New York Times: Why I Love Mormonsim

[cinepro]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/

Philosopher Simon Critchley has an interesting article on his affection for certain LDS doctrines.

[bluebell]

Good article. He got the whole 'women and godhood' thing wrong, but otherwise not bad.

[KevinG]

That was my reaction. Unless we are parsing the differences between godhood and Godhood, or godhood and goddesshood he has some very intelligent insights.

The best point he makes is that any critique should begin with substance and not slander.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Good article. He got the whole 'women and godhood' thing wrong, but otherwise not bad.

Most do ge things wrong. As Paul said "in this life we see through a glass darkly". Non-members of any faith "see through a glass darkly (while on the outside) looking in"

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe it is a good article, and is more of a characterization of what we really believe.

[emeliza]

I disagree with his women and godhood part. I also don't like how he used Bloom and the plural marriage since I don't think that will come back. That being said, over all it was pretty decent for a non-member and it went deeper than most people understand.

[Nevo]

It is an interesting article. Sure, he gets a few things wrong but that is to be expected. I, for one, appreciated his thoughtful engagement with the "intriguing" ideas contained in Joseph Smith's King Follett Sermon and the Sermon at the Grove. And I happen to share his high opinion of James Faulconer, one of the BYU philosophers he referred to. Faulconer is a gem.

[swfarnsworth]

He got the whole 'women and godhood' thing wrong.

So wrong, in fact, that I almost had an aneurism. I just sent correction to his email address about half an hour ago with citations to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

That aside, I thought it was a pretty good article.