Thomas Riskas, "deconstructing Mormonism"

[ERayR]

I tend to agree. I'm open to the idea that God uses the spirit to guide people into or out of whatever religion he feels will suit them best. I just don't believe there's a "one true church".

 

It depends on what you are looking for and willing to receive.

[Kevin Christensen]

I tend to agree. I'm open to the idea that God uses the spirit to guide people into or out of whatever religion he feels will suit them best. I just don't believe there's a "one true church".

Incidentally, my review of Riskas also explores the notion that D&C 1 in setting out "mine authority and the authority of my servants" makes a very different claim than "one true church", which phrase, despite the quotations marks, is not a quote of D&C 1:30.

Riskas reports that Mormonism “multiplies both actual and potential harm, abuse, and danger”46 in several ways, the first being through its “meta-belief that it alone is the only truth faith, that all other faiths, because of an alleged Great Apostasy, are false, and ‘an abomination before God’… This meta-belief [Page 132]is what I regard as the first multiplier of negative effects. It is this meta-belief of exclusive, absolute, and actual Truth because of, and in virtue of apostasy, and restoration through divine revelation.”47

Thomas Kuhn explains that

Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. The more precise and far-reaching that paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides for of anomaly, and hence, an occasion for paradigm change.48

The more precise and far reaching Riskas can make LDS claims appear, the easier it is to generate anomaly and thereby leverage. An insistence on perfection, for example, has the effect of making any imperfection, and only imperfection, decisive. But is his rigid and brittle paradigm of LDS belief accurate and fairly representative? Has Riskas here unknowingly misused a “multiplier of negative effects?” Is Mormonism the “only true faith”? Are all other faiths “an abomination before God”? Are LDS truth claims exclusive of all other truth? Do Mormons possess absolute and actual truth? By this I presume he means utterly static and changeless doctrines and histories. Are these a valid set of expectations against which a fair-minded investigator should view the LDS church?

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

There is much more, if you are curious.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[CA Steve]

It's strange how Kerry's ability to understand stuff took such a hit when it came to Riskas.

Edited January 26, 2015 by CA Steve

[thesometimesaint]

From experience I know that when members call their spiritual experiences warm fuzzies they could be heading out the door of the church. Such words should not be used lightly. One trick that exmembers attempt to convince the lds of is that all members of faiths have the same spiritual experiences as the lds. Not true at all since many members of other faiths mock the 'warm fuzzy' feeling.

 

I learned Transactional Analysis at BYU some 40 years ago. If I was "heading out the door of the church" I would have left a long time ago. TA had more of an impact on the general public than it ever did on psychology. It is one thing to disagree with some one, and quite another to mock. Only idiots and jerks mock.

 

BTW I'm not a Freudian, a derivation of which is TA. I'm a Glassarian Therapist. For a quick overview

SEE http://www.wglasser.com/the-glasser-approach

[Kevin Christensen]

It's strange how Kerry's ability to understand stuff took such a hit when it came to Riskas.

Well, let's give credit where credit is due, when it comes to Riskas, who explains his own style:

The style of the analytical parts of this book is, for the most part, more formal and scholarly, with at times extensive footnoting and quotations and, in places, the use of elaborate sentences and redundancy. This is so both deliberately, and necessarily, given the nature of and implications of the arguments made, the conclusions reached, and their importance to the overall purpose of this book. More specifically in this regard, the nature of this work is necessarily complex, and the central argument made is sophisticated and, in certain aspects, nuanced, even counterintuitive. These facts required a necessary level of detail, and again, redundancy, not only to offer as clear and unambiguous an explication as I could economically provide, but also to anticipate and forestall, as best I could, inappropriate generalizations and irrelevant counter arguments. In taking this approach I realize that I have taken the very different risk of perhaps losing a certain group of readers who either do not enjoy such writing, or who might find this style of writing too cumbersome, difficult, or demanding, given the level [Page 131]of interest, or perhaps, given their need for an excuse not to engage the necessary work required.

