsided.

Ok, I’m a little obsessed with this, but for me it is an article of faith–only the true believer of any faith can represent it fairly.

I have had to correct a couple of Catholics on things, the Immaculate Conception for one, so I’m not convinced all believers know doctrine. But when it comes to how the doctrines and beliefs affect the everyday lives of members former members, happy or bitter, present a side of their religion that starry eyed believers won’t give you.

 

[Catholic20064]

We have something comparable. The Church *approves *for belief certain Marian apparitions, like Lourdes and Fatima, but no one is required to believe it.

Those apparitions don’t present new doctrine. In fact to be approved they have to be in line with the established doctrine of the faith. This isn’t comparable to a belief the LDS have about Heavenly Mother or God once being a man. Those are doctrines of Mormonism that some LDS have chosen to disbelieve, but it doesn’t change the fact they are Mormon doctrine. Mormons who choose to disbelieve these doctrines are more like Catholics who reject the Catholic Church’s teachings on the communion of saints or the real presence.

 

[Catholic20064]

I was just going to point this out along with a few other examples:

• Recently His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI stated that it is permissible for Catholics to believe in aliens. That doesn’t mean belief in aliens is a requirement, to be held de fide.
• The past three supreme pontiffs of the Catholic Church have stated that acceptance of the theory of organic evolution via natural selection is compatible with the Catholic faith. Again, it isn’t necessary, but is allowed.

Similarly, speculation about the wife (or wives) of God is permissible in Mormonism yet there is no defined doctrine in the LDS church about her (or them).

It’s considered a trivial aspect of theology. Just as it doesn’t make a difference whether God created us directly via creation or indirectly via evolution, with respect to salvation; it also doesn’t matter in Mormonism if God has one wive, two wives, or twenty. The Plan of Salvation is still the same nonetheless.

So you think an LDS can simply reject the doctrine of Heavenly Mother without any problems? Didn’t the recent “Proclamation of the Family” specifically state we were created by heavenly parents? Here is a quote from it:

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

That pretty much defines a belief in Heavenly Mother in my opinion.

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t agree with this. It discourages honest inquiry, thus leaving people open to deception.

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?

 

[dianaiad]

I have had to correct a couple of Catholics on things, the Immaculate Conception for one, so I’m not convinced all believers know doctrine. But when it comes to how the doctrines and beliefs affect the everyday lives of members former members, happy or bitter, present a side of their religion that starry eyed believers won’t give you.

Those Catholics still understood THEIR beliefs better than anybody else…and since you are Catholic, correcting Catholics is acceptable. I don’t think you would have reacted well if some bitter ex-Catholic '‘educated’ them (or you) on your ‘true beliefs’ regarding the Immaculate Conception. Jack Chick, for instance…

Look; here is a story about a young Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism; his story is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

He was raised in an ‘irreligious’ household (atheist in the most classic sense, as ‘being without God’) When he was fourteen he heard Billy Graham, and was caught up in the search for Christ–eventually becoming a Presbyterian minister and a self admitted anti-Catholic. One evening a friend called him and gave him a list of books to read; Catholic books talking about Catholic issues. Catholics explaining Catholicism.

From reading what Catholics had to say about their own faith, he ended up converting *even as he was getting a doctorate of theology from a Protestant institution.
*

Why? Because he stopped reading Graham, Jack Chick and other stuff about Catholicism by non-Catholics, and began reading about Catholicism as Catholics present it.

He is now, from what I can tell of the article, one of the most conservative and faithful of Catholics. He has an organization called “Biblical Foundations International.”

I think he may be a thorn in the side of many Catholics (I haven’t really gone into his opinions, and haven’t got the background to make any sort of judgment) but that he is absolutely Catholic—and that because he finally went to the SOURCE?

You might want to think about how that works.