Dealing with Anti-Mormon Literature, p. 14

[_Daniel Peterson]

-A-

Lucretia, you have the prerogative to believe that I'm lying just as I have the prerogative to believe that you're clueless.

-B-

Sethbag, I see no explicit mention of Mike Quinn, Todd Compton, and Charles Larson, one way or the other. It simply would never occur to me -- ever -- to think of either Quinn or Compton when hearing the phrase anti-Mormon literature. (Larson, for various reasons, is a more ambiguous case.) Apparently your automatic reflex is to include them under that rubric. You find my reaction odd, as I do yours.

I would never, hearing the phrase pornographic literature, think of John Updike, James Joyce, or the Thousand and One Nights. There are some people, however -- and were once many more -- who probably would. It doesn't strike me as plausible, though, to assume that, whenever anybody refers to "pornographic literature" without expressly excluding Updike, Joyce, and the Thousand and One Nights, that they are to be considered as included. What people will include in a an essentially undefined category is pretty much up to them, and depends on their personal experience, values, loyalties, tastes, and etc.

[_Sethbag]

As has been pointed out by others, you approach these things somewhat differently than your average TBM. One of the main differences is that you actually know what's in these books, and so there's no mystery factor. Other people, who haven't dipped their toe into the waters yet, I think often imagine there's this vast library of books filled with lies and deceipt, inspired by Satan to tear down the testimonies of God's churchmembers, and don't know anything about Compton, Quinn, Larson, or anyone else that matter, to help differentiate them from Ed Decker and the like. All they need to know is whether some book contains things that make Joseph Smith look bad. If they do, that's already enough information, and the book is "anti-mormon" and avoided like the plague. You, personally, may not approach it this way, but a lot of TBMs do, and I have personal experience with TBM relatives on both sides of the family reacting this way, and like I said, just this past couple of weekends with my old Army buddy. And I believe this article totally fits with that impulse, and feeds it. They want people to look at any book that has information that makes them feel uneasy, or which disturbs them, and believe that those feelings are God telling them the book is false, and to avoid it.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Sethbag, I see no explicit mention of Mike Quinn, Todd Compton, and Charles Larson, one way or the other. It simply would never occur to me -- ever -- to think of either Quinn or Compton when hearing the phrase anti-Mormon literature.

Would Quinn or Compton give the young TBM a good feeling, or a bad feeling?

[_Daniel Peterson]

As has been pointed out by others, you approach these things somewhat differently than your average TBM.

I don't know what else to say, really. I've said from the beginning that various people will understand different things under the term anti-Mormon. I can say it yet again, but I've already been repeating myself.

Latter-day Saints range across the spectrum in attitudes, interest in issues, enjoyment of history, passion for reading, openness to alternate viewpoints, educational level, and the like. That means they're different. Accordingly, various Latter-day Saints will understand different things under the term anti-Mormon. I could say that yet again, but I've already been repeating myself.

[_silentkid]

Latter-day Saints range across the spectrum in attitudes, interest in issues, enjoyment of history, passion for reading, openness to alternate viewpoints, educational level, and the like. That means they're different. Accordingly, various Latter-day Saints will understand different things under the term anti-Mormon. I could say that yet again, but I've already been repeating myself.

I guess it all comes down to personal experience, then. My sister would view any material that is critical to the church as anti-mormon material. How do I know this? We just had this conversation over the phone for two hours yesterday. She saw the PBS Mormon's special and felt that it unfairly criticized the church (even the part about Joseph Smith's translation process). She won't read Quinn or Compton or Palmer or even FAIR/FARMS articles. It's not that she is unread, unscholarly, un-intellectual (she is in fact very intelligent and curious)...it's that she's been told to avoid any material that might be detrimental to her testimony. I think the teachings of the church (such as cited in the OP) have done their job, in her case.

[_Daniel Peterson]

She saw the PBS Mormon's special and felt that it unfairly criticized the church (even the part about Joseph Smith's translation process).

Yet I was in that special -- which, from the conversations I've had, was received happily by the people at Church Public Affairs, by the way -- and it's very likely that I'm the fellow whose comments about the translation process she disliked, and I'm an active Latter-day Saint who teaches at BYU, and etc.

She won't read Quinn or Compton or Palmer or even FAIR/FARMS articles.

Yet FARMS belongs to the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship -- the name was approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve -- at the Church's flagship university, and FAIR gets approving mention in the Church News.

It's not that she is unread, unscholarly, un-intellectual (she is in fact very intelligent and curious)...it's that she's been told to avoid any material that might be detrimental to her testimony. I think the teachings of the church (such as cited in the OP) have done their job, in her case.

And you think their job was to persuade her to refuse to read anything published by the Maxwell Institute?

You couldn't have illustrated more effectively my contention that different people will view the term anti-Mormon differently. Thank you.

[_beastie]

I'm curious.

Just what horrible information does "anti Mormon" literature reveal that Compton, Quinn, and other "new historians" don't also reveal?

Why would reading the Tanners be taboo but it's fine to read Quinn's work that, for example, talks at length about the fact that there is no historical evidence recorded supporting the restoration of the M priesthood?

And why would reading Ed Decker be taboo but it's fine to read Van Wagoner and Compton who talk at length about how Joseph Smith coerced and pressured young women and already married women to become his "wives"?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

You couldn't have illustrated more effectively my contention that different people will view the term anti-Mormon differently. Thank you.

Well, thank goodness that's been settled. The level of truth in this world has just been significantly elevated. But what does it have to do with whether the church discourages -- let's say -- literature that isn't faith promoting and gives children a bad feeling?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I'm curious.

Just what horrible information does "anti Mormon" literature reveal that Compton, Quinn, and other "new historians" don't also reveal?

Why would reading the Tanners be taboo but it's fine to read Quinn's work that, for example, talks at length about the fact that there is no historical evidence recorded supporting the restoration of the M priesthood?

And why would reading Ed Decker be taboo but it's fine to read Van Wagoner and Compton who talk at length about how Joseph Smith coerced and pressured young women and already married women to become his "wives"?

Oh, he's just saying that in the hope there are some little followers lurking around who will be impressed .

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, thank goodness that's been settled. The level of truth in this world has just been significantly elevated. But what does it have to do with whether the church discourages -- let's say -- literature that isn't faith promoting and gives children a bad feeling?

Sigh. Just roll over and go back to sleep, Lucretia.