Riskas, lxi

While I was reading this book for my review, I had to stop and read this passage aloud for my wife. Up to then, she was a bit concerned about me reading something that was supposedly so irresistably destructive to faith. Would it have that effect on me? This set her mind at rest. I find it unintentionally hilarious.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Avatar4321]

I agree, but I'm talking about those people who have prayed to know if the church is true and have received an answer that it is not. Shouldn't they react accordingly just as you have to your answer that it is true?

I haven't met anyone but sarcastic atheists who claim that. Doesn't matter though. I have to go with what God told me. And I've seen God consistently answer that the church is true to countless people who didn't want it to be true.

[stemelbow]

Riskas did respond to my review by tacking a wordy response to a dismissive review of my Interpreter article on Amazon. I notice that he didn't bother to quote me a single time (my review quotes him extensively), and he never addresses particular arguments except that he emphatically denies that he is a Positivist.

Kevin, I'm curious if you could point me more directly to this response of his?

I tried to read this book a couple of years ago as asked to by a friend but found it painfully tedious, so I stopped. But I wasn't seeing anything worth noting as far as I got.

Anyway, I find your review helpful if a review is helpful even having not read the book. As I recall he said something like, "there are some LDS thinkers who can carry on about this topic and we should be able to continue to talk about these ideas". Or something. But if his response to you was dismissive it seems to fly in the face of his intentions here. Which is too bad. All too often these conversations never happen, it seems.

[stemelbow]

And it's a shame Kerry hasn't commented on your review. He was talking real big for a while about it. Not sure if he took some of your ideas seriously or not.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, I'm curious if you could point me more directly to this response of his?

I tried to read this book a couple of years ago as asked to by a friend but found it painfully tedious, so I stopped. But I wasn't seeing anything worth noting as far as I got.

Anyway, I find your review helpful if a review is helpful even having not read the book. As I recall he said something like, "there are some LDS thinkers who can carry on about this topic and we should be able to continue to talk about these ideas". Or something. But if his response to you was dismissive it seems to fly in the face of his intentions here. Which is too bad. All too often these conversations never happen, it seems.

Sure. This is to a dismissive, 1 star, Amazon review of the standalone version of my Sophic Box and Mantic Vista.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1TQ65CBITDHR9/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00FSEQOJ4&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful

In the comments area under the review, Riskas favorably comments on the dismisal, and adds a few comments of his own, none of which I found helpful or relevant to what I had written and argued.

I can relate to your experience of tedium in your attempt. Had I not volunteered to review the book, I'd never have finished for my own pleasure and enlightenment.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Pahoran]

Well, let's give credit where credit is due, when it comes to Riskas, who explains his own style:

Riskas, lxi

While I was reading this book for my review, I had to stop and read this passage aloud for my wife. Up to then, she was a bit concerned about me reading something that was supposedly so irresistably destructive to faith. Would it have that effect on me? This set her mind at rest. I find it unintentionally hilarious.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Wow.

 

No false modesty for Mr Riskas!

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[stemelbow]

Sure. This is to a dismissive, 1 star, Amazon review of the standalone version of my Sophic Box and Mantic Vista.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1TQ65CBITDHR9/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00FSEQOJ4&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful

In the comments area under the review, Riskas favorably comments on the dismisal, and adds a few comments of his own, none of which I found helpful or relevant to what I had written and argued.

I can relate to your experience of tedium in your attempt. Had I not volunteered to review the book, I'd never have finished for my own pleasure and enlightenment.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yep...just as you say, dismissive. Jim S' response was a little less dismissive but probably still falls into that category. I sense a good deal of dogmatic matter in both little responses, which often turns me off. Not sure a few statements and a wave of the hand can be considered an engagement on the topic.

[stemelbow]

From Riskas' response to Kevin:

Nor does the reviewer attempt to answer any of the summary questions posed in Chapter 8 except to dismiss them as mere "positivism".

"Also, the reviewer speaks of 'God' repeatedly but never bothers to address the questions about 'God' that would establish, in principle, the justifiability of a belief in the existence such a being (if indeed such god is a being) as a factual reality.

Is it me or did he just, in two sentences, no less, contradict the notion that seeing his view as positivism as dismissive?

"The reviewer also speaks of "revelation" and "spiritual experience", but not what the source of such experience is, and what the human criteria are by which we might be able to distinguish such experiences from purely natural, human, psychological experience originating in the human brain?

