Bitton's Guildelines To Recognizing Anti-mormon Books...

[Daniel Peterson]

Exactly. Again, you mentioned Behind the Mask of Mormonism and the God Makers film.

Nowhere and in no way were these sources mentioned by Cinepro. You were specific. He wasn't.

And that's a flaw in my approach to the topic? You actually prefer vagueness?

How 'bout responding generally to the OP? Rather than with your sugar-baby anti-Mormon exemplars?

I realize that you're still steaming about the fact that I'm not a big fan of Calvinism. Sorry about that.

However, as I believe I've explained, under anti-Mormon I understand such things as the emissions of Dr. Ankerberg, Dr. Dr. Weldon, Bill McKeever, and "Dr." Walter Martin. I have no idea what cinepro considers anti-Mormon. Perhaps he agrees with me. Perhaps he doesn't. Pending clarifying specificity from him on that point, however, I can only use the English language in the way I use it.

Again, you've been specific, not the OP. Strawmen are rather par for the course here, though.

You're certainly welcome to claim that I'm posting in bad faith. Even, as in this case, where you're one hundred percent wrong.

I've offered up no "straw man." If Decker, Ankerberg, Weldon, and Martin are not anti-Mormons, I'm at a loss to imagine who might be. Cinepro mentioned anti-Mormonism. He was responding to Davis Bitton, who had mentioned anti-Mormonism. I've simply chosen some representative anti-Mormons. How is that a "straw man"? How does that merit your hostile reference to "sugar-babies"? How does that justify your insinuations of disingenuousness?

How 'bout a straight response to the OP, without adducing anything specific (in line with the OP)?

You would prefer, it seems, to speak in vague abstractions about an undefined category with unspecified members. Why is that?

No Behind the Mask of Mormonism and the God Makers? What about books and articles that are critical of the LDS religion by ex-Mo's?

Perhaps I haven't yet managed to convey to you my sentiment that legitimate scholarly works should not be categorized as anti-Mormon?

I assume you think Vogel and Metcalfe books are perfectly acceptable for general LDS consumption?

Why don't you check out my personal Index Librorum Prohibitorum and see if they're on it? Surely it must be up on the web somewhere?

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that I believe in banning books. I believe in reading books. And, yes, in reading them critically. And I've been known to publish and to write book reviews.

They're scholarly, no?

Yes. Though I think it clear that they have a strong partisan motivation. They would be far more comparable, in their opposite way, to, say, FARMS publications than would the suppurations of Dr. Ankerberg, Dr. Weldon, "Dr." Martin, and Ed Decker. They are still, though, not really comparable to the usual work of Arrington, Bitton, Allen, Alexander, et al., which has no such ideological agenda.

They disagree with your position, yes?

They do, yes.

So?

No stickers for those books, then, I suppose?

I have no idea what "stickers" you might have in mind.

Would you encourage your parishioners to read them? Why or why not?

I don't encourage my "parishioners" to read any books, typically, other than the scriptures and the official lesson manuals. I don't see that as my ecclesiastical role. They're free to read whatever they want.

[LifeOnaPlate]

When will you silly Mormons realize you only say what we, the critics, say you say?

[cinepro]

I propose that the success of my analogy (and re-application) of Bitton's points can best be proved in practice. For example, suppose a reader were looking for the best, most accurate and reliable biography of Joseph Smith. They don't know much about him, and find some interesting bios at Amazon:

1. No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie

2. American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith by Heidi Swinton

3. Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman

4. Joseph Smith the Prophet by Truman G Madsen

Using only Bitton's points and my redaction, a reader could probably reliably eliminate the works that slant things towards a faith-destroying perspective as well as those that slant towards a faith-promoting one.

[Uncle Dale]

I propose that the success of my analogy (and re-application) of Bitton's points can best be proved in practice. For example, suppose a reader were looking for the best, most accurate and reliable biography of Joseph Smith. They don't know much about him, and find three interesting bios at Amazon:

1. No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie

2. American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith by Heidi Swinton

3. Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman

4. Joseph Smith the Prophet by Truman G Madsen

Using only Bitton's points and my redaction, a reader could probably reliably eliminate the works that slant things towards a faith-destroying perspective as well as those that slant towards a faith-promoting one.

