17 replies to this topic

[zerinus]

In today's The Times, which is arguably UK's most prestigious newspaper, a review is published about a book by John G. Turner titled, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, which is a bit unusual, and is unlikely to have happened had it not been for the publicity that Mormons are getting because of Romney's candidacy. Below is the text of the review, and an image of the newspaper cutting is also attached to this thread. I will let you read it and judge it for yourselves:

Mormonism, the religion to which the presidential candidate Mitt Romney belongs, is as Christian as Islam. Both faiths believe that they have built final edifices on the foundations of previous monotheism. In Islam’s case it was the 7th-century Arab prophet Muhammad who revealed the completed word of God. In the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, it was an upstate New York farmworker called Joseph Smith who was given angelic word of the olden pages of the Book of Mormon in 1823 and8 who dug them up in New York four years later.

On the basis of his revelations Smith founded his Church, detailing its theology, ‘‘revealing’’ its dogma and “gathering” its members together to live in precarious community in various townships in New York, Missouri and Illinois. Smith was, if you like, the Lenin of Mormonism, its founding genius. But his reign was short. Always in conflict and always being persecuted by the non-Mormon majorities, he was murdered while awaiting trial in the town of Carthage in 1844.

The man who stepped up to take over the bereft community—the Stalin of Mormonism—was a barely educated, uncultured farmhand called Brigham Young. A product of that period of intense religious questing called The Great Awakening, he had been sampling various forms of charismatic Protestantism hawked by groups and prophets when he stumbled across Smith.

Young became one of the most important men in the infant Church by virtue of his loyalty to Smith, his stamina and his organisational capacity. He was even sent to England in the 18305 to preach Mormonism, and was inducted by Smith into the secret hierarchy of the Church, which involved quasi-Masonic rituals and much “washing and anointing”. It was Young, who was declared president of the Mormon Church in 1847, who organised the remarkable migration of the Church and its adherents from the Eastern US, across Indian territory, to the Salt Lake basin in what is now Utah. There they founded Salt Lake City, built their temple, colonised the area and began to build their theodemocracy, their Paradise.

Like Stalin, Young became the central figure of a new republic that required sharp definition to be able to survive threats from the outside and disintegrating threats from within. His authoritarianism became one of Mormonism’s defining characteristics. Like Stalin or Mao he led a cleansing “reformation” of the doctrine. Non-Mormons were harassed and, in one notorious case in 1857, massacred. But somehow it worked. The Church he saved thrives.

Turner’s book is wonderfully well sourced and he has had the benefit of co-operation from the Mormon archives. Perhaps in consequence of this he is kinder to Young than the facts might allow. He suggests, for example, that male Mormons went along with “plural marriage” (a misnomer, since it was “plural” at the convenience of the men only) mostly out of piety. And I am the Queen of Romania. At 61, Young, who took more than 50 wives, married a woman 37 years his junior.

But that, in a way, was the beauty of it. The rules were made up and changed as they went along, to fit the needs of the times and the dynamic, questing, restless, religious spirit of America.

I suppose for Mormonism, any publicity is good publicity!

Attached Files

•  Young.JPG   174.04K   33 downloads

Edited by zerinus, 20 August 2012 - 12:46 PM.

[Duncan]

is this the article that has two different spellings of Cain?

oops! I am thinking of this one!

http://www.nytimes.c...hurch.html?_r=1

Edited by Duncan, 20 August 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[cinepro]

Wow.  That is a terrible, terrible review, and from what I know of the book and the author, it does them both a great disservice.

She should stick to ruling Romania and give up writing.

[zerinus]

cinepro, on 20 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Wow.  That is a terrible, terrible review, and from what I know of the book and the author, it does them both a great disservice.

She should stick to ruling Romania and give up writing.

I agree! You can't expect much better from UK journalism. But if as a result of it somebody is going to read the book, and learn something about Mormonism, It can only be a good thing. By the way, I reattached the image, which hadn't worked the first time.

Edited by zerinus, 20 August 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[Buckeye]

Does the book compare Young to Stalin or is that just the reviewer's bent?  It's hard to think of a more unnecessary and bias-inducing comparison.

Also, does the book make the claim that mormonism is a christian as islam?  I've seen that sentiment expressed in a number of venues recently.  Astonishing that no one bothers to consider that, unlike muslims, we consider the new testament to be scripture.  Maybe we need to start putting crosses on chapels.

[Veles]

Only 10% of this "review", is about the book in object... I'm amazed The Times published something like this...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That one is bad, really bad. And the NY Times article was bad too. But this one is worse. About the only thing she got right in this article was spelling and some dates.

