Book Review: Banishing The Cross

[Alan]

I never denied that my tone changed. My tone changed immediately after WS said, "That's the book in a nutshell, all flowered up pretty to deceive."

My tone was in reaction reaction to insult, as well as closed minded ignorance

the "congratulators" never made such insults. And unlike you, neither did they exhibit WS's closed minded ignorance.

Hence, there is no double standard.

Now go run along... You and WS have some quotes to find and a book to read.

Let's face it. You came on here starting a thread entitled "book review" but it was nothing of the sort. It wasn't a book review at all, it was your book and you just came here to boast about it. Self congratulation is the emptiest kind. Apart from that I cannot see why you started this thread. If you were hoping it would persuade us all to rush out and buy your book, clearly you have failed.

My point about double standards still stands. When WS was critical of your take on the evidence, you observed that since he hadn't read your book his comments were of little value. But surely those who were championing your book were in the same category as they hadn't read the book either. See what I mean?....double standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander my friend.

Now you run along my dear chap and go promote your book somewhere else.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Alan

[Gohan]

Let's face it. You came on here starting a thread entitled "book review" but it was nothing of the sort. It wasn't a book review at all, it was your book and you just came here to boast about it. Self congratulation is the emptiest kind. Apart from that I cannot see why you started this thread. If you were hoping it would persuade us all to rush out and buy your book, clearly you have failed.

My point about double standards still stands. When WS was critical of your take on the evidence, you observed that since he hadn't read your book his comments were of little value. But surely those who were championing your book were in the same category as they hadn't read the book either. See what I mean?....double standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander my friend.

Now you run along my dear chap and go promote your book somewhere else.

You're just as bad as WS mate.

Let's start with the first part of your post.

Let's face it. You came on here starting a thread entitled "book review" but it was nothing of the sort. It wasn't a book review at all, it was your book and you just came here to boast about it. Self congratulation is the emptiest kind.

You mean where - in the opening post - Mike quoted from Boyd Petersen's - not his own - review of his book on MormonLetters? Read a bit closer there buddy.

My point about double standards still stands. When WS was critical of your take on the evidence, you observed that since he hadn't read your book his comments were of little value. But surely those who were championing your book were in the same category as they hadn't read the book either. See what I mean?....double standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander my friend.

Doesn't seem like double standards to me. If he hasn't read the book, his comments on the book are of little value, that's kind of how things work when it comes to reviewing things. Don't know if you heard buddy.

And those of us 'championing' - as you call it - were mainly congratulating him getting a book published, and saying that it sounded like a good read. That's the gist of things from where I'm sitting, but maybe my glasses aren't rose-tinted enough for your tastes.

And for what it's worth, my copy of the book is in the mail from Amazon. So I haven't read it, but at least I'm putting in some effort towards it, which seems to be lacking from the critical voices on this thread. Just sayin.

[Alan]

I'll deal with your first point only as the rest of your comments are, well, rather odd. The double standard could not be clearer if it bit you on the bum. If you can't see it then what can I say.

Anyhow, Mike Reed came here to post a review of his book. Why?

Would he have done that if it had been a very critical review? Not on your life!

He gave the game away when he said "just in time for Christmas (hint, hint)". And you have ordered the book already, so his strategy has, apparently, worked.

[Tacenda]

I'll deal with your first point only as the rest of your comments are, well, rather odd. The double standard could not be clearer if it bit you on the bum. If you can't see it then what can I say.

Anyhow, Mike Reed came here to post a review of his book. Why?

Would he have done that if it had been a very critical review? Not on your life!

He gave the game away when he said "just in time for Christmas (hint, hint)". And you have ordered the book already, so his strategy has, apparently, worked.

Everybody and their dog promote their books, look at the Deseret Bookstore for crying out loud, you can't condemn him for that.

[Gohan]

I'll deal with your first point only as the rest of your comments are, well, rather odd. The double standard could not be clearer if it bit you on the bum. If you can't see it then what can I say.

Anyhow, Mike Reed came here to post a review of his book. Why?

Would he have done that if it had been a very critical review? Not on your life!

He gave the game away when he said "just in time for Christmas (hint, hint)". And you have ordered the book already, so his strategy has, apparently, worked.

I bought the book mainly because of what I've seen about it on Facebook, not here. I bought the book because I enjoying reading and expanding my knowledge and this subject has been something I've wondered about - and not gotten a satisfactory answer for - since I was in Primary. Be careful and watch yourself when you're implying something, you know what happens when you assume eh?