So much for Jos. Smith ---

How about the best, most useful biography of Jesus the Son of Mary, with reflections upon his life's work?

UD

[cksalmon]

I have no idea what "stickers" you might have in mind.

No worries. It was actually in the OP, which it doesn't appear you've taken the time to read--or, at least, not closely enough to recognize the reference to his proposal for caveat lector "stickers."

A book that is clearly anti-Mormon should have a sticker on the dust jacket: Caveat lector--let the reader beware.

Bitton's, from the first sentence of the first quotation in the originating post, are the "'stickers' [i had] in mind."

[LifeOnaPlate]

No worries. It was in the OP, which it doesn't appear you've taken the time to read.

Bitton's, from the OP, are the "'stickers' [i had] in mind."

Greetings, CK. How's your Book of Mormon satire comic coming along?

[Daniel Peterson]

Greetings, CK. How's your Book of Mormon satire comic coming along?

Poorly, I hope.

[Daniel Peterson]

I propose that the success of my analogy (and re-application) of Bitton's points can best be proved in practice. For example, suppose a reader were looking for the best, most accurate and reliable biography of Joseph Smith. They don't know much about him, and find some interesting bios at Amazon:

1. No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie

2. American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith by Heidi Swinton

3. Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman

4. Joseph Smith the Prophet by Truman G Madsen

Using only Bitton's points and my redaction, a reader could probably reliably eliminate the works that slant things towards a faith-destroying perspective as well as those that slant towards a faith-promoting one.

In my judgment, the Bushman biography is (obviously) the best academic treatment of the subject. Brodie's is the poorest. But the Swinton and Madsen works are also very good.

[cksalmon]

Greetings, CK. How's your Book of Mormon satire comic coming along?

Well, I'll be the first to admit, this is an absolutely burning question that has everything to do with the issue of this thread.

Now, who is his right mind would ever accuse LDS of jarringly changing the subject? I've personally never seen such a tactic in operation.

It's going quite well, actually. Thanks! My BoM characters are really quite likable fellows, all told. I've come to really fancy them--as fictional characters. And, for your reference, the satire revolves around LGT--not BoM proper. I realize that's probably a distinction without a difference for some, but, ah well, there it is.

CKS

[cksalmon]

Poorly, I hope.

That you even have an (albeit negative) wish as to the status of my LGT-satirical project is quite gratifying, in and of itself. I do appreciate your evident interest, though, Daniel. Even if you only wish the project ill.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, I'll be the first to admit, this is an absolutely burning question that has everything to do with the issue of this thread.

Now, who is his right mind would ever accuse LDS of jarringly changing the subject? I've personally never seen such a tactic in operation.

Uh, oh, better run off and create another thread on the other board about this instance! You've got some reporting to do!

Oh, back on subject: Brodie's book is a poor book. Fun reading, though!

[cksalmon]

Uh, oh, better run off and create another thread on the other board about this instance! You've got some reporting to do!

Now, this is even odder, if possible, than your prior comment above. You post a completely, not-even-tangential, thoroughly-unrelated, comment, and, when you're called on it, you, in proleptic fashion, preemptively intone about my reporting of your manifest asininity on "the other board."

I hadn't planned on doing any such thing, frankly; but, perhaps you're right: perhaps such is warranted. After all, you apparently expect to be taken seriously there, as your current 95 posts demonstrate.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Almost a centurion?

CK Have you read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling?

[cksalmon]

CK Have you read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling?

Yet another completely, intuitively, non-asinine question. I'd suggest you check out my blog. It details interesting tidbits from Rough Stone Rolling. And, in my universe, no one need apply stickers.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yet another completely, intuitively, non-asinine question. I'd suggest you check out my blog. It details interesting tidbits from Rough Stone Rolling. And, in my universe, no one need apply stickers.

That's not a blog. I get your joke. Additionally, I notice you've never taken time to read a post (with a response) on my blog but maybe I can expect a silly characterization cartoon based on my work?

I thought this was your blog.

And I suppose you haven't read Rough Stone. Your loss!