It seems you addressed this.

[why me]

I went to the trouble of reading Deconstructing Mormonism and writing a lengthy review for the Interpreter. Yes, it is the one linked at FAIR as well. I did so primarily out of concern and respect for Kerry. He knows I wrote the review, but to date, he has not commented on it. I found that the book I read did not live up to his Amazon review. Nor can I or would I characterize Mormonism as he as does, that "We as Mormons are simply never taught HOW to think, we are only taught WHAT to, and we in our simple minded non-thinking, non-critical, naive as sheep way, have simply believed in WHAT we have been told. And everything we read is geared to simply reinforcing what we have been told."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Most religions teach their members what to think and not how to think. In fact, I can say even atheists are taught what to think and not how to think. The teaching of how to think should be done in the schools and in the universities. But not in the churches. The questioning process should also be taught in the schools and in learning institutions. If more people were taught the notion of dialoging with the author through reading, all would benefit. That being said, mormons are far from simple minded since many have been to places of higher learning where questioning knowledge and innovative ideas can be the norm. Of course, a critic of mormonism would make the claims in your post. But then again, so would a critic of catholicism or of any religiion.

 

And didn't joseph smith begin his journey with a simple question?

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

And didn't joseph smith begin his journey with a simple question?

 

At the risk of being accused of de-railing an otherwise interesting and

productive duscussion, I'll hazard a bite at this ripe bait.

 

Probably the overriding question upon young Joseph's mind, was

"How can we save Pa's farm from the mortgage-holder?" The crops

raised there did not bring in sufficient income to pay off the debt.

The Smith males digging wells and working for the neighbors did

not raise the necessary cash either. Even hunting for supposedly

lost silver-mines down on the banks of the Susquehannah did not

send back enough of the minted silver, required up in Manchester.

 

Riskas, of course, would have no interest -- even in a scenario which

might shed light on Mormon origins. To his way of thinking it is all

sturm und drang, and bosom-burnings beneath the notice of an ivory

tower philospher-deconstructor and expounder of the one-true-truth...

 

UD

Edited January 26, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[why me]

At the risk of being accused of de-railing an otherwise interesting and

productive duscussion, I'll hazard a bite at this ripe bait.

 

Probably the overriding question upon young Joseph's mind, was

"How can we save Pa's farm from the mortgage-holder?" The crops

raised there did not bring in sufficient income to pay off the debt.

The Smith males digging wells and working for the neighbors did

not raise the necessary cash either. Even hunting for supposedly

lost silver-mines down on the banks of the Susquehannah did not

send back enough of the minted silver, required up in Manchester.

 

Riskas, of course, would have no interest -- even in a scenario which

might shed light on Mormon origins. To his way of thinking it is all

sturm und drang, and bosom-burnings beneath the notice of an ivory

tower philospher-deconstructor and expounder of the one-true-truth...

 

UD

All this is true. And yet, according to joseph he did ask what church to join. I think that there was much on his mind. Family survival was one problem for sure especially since the welfare society did not exist then. And yet, he found time to go the store somewhere nearby and buy paper, ink and pens to write the book of mormon and sit hours a day with paper in hand writing it and hiding the manuscript. And destroying the scraps of paper just in case such scraps may be discovered.

 

However, mormons are not stupid. They are educated for the most part and they are taught to question in high school and in the university. And certainly no one forbids them from questioning the faith.

Edited January 26, 2015 by why me

[Uncle Dale]

All this is true. And yet, according to joseph he did ask what church to join. I think that there was much on his mind. Family survival was one problem for sure especially since the welfare society did not exist then. And yet, he found time to go the store somewhere nearby and buy paper, ink and pens to write the book of mormon and sit hours a day with paper in hand writing it and hiding the manuscript. And destroying the scraps of paper just in case such scraps may be discovered. ...

 

Sounds a bit fanciful to me. But, then again, I suppose Riskas

could find just as much fault with Sister Brodie as with you, me

or the Three Nephites.

 

We believe.

 

Or we disbelieve.