And I'm afraid that this double-standard of yours isn't very apparent to me. I'm sorry that I can't see through your eyes. I've seen no satisfactory counter-argument out of WilliamSmith, nor have the quotations that he's provided aided his point. You seem to think that they have, and I can't understand why for the life of me. Right now, all I'm seeing is you acting petty towards those that disagree with you, the same thing that you're accusing others of. Perhaps this will change in the future, hopefully in a different and more constructive thread than this. Because right now, this discussion is going nowhere fast.

Oh, and in regards to my comments being odd, a light-hearted quote here from the Doctor, which I offer in a joking spirit, "I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up!"

Edited January 17, 2013 by Gohan

[mfbukowski]

Pa Pa, you are confused and on the wrong side. I'm an ultra pro Latter-day Saint, who had once left the Church.

I'm confused why you are defending a work by a well known critic of the Church?

Sure, he's apparently returned to the Church, but I see no change in his negative views toward the Church, including this book which claims the entire basis for the "de-emphasis" of the usage of the cross within Mormonism was because of "anti-Catholic" sentiment. Fruits tell all.

Do you believe that Pa Pa? Do you also wish to claim the Church and it's leaders were "bigots"?

Mormonism doesn't "lie" about anything, only works like this book does.

And Reed, I'm still awaiting a response for Protestant de-emphasis of the cross which also wasn't simply anti-Catholic, and also why when an LDS did mention a theological basis for the de-emphasis that there was no mention of "Catholic" in the statement, at a time by the way when according to you Catholic bigotry was in full force institutionalized?

How flippin' DARE YOU say something like this about a fellow LDS who has RETURNED? WITHOUT EVEN READING THE BOOK?

Who are you to be judge and jury on someone, who like all of us, is dealing with a difficult journey through life just trying to find the truth?

You have produced no evidence for your position nor have you even shown one quote to show that Mike is a "well-known critic of the church". I have had discussions with Mike for years about masonry and never once have I thought of him as a "critic". Someone questioning- yes of course- but what is wrong with that??? You yourself admit to questioning the church!

What if we interviewed YOU when you had "left the church"??? Were you "critical"??? If you were not, why would you leave??

This amounts to bigoted harassment at this point. If it was within my power I'd ban you on the spot.

[mfbukowski]

Let's face it. You came on here starting a thread entitled "book review" but it was nothing of the sort. It wasn't a book review at all, it was your book and you just came here to boast about it. Self congratulation is the emptiest kind. Apart from that I cannot see why you started this thread. If you were hoping it would persuade us all to rush out and buy your book, clearly you have failed.

My point about double standards still stands. When WS was critical of your take on the evidence, you observed that since he hadn't read your book his comments were of little value. But surely those who were championing your book were in the same category as they hadn't read the book either. See what I mean?....double standard. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander my friend.

Now you run along my dear chap and go promote your book somewhere else.

The thread is about the REVIEW Mike's book received, and yes it is a real book and yes it was a real review! The thread NEVER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE a book review. Perhaps some reading comprehension classes would be in order?

And the congratulations were not about the book- we all had known about that for some time- but for the REVIEW! It is hard to get a new book reviewed by someone credible.

Go and criticize the BYU scholars who post here daily about new blog posts! Why aren't you doing that?

I for one like to be informed of new events that I might have missed otherwise. We are a community here and in my opinion, a high-five to another member of the community for a job well done is perfectly appropriate.

All the "big fish" around here do it all the time!! Midgley does it, Peterson does it, Hamblin does it, Sorenson does it through his son.

Get used to it. It is one of the reasons this board exists in my opinion.

[Mike Reed]

And Reed, I'm still awaiting a response for Protestant de-emphasis of the cross which also wasn't simply anti-Catholic, and also why when an LDS did mention a theological basis for the de-emphasis that there was no mention of "Catholic" in the statement, at a time by the way when according to you Catholic bigotry was in full force institutionalized?

Pardon the delayed response. I don't agree that the quote you give speaks against using/displaying/wearing crosses. I think you've misinterpreted the quote.

[Mike Reed]

If there are found statements from Protestants and Mormons providing a theological basis for a de-emphasis of cross usage, would you correct your error in making it only about anti-catholic sentiment?

If they outnumber/outweigh the quotes I have found, which are tinged with anti-catholic sentiment... yes, I would correct my position. But that's not going to happen.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Mike Reed]

If you were hoping it would persuade us all to rush out and buy your book, clearly you have failed.

Some folks have purchased my book. So no... I don't think I've failed.

My point about double standards still stands.

I am sure you think it does.

[Mike Reed]

If you can't see it then what can I say.

Probably nothing more. I think we'd prefer that, actually.

Anyhow, Mike Reed came here to post a review of his book. Why?

Would he have done that if it had been a very critical review? Not on your life!

