Authors That Can Be Trusted Representing Mormonism Truthfully

[mfbukowski]

I would recommend that you read from the Prophets, Seers and Revelators. My I suggest Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as a starting ground. Try the Journal of Discourses as a great place to read the words of these men.

I would suggest that you do not trust John Larsen, since he is a critic.

[mfbukowski]

Given the principle of the "restoration" I am not sure how you can label doctrines of this dispensation to be archaic. Care to elaborate?

The restoration is about on-going revelation, and it has been.

[Alan]

Stephen E Robinson.

Superb.

[Kenngo1969]

Stephen E Robinson.

Superb.

Let me elaborate a little.

Believing Christ.

Following Christ.

Are Mormons Christians?

[Pilgrim]

"Latter Days" by Coke Newell and "What Mormons Believe" by Rex Lee are both good introductions to LDS history and basic doctrine. Both were written to the honest non-LDS seeker. Honest, intelligent, articulate presentations.

[Pilgrim]

Oh, and thanks, John, for today's chuckle.

"Try the Journal of Discourses as a great place to read the words of these men."

I'm looking forward to finding Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith in the Journal of Discourses.

[John Larsen]

Oh, and thanks, John, for today's chuckle.

"Try the Journal of Discourses as a great place to read the words of these men."

I'm looking forward to finding Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith in the Journal of Discourses.

Of course McConkie and Fielding are not in the JoD, sorry if my poor construction lead you to believe that I thought that. McConkie and field spent a lot of energy trying to distance themselves from the JoD.

[John Larsen]

I would suggest that you do not trust John Larsen, since he is a critic.

What a strange world view you have. I recommend that one consult first hand sources, and you dismiss my answer merely because I am a "critic" whatever that means. How convenient.

Hey Bukowski, brush your teeth after meals and say your prayers.

[mfbukowski]

What a strange world view you have. I recommend that one consult first hand sources, and you dismiss my answer merely because I am a "critic" whatever that means. How convenient.

Hey Bukowski, brush your teeth after meals and say your prayers.

If you read the OP, you will see that the op is looking for someone to represent "Mormonism truthfully."

That would exclude critics. Your earlier response seemed designed to imply that you were a TBM.

I would recommend that you read from the Prophets, Seers and Revelators. My I suggest Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith as a starting ground. Try the Journal of Discourses as a great place to read the words of these men.

For a genuine newbie, these words could be extremely misleading, and in your case, intentionally so. Of course, with your admitted "poor construction", I actually don't have a clue what this supposed to mean

[formerpastor]

<br />If you read the OP, you will see that the op is looking for someone to represent "Mormonism truthfully."<br /><br />That would exclude critics.

[Calm]

<br /><br /><br />

OK, folks thanks for all of your suggestions and bantering back and forth. Here is what I am going to start to read, in addition to the Standard Works and Gospel Principles.

"Rough Stone Rolling" by Bushman, "By The Hand of Mormon" by Givens, "Doctrine" by McConkie and "Christ and the New Covenant" by Jeffrey Holland.

These should keep me busy for while~

3 out of 4 isn't bad and honestly the fourth, "Mormon Doctrine," is only problematic in a few areas. The one big issue I have with that book is that he treats his opinions the same way as he treats doctrine so it's hard to tell when he's gone off speculating. So if something seems like it doesn't fit with what you are reading elsewhere, you might want to explore more before accepting what Brother McConkie writes as doctrine (which I'd say probably 95% of the book is from my memory...granted it's been years since I read it) instead of speculation (granted there were many in the church who believed and even some still believe the same speculation....probably mainly because he taught it, lol).

[John Larsen]

If you read the OP, you will see that the op is looking for someone to represent "Mormonism truthfully."

That would exclude critics. Your earlier response seemed designed to imply that you were a TBM.

You seem to be arguing that critic=not-truthful. That is a neive and dim view, and it is easily falsifiable. But I guess any falsification would also be critical, thus not truthful, no?

For a genuine newbie, these words could be extremely misleading, and in your case, intentionally so. Of course, with your admitted "poor construction", I actually don't have a clue what this supposed to mean

Why would the words of a prophet be "extremely misleading"? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Before you start slighting my construction, I would suggest you spend a few hours with a guide on English punctuation. A spell checker might come in handy also.

[mfbukowski]

You seem to be arguing that critic=not-truthful. That is a neive and dim view, and it is easily falsifiable. But I guess any falsification would also be critical, thus not truthful, no?

