Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_Daniel Peterson]

Meaning, what? If only 3 of the 17 deal with "apologetic matters," what does that say, exactly? That the Review has always been about something other than defending the central truth claims of the Church? To that I would say, "No kidding."

It's a book review. It reviews books. It started off reviewing just books on the Book of Mormon. That's why it was called the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon when it was first launched.

It has morphed a bit since then -- changing its title to the FARMS Review of Books and then, simply, to the FARMS Review; and it will soon change its title yet again, to the Mormon Studies Review -- but, as its title seems to hint, it remains, primarily, a book review. And it remains focused primarily on the Book of Mormon and related matters.

You guys formed this primarily as an attack journal.

Don't confuse your invented personal mythology with historical fact.

The basic fact you can't escape is this: the Review had ultimately come to represent the flagship apologetic journal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That's probably true. Thank you for saying so. No small achievement!

*Everyone* who knows anything about the Church and its various controversies and problems knows this very basic fact.

Oh, I do hope so.

If you cannot defend or describe the Review as an "apologetic" journal, then we all have to wonder what its purpose is.

It's a book review. A b-o-o-k r-e-v-i-e-w. It reviews books.

Sometimes it does apologetics. Much of the time it doesn't. Depends on the book.

Pretty complicated, no?

I and others have suggested that it is a venue for very aggressive and unethical attacks on critics.

Yep. You've been peddling that silly line for half a decade now. To -- what? -- an audience of twenty or thirty people here, max? Several of whom tell me that they think you're nuts?

If you can't play the "apologetics" card anymore, then I really have to wonder what cards you're left holding.

Cards? Playing? What on earth are you talking about?

The Review was launched as a book review, and continues to be predominantly a book review. It has always been a book review. I'm not accountable for your fantastic revenge-fueled fictions about it.

Dan---I'm not *trying* to "misrepresent" anything.

You're asking me to believe that you do it unintentionally?

Sorry. I find that extremely difficult to credit.

I've always said that the Review was a major departure from the best aspects of Mormonism.

Yeah. It really does seem like "always." But to you, too? Maybe you should get a different gig.

Whatever. In the meantime, others -- people whose opinions (unlike yours) I actually respect -- tell me that they think it features some of the best writing in the Church, that it's funny, extremely effective, interesting, and so forth. One prominent historian of Mormonism (not at BYU) took me aside at the Mormon History Association annual meeting a few years ago to complain about the Review: Whenever a new issue arrived, he said, it shut him absolutely down. He had to read it from cover to cover, and got nothing else done for a day or two.

Incidentally, if you have nothing to say about the subject of the thread, could you please take your irrelevant silliness elsewhere? If you keep it up here, I'll probably just ignore you.

[_harmony]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

[_Inconceivable]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

Well, perhaps only to the little people. We are trying to be clever here. So why mention tired, worn out so-called inspired canon when one can pick and choose with their own words?

[Guest]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

Good point. DCP, why is this not a creed?

[_Jason Bourne]

D&C Section 20 is somewhat creedal sounding as well. In fact I quite like the first 38 verses especially.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It has morphed a bit since then -- changing its title to the FARMS Review of Books and then, simply, to the FARMS Review; and it will soon change its title yet again, to the Mormon Studies Review -- but, as its title seems to hint, it remains, primarily, a book review. And it remains focused primarily on the Book of Mormon and related matters.

Is this really accurate? What does Prof. Gee's most recent article have to do with the Book of Mormon? What about "That Old Black Magic"? What about "Questions to Legal Answers" or "Fun for Family Night"?

You guys formed this primarily as an attack journal.

Don't confuse your invented personal mythology with historical fact.

"Personal mythology"? What, you mean your fantasy about how the Review is this hugely respected and admired "scholarly" publication? That it's "merely" a "book review"?

The basic fact you can't escape is this: the Review had ultimately come to represent the flagship apologetic journal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That's probably true. Thank you for saying so. No small achievement!

You're welcome. But, of course, as you've now clarified---the Review isn't "apologetic" in the sense that it's defending anything fundamental to the Church.

Whatever. In the meantime, others -- people whose opinions (unlike yours) I actually respect

Come on now, Dan. You can at least try to be civil while we're here in the Celestial Forum. *I* respect your opinion, even when I disagree with it.

-- tell me that they think it features some of the best writing in the Church, that it's funny, extremely effective, interesting, and so forth.

(emphasis added)

This is remarkable. Why would anyone find a book review "effective"? As I said, this is an attack journal. It's not about defending anything that actually matters to Mormon faith (on that, you and I appear to agree); it's just a garrison for launching ill-tempered and often vicious attacks and smear campaigns. And some people find this "effective," for what are probably sadistic reasons.