I may have, if I wanted to give a rebuttal. But it is hard to say, since I haven't yet (to my knowledge) received a negative review--not from someone who has read my book.

Here is a recent podcast interview/review. The interviewer (an active LDS who has read my book) recommends it to listeners: http://www.themormon...boo-episode-12/

He gave the game away when he said "just in time for Christmas (hint, hint)". And you have ordered the book already, so his strategy has, apparently, worked.

Oh my... You caught me. Guilty as charged.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Mike Reed

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa, you are confused and on the wrong side. I'm an ultra pro Latter-day Saint, who had once left the Church.

I'm confused why you are defending a work by a well known critic of the Church?

Sure, he's apparently returned to the Church, but I see no change in his negative views toward the Church, including this book which claims the entire basis for the "de-emphasis" of the usage of the cross within Mormonism was because of "anti-Catholic" sentiment. Fruits tell all.

Do you believe that Pa Pa? Do you also wish to claim the Church and it's leaders were "bigots"?

Mormonism doesn't "lie" about anything, only works like this book does.

And Reed, I'm still awaiting a response for Protestant de-emphasis of the cross which also wasn't simply anti-Catholic, and also why when an LDS did mention a theological basis for the de-emphasis that there was no mention of "Catholic" in the statement, at a time by the way when according to you Catholic bigotry was in full force institutionalized?

What I wish is to read the book and judge for myself, and to do so with class. I don't need others to think for me...I will use my heart and my mind...but I will do that "after" reading the book. Also what I believe about Church leaders is they are flawed men, we all are, but flawed men are all God has to work with, so it is OK. As far as Mormonism, I am a member, I don't worship the Church but the God who established it. I have lived long enough to know I don't have all the answers...if I ever thought this, it was only because I did not know all the questions.

Everybody move on. There are fewer posters in the thread now.

[volgadon]

What I wish is to read the book and judge for myself, and to do so with class. I don't need others to think for me...I will use my heart and my mind...but I will do that "after" reading the book. Also what I believe about Church leaders is they are flawed men, we all are, but flawed men are all God has to work with, so it is OK. As far as Mormonism, I am a member, I don't worship the Church but the God who established it. I have lived long enough to know I don't have all the answers...if I ever thought this, it was only because I did not know all the questions.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the book.

[volgadon]

The thread is about the REVIEW Mike's book received, and yes it is a real book and yes it was a real review! The thread NEVER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE a book review. Perhaps some reading comprehension classes would be in order?

And the congratulations were not about the book- we all had known about that for some time- but for the REVIEW! It is hard to get a new book reviewed by someone credible.

Go and criticize the BYU scholars who post here daily about new blog posts! Why aren't you doing that?

I for one like to be informed of new events that I might have missed otherwise. We are a community here and in my opinion, a high-five to another member of the community for a job well done is perfectly appropriate.

All the "big fish" around here do it all the time!! Midgley does it, Peterson does it, Hamblin does it, Sorenson does it through his son.

Get used to it. It is one of the reasons this board exists in my opinion.

I do it, too. Don't think that Mike wrote and published a book merely to add to his dust collection.

Books are hard work, he should be promoting it even more than he is.

[mfbukowski]

I do it, too. Don't think that Mike wrote and published a book merely to add to his dust collection.

Books are hard work, he should be promoting it even more than he is.

Absolutely!

[Alan]

Some folks have purchased my book. So no... I don't think I've failed.

I knew you would fall for that, I just knew it!

I said "If you were hoping it would persuade us all to rush out and buy your book, clearly you have failed." See that word..... "all". So far it appears one person has bought your book, and two have definately stated they won't.

You need to read what people say, not what you think they say.

I hope your research for the book was conducted a little more carefully.

You are out of the thread.

[Mike Reed]

If only I had the patience of Noam Chomsky:

[Mike Reed]

Looking forward to your thoughts on the book.

Me too.

[Damien the Leper]

If only I had the patience of Noam Chomsky:

[media=]

Love me some Noam Chomsky.

[Tacenda]

http://athoughtfulfaith.org/boyd-jay-petersen-loving-on/

Listening to this newest podcast on "A Thoughtful Faith" #054. Very interesting podcast, he mentions his father in law, Hugh Nibley. He also gets personal about depression he's experienced and a somewhat faith crisis. I never knew this about him. Seems like a good guy, sorry to hijack this thread, but he was mentioned as a reviewer of the book "Banishing the Cross". I wish I wasn't so limited in my posting. But maybe it's good to bring some topics back to life.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Tacenda

[Mike Reed]

Boyd is a great genuine down to earth guy.

[Mike Reed]

Another review of my book: http://rationalfaiths.com/banishing-the-cross-a-book-review/