 

Or we imagine impossible stuff:

 

 

But enough of this believing and disbelieving... I'm perfectly happy to set

my faith upon the shooting gallery line and hand Bro. Riskas a pop-gun.

 

Where might we begin?

 

I profess that my late parents loved and cherished my young self -- sacrificed

for me, and made every possible attempt to bring me up in the proper path.

 

Deconstruct that, Friend Riskas...

 

Mayhap love is naught but our over-sentimental term for perfectly

straightforward Darwinian natural selection and propagation of the

species. Perchance my folks had hidden schemes to sell me as a

slave -- or hand me over with Hansel and Gretle to the old witch.

 

Suppose I confess all of that as possible?

 

Suppose I confess "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."

 

What then?

 

UD

Edited January 26, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

I agree, but I'm talking about those people who have prayed to know if the church is true and have received an answer that it is not. Shouldn't they react accordingly just as you have to your answer that it is true?

Only if they have a really defective theory of truth.

[mfbukowski]

I tend to agree. I'm open to the idea that God uses the spirit to guide people into or out of whatever religion he feels will suit them best. I just don't believe there's a "one true church".

Well I don't know that that follows from what I said.

 

Suppose we are talking about Quantum Theory.  For purposes of the argument let's assume that Quantum theory is the "one truth science" of physics.

 

Suppose some people lean about physics because they are interested in where the earth came from, and start out reading science fiction about it.  They learn a bit there which is "true".  They watch a movie about black holes.  They learn a little more there about what is "true".  They watch Star Trek and hear about time travel and warp drive, that space can be bent.  That's a bit more truth.  They take a high school physics class and learn some Newtonian physics.  Yes, Newtonian physics is still "true" as far as it goes, but it is not the "whole truth"

 

So they keep advancing in truth, a bit at a time, going from one partially true picture to another.

 

Then finally they discover Quantum theory.  But then they discover that "Quantum theory" itself is actually a group of growing theories which are somewhat internally consistent, and yet there are theorists who debate many of the details.

 

So in their journey to the "truth about physics" they have slowly evolved toward Quantum theory, but when they get there, they realize that though it may be the best theory out there, it still is not "finished" and probably never will be.

 

They realize that the "doctrine" of the "one true physics" is in a state of constant change as new ideas come forth.

 

Truth is not a static thing chiseled in stone.  It is not an unchanging monument where inquiry ends.  Some theories are better than others, and in our example, one is ultimately the best because it works the best- for now- and explains all the other theories which are subsumed by the one unified theory.

 

That's the way I see Mormonism- it is the "Quantum Theory" of religion.   After all the theories which have been put forth, it is the best for all the purposes religion is supposed to serve, but it is not finished.  It can still be improved.  There are still questions. 

 

It's the best we've got, for now.

[mfbukowski]

I went to the trouble of reading Deconstructing Mormonism and writing a lengthy review for the Interpreter. Yes, it is the one linked at FAIR as well. I did so primarily out of concern and respect for Kerry. He knows I wrote the review, but to date, he has not commented on it. I found that the book I read did not live up to his Amazon review. Nor can I or would I characterize Mormonism as he as does, that "We as Mormons are simply never taught HOW to think, we are only taught WHAT to, and we in our simple minded non-thinking, non-critical, naive as sheep way, have simply believed in WHAT we have been told. And everything we read is geared to simply reinforcing what we have been told." For the record, several years before Riskas showed up, I encouraged Kerry to read Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion. I used Barbour extensively in my response to Riskas. Claiming that Mormons are simply never taught to think, and claiming that "everything we read is geared to simply re-enforcing what we have been told" is, I think a rather grotesque over-generalization and caracature. Frankly, if it were true, I'd never have read Riskas. Nor a great many other things that I have read. Nor would my LDS favorite writers been able to produce the work that has most impressed and challenged me over the years.