One prominent historian of Mormonism (not at BYU) took me aside at the Mormon History Association annual meeting a few years ago to complain about the Review: Whenever a new issue arrived, he said, it shut him absolutely down. He had to read it from cover to cover, and got nothing else done for a day or two.

That's great, even if it's somewhat disturbing. I have to wonder about someone who gets so caught up and absorbed in the likes of Greg Smith's smear article on Rod Meldrum.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Is this really accurate? What does Prof. Gee's most recent article have to do with the Book of Mormon? What about "That Old Black Magic"? What about "Questions to Legal Answers" or "Fun for Family Night"?

I don't think that the word primarily is really all that difficult to grasp. Give it another try.

"Personal mythology"? What, you mean your fantasy about how the Review is this hugely respected and admired "scholarly" publication?

Where have I expressed this notion that it's "hugely respected and admired" by a general scholarly audience?

That it's "merely" a "book review"?

That's what it began as, what it was for most of its history, and what it largely continues to be, notwithstanding your exertions.

But, of course, as you've now clarified---the Review isn't "apologetic" in the sense that it's defending anything fundamental to the Church.

I didn't say that, of course.

You can at least try to be civil while we're here in the Celestial Forum. *I* respect your opinion, even when I disagree with it.

Right. Sure.

Five years. Fully half a decade.

Why would anyone find a book review "effective"?

Something for you to meditate upon.

As I said, this is an attack journal.

Half a decade.

Five years.

It's not about defending anything that actually matters to Mormon faith (on that, you and I appear to agree);

No. We don't.

You'll continue to insist on putting your defamatory fictions in my mouth, of course, but what I wrote above is both clear and publicly available.

it's just a garrison for launching ill-tempered and often vicious attacks and smear campaigns.

Yawn.

And some people find this "effective," for what are probably sadistic reasons.

Probably.

Whatever.

That's great, even if it's somewhat disturbing.

So you're disturbed. I appreciate your candor.

I have to wonder about someone who gets so caught up and absorbed in the likes of Greg Smith's smear article on Rod Meldrum.

Wisdom, said Socrates, begins in wonder.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

They're definitely at least quasi-creedlike.

But they're not exhaustive.

They don't include all fundamental doctrines (e.g,, there is nothing in them about temple ordinances, or priesthood keys, or divine corporeality, or the First Vision -- or, for that matter, about being born again or developing charity), but all informed and believing Latter-day Saints would recognize them as a statement of certain fundamental LDS doctrines, and any Church member flatly and publicly denying them would, I'm guessing, soon be invited to speak with his or her bishop.

So, too, more or less, with Doctrine and Covenants 20, which is a very early section.

Isn't a creed simply a statement of belief? No creed claims to be "exhaustive".

To me, to say that the Articles of Faith is "quasi-creedlike" is similar to saying that a poodle is quasi-doglike. Can you please clarify what you mean? Why is it only a quasi-creed and not a creed?

[_harmony]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

They're definitely at least quasi-creedlike.

But they're not exhaustive.

They don't include all fundamental doctrines (e.g,, there is nothing in them about temple ordinances, or priesthood keys, or divine corporeality, or the First Vision -- or, for that matter, about being born again or developing charity), but all informed and believing Latter-day Saints would recognize them as a statement of certain fundamental LDS doctrines, and any Church member flatly and publicly denying them would, I'm guessing, soon be invited to speak with his or her bishop.

So, too, more or less, with Doctrine and Covenants 20, which is a very early section.

I guess I'm not clear as to what a creed is then.

Joseph wrote them. If he'd wanted to include the stuff you list as left out, surely he could have.

Is being born again or developing charity fundamental LDS doctrine?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Isn't a creed simply a statement of belief? No creed claims to be "exhaustive".

To me, to say that the Articles of Faith is "quasi-creedlike" is similar to saying that a poodle is quasi-doglike. Can you please clarify what you mean? Why is it only a quasi-creed and not a creed?

I guess I'm not clear as to what a creed is then.

Joseph wrote them. If he'd wanted to include the stuff you list as left out, surely he could have.

If you want to call the Articles of Faith a "creed," that's okay with me.

Doing so certainly won't hurt my contention that there are doctrines of Mormonism that are pretty obviously and unambiguously fundamental, that Mormon doctrine isn't completely in flux and impossible to pin down.

Is being born again or developing charity fundamental LDS doctrine?

I would count them both as fundamental.

Though, clearly, Inconceivable's well-grounded personal testimony that I know nothing of either of them from first hand experience needs to be taken into account whenever I try to speak about them.