DiscussMormonism.com

Writing from the perspective of a self-assured and insulated sectarian critic, I think Smoot would have difficulty digesting my review of another book:

The reviews on the back of Barry Bickmore's Restoring the Ancient Church guarantee that critics will suffer shaken faith syndrome and cognitive dissonance upon reading the book. In contrast, I praise it as the best work ever written in the field of Mormon apologetics.

What I find interesting is the book uses the same methodology that I use in my work. There is no cognitive dissonance in my critique of the book. I totally agree that Mormonism is a Gnostic religion, and resurrects some ancient heresies. Mormonism ignores the dissonances within its belief system. Catholics just ascribe our dissonances to mystery. With an ineffable God, we can do that. Mormonism's anthropomorphic God does not allow for mystery.

What has worked for two thousand years must be a reasonable approximation of the Truth. Gnostic speculation does little to encourage ethical behavior, and in some cases, encourages unethical behavior.

MCB wrote:What has worked for two thousand years must be a reasonable approximation of the Truth.

I don't agree, Mary. Consider (for example) the institution of slavery.

Slavery in the United States was very different from slavery in Rome. (hereditary and race-based) The New Testament urges slave owners to respect the God-given rights of their slaves. A religion which strongly attacks the values of a society in which it exists will never succeed. God is patient.

MCB wrote:Slavery in the United States was very different from slavery in Rome. (hereditary and race-based) The New Testament urges slave owners to respect the God-given rights of their slaves. A religion which strongly attacks the values of a society in which it exists will never succeed. God is patient.

If God allowed slavery in the Old Testament and New Testament, how do you know that God does not now still condone slavery? When and where did God himself say that it should have ended?

Stock answer-- mystery. However, I know how Jesus would have answered if He had been asked.

Otherwise, I suspect the issue broke to the surface in 1861.

Sethbag wrote:From where I stand, Chap was spot-on in his assessment. Joseph Smith is far, far more susceptible to criticism based on contemporary writings relating to him than Jesus is, much to the advantage of the cult of Jesus.

Indeed.

If all we had about Joseph Smith was John Henry Evans' hagiographical "biography," we would still possess more about Smith than we do about Jesus.

Kishkumen wrote:

Sethbag wrote:From where I stand, Chap was spot-on in his assessment. Joseph Smith is far, far more susceptible to criticism based on contemporary writings relating to him than Jesus is, much to the advantage of the cult of Jesus.

Indeed.

If all we had about Joseph Smith was John Henry Evans' hagiographical "biography," we would still possess more about Smith than we do about Jesus.

If all that the world had about Joseph Smith were the actual words he spoke he would fair well. The evil spoken of him lies in the skulduggery of his naysayers and silly women trying to justify polygamy with adolescent stupidity.

Does anyone else find it disingenuous that Ash quotes Ron Poelman’s famous "The Gospel and the Church" talk, and references it as a conference talk. He makes no mention that this talk was censored by the brethren.

Nightlion wrote: ... The evil spoken of him lies in the skulduggery of his naysayers and silly women trying to justify polygamy with adolescent stupidity.

What on earth does that mean?

I hope Nightlion is not referring to the affidavits sworn by numbers of faithful LDS women who were plural wives of Joseph Smith, affirming that (surprise!) they had sexual relations with the man they regarded as their husband? Those affidavits were submitted to the court by the church in the Temple Lot case, which took place many, many years after the ladies in question had left adolescence far behind.

sunstoned wrote:Does anyone else find it disingenuous that Ash quotes Ron Poelman’s famous "The Gospel and the Church" talk, and references it as a conference talk. He makes no mention that this talk was censored by the brethren.

Yes, but then I find the whole of Mormonism disingenuous.