Edited by Mola Ram Suda Ram, 20 August 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Buckeye]

zerinus, on 20 August 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

I agree! You can't expect much better from UK journalism. But if as a result of it somebody is going to read the book, and learn something about Mormonism, It can only be a good thing. By the way, I reattached the image, which hadn't worked the first time.

We often say that.  I hope its true.

I remember when, right after the Oklahoma City bombing, my local town paper ran an editorial on the church that explained how we were all militia members and included guns/ammo in our foodstorage.  I immediately turned to my dad an asked "Cool, we have guns downstairs?"  "Nope, just wheat" he responded.  "Ah, nuts!"

[Pahoran]

zerinus, on 20 August 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Mormonism, the religion to which the presidential candidate Mitt Romney belongs, is as Christian as Islam.

Epic fail!!

Regards,
Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

cinepro, on 20 August 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

She should stick to ruling Romania and give up writing.

I don't advise she should do that either. This person is obviously dumb.

[mapman]

That was hardly even a review.  I imagine the author wrote it thinking, "I've got to be as inflammatory and sensational as I can possibly be."  Then he remembered that it was supposed to be a book review, so he tacks on a mention that some guy has written a book about Brigham Young, and the only commentary he gives on it is that it's not as sensational and simplistic as he would like.  From what I know about Turner, I'm sure his book is much more respectful and thoughtful.

Edited by mapman, 20 August 2012 - 01:30 PM.

[Pahoran]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 20 August 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I don't advise she should do that either. This person is obviously dumb.

Besides, I'm not sure Romania would want a queen named David Aaronovitch.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Emerson]

As one who has read earlier drafts of John's BY bio, I can assure everyone this review is not reflective of the fantastic book. It's just a hack journalist's attempt to get in a word in on Mormonism.

[Pahoran]

If the recent BBC documentary "The Mormon Candidate" wasn't proof enough that British journalism is coasting along on the reputation of its forebears, this article pretty much seals the deal.

Quote

Mormonism, the religion to which the presidential candidate Mitt Romney belongs, is as Christian as Islam.

Utter rubbish.  Does Tovarich Aaronovitch know anything at all about religion?

Well, given that he is a former (reformed) communist who now describes himself by the somewhat oxymoronic label of "radical moderate," the answer is, "probably not."

Quote

Smith was, if you like, the Lenin of Mormonism, its founding genius

Well no, I don't like.  Every movement has a founder, and Lenin was one of the more brutal and murderous founders ever.  But of course this was just put there to set up the uncritical and uninformed (i.e. upper-class British) reader for the obvious punchline:

Quote

The man who stepped up to take over the bereft community—the Stalin of Mormonism—was a barely educated, uncultured farmhand called Brigham Young.

And so Tovarich Aaronovitch wants us to know that Brigham was, to all intents and purposes (well, at least to his) just like one of the three worst mass murderers in world history.

Quote

Perhaps in consequence of this he is kinder to Young than the facts might allow.

Really?  And what "facts" does Tovarich Aaronovitch know so well that Turner fails to take into account?

Quote

He suggests, for example, that male Mormons went along with 'plural marriage' (a misnomer, since it was 'plural' at the convenience of the men only) mostly out of piety.

And so they did.  The label "plural marriage" is in no sense a "misnomer."  Those who accepted it entered into a plurality of marriages; hence, plural marriage.

Quote

And I am the Queen of Romania. At 61, Young, who took more than 50 wives, married a woman 37 years his junior.

And this is the "fact" that Turner overlooks, is it?

Well, I have another fact for Tovarich Aaronovitch: the young wife, Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning, subsequently divorced Brigham and embarked on a career giving lectures in which she "exposed" the horrors of polygamy.  One of those "horrors" was that Ann Eliza found it impossible to interest her husband, no matter how hard she tried.  That's right: her marriage to Brigham was strictly platonic -- because that was the way he wanted it.

So what explanation for plural marriage does Her Majesty Queen David wish to offer again?

Regards,
Pahoran

Edited by Pahoran, 20 August 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[calmoriah]

What a waste of ink.

[zerinus]

More of the same in today's The Times! Click on the attached file to read more. If you download it and view it at full resolution the text should be quite legible. This is something that requires a point by point response. I don't think that the Church would respond to it because it is political, although mixes politics with religion. Perhaps one of the academics at BYU could give it a point by point response, and send it to the editor of The Times, and request it to be published. They may very well consider that, especially if it came from noted BYU professor. It sould be of the same length, and be polite and informative, not polemical. Anyways, enjoy!

Attached Files

•  THE TIMES 1 (60%).jpg   329.19K   19 downloads

[Pahoran]

In an article in The Times of London, journalist Bronwen Maddox opines, “Mitt’s weird faith should be an election issue.”

But should it?