Riskas did respond to my review by tacking a wordy response to a dismissive review of my Interpreter article on Amazon. I notice that he didn't bother to quote me a single time (my review quotes him extensively), and he never addresses particular arguments except that he emphatically denies that he is a Positivist. Alan Goff has observed that the standard reponse to being called a Positivist involves denying that one is a Posititivist while continuing to make Positivist claims. Had Riskas been able to define what characterizes positivism, and then showed that he does not make any positivist claims, that would constitute a logical argument. What we get is not what I would call a logical argument. Rather, he just tells his readers what to think, sans any actual confrontation with my logical arguments. That is, he makes no effort to distinguish his monotonously repeated Positivist claims about Verification and Falsification from text-book definitions of Positivism as built on standard claims about Verification and Falsification. This is not the kind of response that shows me by example the arcane art of critical thinking. It is simply anti-testimony.

Riskas claims that Mormons are trapped in a box in which the instructions for how to get out are written on the outside, and encourages us to uncritically submit to an outside test for faith. I ask readers to consider whether Riskas's outside test for faith (which turns out to be off-the-rack positivism) is just another box with the instructions for how to get out written on its outside. So I suggest applying a different outside test to both Riskas and Mormonism. And that is Barbour's wonderful little book. I still think that if Kerry had read Barbour, he would have had a far different experience with Riskas. In responding to me at Amazon, Riskas does not mention Barbour [actually, does, barely], let alone deal with the implications of his work.

And at one point, I do perform a bit of a Derridian deconstruction of Riskas. Riskas explains that he was raised by a controlling and authoritarian Father, and that during the sixties, he went through a period of rebellion in response to such toxic parenting. Then, without a trace of self-reflection or irony, he elsewhere argues that God does not exist on the grounds that God does NOT behave like a controlling and authoritarian toxic parent, of the sort that he himself rebelled against. Really. And this is supposedly a master class in critical thinking? Riskas basically insists that a person cannot and should not have faith in the absence of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Think about that. And he claims absolute certainty with respect to his disbelief, insisting that nothing (such as evidence of any kind) could ever change his mind. An awareness of irony is not his strong suit.

Riskas has an extensive bibliography, notably heavy on atheistic psychology, light on Mormon thought, and non-existent on Nibley, Falconer, Givens, Goff, Sorenson, Gardner, Madsen, etc. That is, his reading is slanted towards re-enforcing his views, and light on the best and most important Mormon thought.

And incidentally, my essay uses LDS scripture and Barbour to argue that what we call testimony can and should involve far more than mere warm fuzzies.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Absolutely, totally, nails it.  Thanks Kevin, yet again!

 

Riskas' book reminds me of another one, "Fear of Knowledge" by Paul Boghossian, http://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/0199230412

 

Boghossians book was criticized by many members of the philosophical community for the quality of its arguments because Boghossian is known to usually be a very competent philosopher, and indeed he has recanted many of the arguments in this book.

 

Unfortunately the same criticism has not come against Riskas because the philosophical community doesn't even know he exists.  His philosophical credentials are scant.

 

There is an interesting review on Amazon in favor of Boghossian's book, which accurately summarizes Boghossian's argument, and at the same time, I think asserts the essence of Riskas' as well. 

 

This is what that reviewer says in praise of Boghossian:

I've been waiting for a book like this - one that would clearly expose the shortcomings of relativism. Boghossian does just that, demonstrating the person claiming 'everything is relative' faces a predicament. Either the statement itself is true, and thereby defeating the statement. Or it's relative to the individual, which means the person holding an objectivist view point is just as correct as the relativist. And therefore it's a meaningless statement. These are the kinds of points Boghossian makes through the book, both with generosity and clarity.

 

Any relativist reading this argument would probably just laugh.  It shows no understanding whatsoever of a relativist position.

 

Yes, a relativist DOES IN FACT BELIEVE that "truth is relative to the individual".  THAT is what relativism IS!  There is no attempt to show WHY relativism is wrong- it merely asserts that it is, and that is supposed to prima facie prove its own case.   It's like saying that "Clearly Mormonism is wrong because it states that God has a body of flesh and bones, when indeed he is a Transcendent Spirit".   There is no argument there- it is simply stating a competing claim.

 

Riskas claim is essentially "Religion is wrong because it cannot be proven scientifically".  He says that over and over in very convoluted and apparently scholarly ways in an attempt to impress, but all it does is belabor his point.