Why would the words of a prophet be "extremely misleading"? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Before you start slighting my construction, I would suggest you spend a few hours with a guide on English punctuation. A spell checker might come in handy also.

Yes it might.

[Gohan]

I probably shouldn't be the one to say it - speaking to John Larsen and mfbukowski - but I'll say it anyway. Take it to PMs instead of the thread, it's annoying and distracting to the point of the OP.

And on that subject, got another one! It's a tad outdated and more technical, but I really enjoyed Hugh Nibley's 'Since Cumorah.' I didn't agree with all the conclusions he reached, but it's definitely worth a look in the future. Once you're done with the quite lengthy booklist you've got right now. :-)

[daz2]

I am not sure for what purpose you want to read about the LDS Church. If you want to read about what Church leaders say about the Church, then read the books by prophets and apostles as well as those published by Deseret Book. If you want some more objective views (by Mormon and nonMormon authors), read anything published by U of Illinois press, Oxford press, Uof Utah, Utah State press. If you want some books by a press that publishes some fairly objective books but others with "bite", check out Signature books. If you want decent anti-Mormon books, the evangelical presses have improved their quality since I was kid.

[daz2]

I am not sure for what purpose you want to read about the LDS Church. If you want to read about what Church leaders say about the Church, then read the books by prophets and apostles as well as those published by Deseret Book. If you want some more objective views (by Mormon and nonMormon authors), read anything published by U of Illinois press, Oxford press, Uof Utah, Utah State press. If you want some books by a press that publishes some fairly objective books but others with "bite", check out Signature books. If you want decent anti-Mormon books, the evangelical presses have improved their quality since I was kid.

[Mudcat]

I am not LDS myself, but have studied it a bit.

Newell and Avery wrote a book called Mormon Enigma, though written towards the direction of Emma Hale Smith, there was a good bit of historic detail. I would recommend it.

Another book I have enjoyed, was gifted to me. Men of Valor by Robert Millet. Though not a historical piece in itself directly, I think it was fairly insightful on the LDS concept priesthood and seemed to be a very practical work for how one should go about things.

Regards,

Mudcat

[John Larsen]

Yes it might.

Ha Ha! You caught me. Good one. I apologize for being an ***.

[noel00]

May I suggest for balance you also read:

Inventing Mormonism (Walters and Marquardt)

Studies in the Book of Mormon (B H Roberts)

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined (available online in Signature Books)

No Man Knows My History (Fawn Brodie)

Through these books you can make up your mind whether Smith had a good reputation, whether there was a revival in Palmyra in 1820, whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient or modern production.

If I buy the LDS position, I have to conclude that all Smith's neighbours were liars, that a Camp Meeting for clergy qualifies as a revival; accept the BOM peoples may have existed in some remote corner of Mesoamerica riding Tapir deer or pulling sleds and fighting each other with sharp stones tied between two pieces of wood.

[Nathair/|\]

May I suggest for balance you also read:

Inventing Mormonism (Walters and Marquardt)

Studies in the Book of Mormon (B H Roberts)

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined (available online in Signature Books)

No Man Knows My History (Fawn Brodie)

Through these books you can make up your mind whether Smith had a good reputation, whether there was a revival in Palmyra in 1820, whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient or modern production.

If I buy the LDS position, I have to conclude that all Smith's neighbours were liars, that a Camp Meeting for clergy qualifies as a revival; accept the BOM peoples may have existed in some remote corner of Mesoamerica riding Tapir deer or pulling sleds and fighting each other with sharp stones tied between two pieces of wood.

Ah one of my favorite logical fallacies

Appeal to ridicule

Wikipedia entry

This tactic (mis)states an opponent's beliefs in a way that distorts them, and makes them appear ridiculous. The audience will then conclude that something so foolish cannot be defended.

This is a favorite tactic of the anti-Mormon industry; their characterizations of LDS belief and doctrine are seldom complete.

• Argument:
  • "Mormons believe they will be gods and rule their own planets."
  • "Mormons think God talks to farmboys."
  • "[Y]ou don't get books from angels and translate them by miracles; it is just that simple."
    - Sterling M. McMurrin, "An Interview with Sterling M. McMurrin," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17 (Spring 1984): 18-43.
  • The golden plates were conveniently taken back by the angel so no one could have the trouble to examine them!"

• [*]Rebuttal: To understand a belief or argument, it is always best to let a believer or proponent of an argument explain it. Any belief or idea can be made to appear ridiculous with loaded language or misleading characterizations