Elements of the article are frankly disturbing.  First, the appeal to prejudice: Mormonism is “weird” and therefore Mormons have to somehow prove that they can be trusted by “normal” people.  Prove themselves how?  Ms Maddox offers us a clue: she wants to harass him with questions like, “You believe exactly what?”  She explicitly finds such harassment “appropriate.”  The answer that would make him respectable enough for Maddox’s taste would presumably be something like, “Well, none of it, really.”

Not less disturbing is her reliance upon the discredited “White Horse Prophecy.”  Despite the fact that Joseph F. Smith, Joseph’s nephew described it as a “ridiculous story,” “a lot of trash” and “simply false,” people like Ms Maddox demand that Mitt Romney should somehow be held accountable for it.  We wonder: would Ms Maddox similarly demand that Jewish politicians be held accountable for Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?  If not, why not, and how does she distinguish the two documents?  The one is not more authentic than the other.

These two expressions of urbane bigotry act as bookends for a rather disorganised harangue in which Romney is to be held responsible for everything Mormon, and Mormonism is blamed for everything Romney.  Is Romney unaware of the complexities of Middle Eastern conflict?  That’s because he’s a Mormon.  Was he tactless in his remarks about London’s preparations for the Olympics?  That can’t be because he’s had experience running an Olympic games himself; it must be because he’s a Mormon and has no compassion for the poor – never ask how London, one of the world’s foremost financial centres, qualifies as poor.

Maddox beats all the usual drums: Mormons didn't ordain Blacks until 1978 (gasp!)  In the meantime, most conservative American Protestants still practice a kind of racial segregation every Sunday morning, which the Church of Jesus Christ does not do.  Similarly, Mormons still don't ordain women!!  Well, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but neither do Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or most Protestant denominations.

Maddox demands that Romney be made a spokesman for the Church.  And yet that is precisely what he should not be doing, if he respects the American tradition of Church-State separation.

One wonders how the journalist considered the US expert for The Times could write such a bad article.  Was it simple incompetence or something less benign?  Perhaps a little investigation into her intellectual history might be in order.

Regards,
Pahoran

[zerinus]

Pahoran, on 22 August 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

In an article in The Times of London, journalist Bronwen Maddox opines, “Mitt’s weird faith should be an election issue.”

But should it?

Elements of the article are frankly disturbing.  First, the appeal to prejudice: Mormonism is “weird” and therefore Mormons have to somehow prove that they can be trusted by “normal” people.  Prove themselves how?  Ms Maddox offers us a clue: she wants to harass him with questions like, “You believe exactly what?”  She explicitly finds such harassment “appropriate.”  The answer that would make him respectable enough for Maddox’s taste would presumably be something like, “Well, none of it, really.”

Not less disturbing is her reliance upon the discredited “White Horse Prophecy.”  Despite the fact that Joseph F. Smith, Joseph’s nephew described it as a “ridiculous story,” “a lot of trash” and “simply false,” people like Ms Maddox demand that Mitt Romney should somehow be held accountable for it.  We wonder: would Ms Maddox similarly demand that Jewish politicians be held accountable for Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?  If not, why not, and how does she distinguish the two documents?  The one is not more authentic than the other.

These two expressions of urbane bigotry act as bookends for a rather disorganised harangue in which Romney is to be held responsible for everything Mormon, and Mormonism is blamed for everything Romney.  Is Romney unaware of the complexities of Middle Eastern conflict?  That’s because he’s a Mormon.  Was he tactless in his remarks about London’s preparations for the Olympics?  That can’t be because he’s had experience running an Olympic games himself; it must be because he’s a Mormon and has no compassion for the poor – never ask how London, one of the world’s foremost financial centres, qualifies as poor.

Maddox beats all the usual drums: Mormons didn't ordain Blacks until 1978 (gasp!)  In the meantime, most conservative American Protestants still practice a kind of racial segregation every Sunday morning, which the Church of Jesus Christ does not do.  Similarly, Mormons still don't ordain women!!  Well, I don't know if anyone has noticed, but neither do Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or most Protestant denominations.

Maddox demands that Romney be made a spokesman for the Church.  And yet that is precisely what he should not be doing, if he respects the American tradition of Church-State separation.

One wonders how the journalist considered the US expert for The Times could write such a bad article.  Was it simple incompetence or something less benign?  Perhaps a little investigation into her intellectual history might be in order.

Regards,
Pahoran

You can also consider writing a letter to the editor of the newspaper. There is a "Letter to the Editor" section in the newspaper in which letters from readers are published. Perhaps several LDS on this forum can jointly draft a letter, and send it to them over the signatures of all of them. I think it can be emailed as well. You never know, if it is well writte it might get published. But traditionally it is signed with people's real names (although if you use a fictitious name they have no way of knowing).