 

And of course the huge flaw in the argument is that we do not believe that religion is SUPPOSED to be able to be proven scientifically anyway.  This is a season in our progression in which we come to earth to walk by faith, not science.  So instead of "deconstructing Mormonism" all he does is totally miss the entire point of the exercise while yet leading away some who are not well trained philosophically, who do not see or understand the error.

 

It's really sad, because his position is so easy to defeat, once on understands what he is doing.

Edited January 27, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Suppose I confess all of that as possible?

 

Suppose I confess "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum."

 

What then?

 

UD

Then you'd be one of them thar dang Cartesian dualists who came up with the whole problem in the first place!

[omni]

As one who has received the testimony that it is true all I can say to you who have received a different message is Take it and run with it. Just allow someone whose experience is different than yours the opportunity to do the same with theirs.

I agree, I have no desire to limit others in following the answers they've received. There's a number of posters here who are well versed in the difficult aspects of Mormonism and continue to believe. I say if you are happy, then you should absolutely stay. I guess my only concern is for the continued openess of church history so others will be able to make informed decisions whether it leads them to remain, or take a new path in life.

[Uncle Dale]

Then you'd be one of them thar dang Cartesian dualists who came up with the whole problem in the first place!

 

 

Ah, yes... (sigh)

 

For I was told in my youth, that it must needs be that there is an opposition in all things.

 

But just once -- and once would be entirely sufficient -- might we not play out this

endless game of chess, sans noir et blanc?

 

Perhaps not -- lest by any means unbelief and wickedness might thus prevail.

(see McConkie, original first edition, on "mysticism")...

 

UD

Edited January 27, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Tacenda]

Uncle Dale, you have done some amazing research of Mormon history in your lifetime, so no better person to ask than you.  Why is it that we don't see much quoted about the BoM from Joseph Smith other than the remark that it is the most correct book.  Am I mistaken that there's not much from his teachings that even speak about what is in the BoM? 

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale, you have done some amazing research of Mormon history in your lifetime, so no better person to ask than you.  Why is it that we don't see much quoted about the BoM from Joseph Smith other than the remark that it is the most correct book.  Am I mistaken that there's not much from his teachings that even speak about what is in the BoM? 

 

Uncle Dale can answer for himself, and he's good at it.

 

I see it as a two fold problem. First; most potential converts are more familiar with the Bible than the Book of Mormon. So we tend to self reference the Bible as substantiation for our beliefs. Secondly; As President Ezra Taft Benson said; We don't study the Book of Mormon enough.

Edited January 27, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, you have done some amazing research of Mormon history in your lifetime, so no better person to ask than you.  Why is it that we don't see much quoted about the BoM from Joseph Smith other than the remark that it is the most correct book.  Am I mistaken that there's not much from his teachings that even speak about what is in the BoM? 

 

 

I suppose that Smith was more comfortable citing the English Bible,

and that his mind generally jumped to those passages he felt were

best suited to his preaching motive at the moment. Also, we probably

have not been fully informed of those instances when he DID make

extensive use of the Nephite Record, in teaching a lesson or in

arguing a point.

 

Secondly, the term "fulness of the gospel" (professedly contained in

the BoM) came to be seen as something other than textual fulness.

Where, originally, the BoM might be cited as clarifying or correcting

a faulty biblical passage, I suppose that Smith began to rely upon

his own words, in order to supply that required "fulness."

 

Probably Ebenezer Robinson was remembering correctly, when he

said that Smith placed the "Dictated Manuscript" into the cornerstone

of the Nauvoo House, grumbling just a little, that the thing had been

the source of troubles for him. He knew of the textual corrections made

in the first few editions, and of the book's lack of instruction on such

matters as degrees of glory, baptism for the dead, patriarchal order

of marriage, etc. etc.

 

So -- "most correct book" certainly did not refer to the textual integrity

of the volume -- nor to its "fulness" in setting forth the plan of salvation, 

as to how the Kingdom of God on earth was to be established in the

very last days. "Most correct" probably was meant to refer to the doctrine

included between its pages -- and the fact (?) that divine revelation,

forever engraved into unchanging plates of gold, escaped the ravages

and manipulations of the Great and Abominable Church.

 

No doubt other participants here can add more to my speculations.

 

UD