Mormonism Explained

[curtishouse]

I just went to the library and checked out this book called Mormonism Explained by Andrew Jackson. I've only been through the first ten pages or so and he stated at the beginning that he was writing this book to "explain" Mormonism instead of refuting it but that is just an all-out lie.

Then he started speaking about Joseph Smith and his visions with a biased lean of course. I noticed that he had plenty of footnotes so I decided to check one out assuming it would be sources as most footnotes lead towards. To my surprise, it was just speculation such as this "gem"...Footnote 17 from page 19..."Joseph Smith Sr. probably had a strong influence on Joseph Smith Jr., since it is recorded that he had numerous visions before and after Joseph Smith Jr.'s First Vision experience."

Has anybody else read this book? If so, what is your take on it?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Hahahahaha.

He acts like regular people can't be revelated about things through dreams.

[curtishouse]

Hahahahaha.

He acts like regular people can't be revelated about things through dreams.

I bet he didn't make any friends with Joseph, Moses, Joshua or any other prophet found in the Bible.

[NeuroTypical]

I noticed that he had plenty of footnotes so I decided to check one out assuming it would be sources as most footnotes lead towards. To my surprise, it was just speculation such as this "gem"...Footnote 17 from page 19..."Joseph Smith Sr. probably had a strong influence on Joseph Smith Jr., since it is recorded that he had numerous visions before and after Joseph Smith Jr.'s First Vision experience."

Yeah, not all people with a "Dr." in front of their name are created equal.

Dood's website is a one-pager - buy the book for ten bucks, and click here to read the first chapter. I'm not impressed with the first chapter. There doesn't seem to be anything new there, the same old stuff that has been recycled over a hundred years or more. I mean, at least he seems to get his quotes and sources right, but just like any other church critic offering to 'explain' - his goal is to arm christians with criticisms, not help them understand who we are or how we view the Gospel.

[curtishouse]

Yeah, not all people with a "Dr." in front of their name are created equal.

Dood's website is a one-pager - buy the book for ten bucks, and click here to read the first chapter. I'm not impressed with the first chapter. There doesn't seem to be anything new there, the same old stuff that has been recycled over a hundred years or more. I mean, at least he seems to get his quotes and sources right, but just like any other church critic offering to 'explain' - his goal is to arm christians with criticisms, not help them understand who we are or how we view the Gospel.

Within the first few pages, he also felt the need to resort to ad hominem attacks saying that members of the LDS faith have a "persecution complex" and that missionaries and leaders of the church aren't biblically and theologically sound. I'm just glad I checked this book out instead of buying it.

From now on, I think I'll just stick to books that are approved by the church. I know I shouldn't be getting upset about a book but seeing such falsehoods, insulting the church, and denying the visions of Joseph Smith really get to me from someone who is supposed to be "explaining Mormonism"...

[Faded]

It kinda goes without saying that you'll find garbage when you go looking for "unbiased" sources explaining Mormonism. There is just so much material that has been pulled out of thin air to attempt to discredit the LDS Church. The sad truth is that you will seldom ever find an unbiased account of our beliefs, leaving LDS historians and scholars to make up for it by seeking to do the non-LDS historian's job for them and publishing objective and unbiased works. Some of it uses real events and absolutely butchers the telling of them. Some of them make up facts from nothing (or cite an earlier "scholar" who made up facts from nothing.)

Ultimately, we've come to expect this sort of behavior. It's a sign that follows any people of God anytime in the history of the world. The Jews and Israelites were hated. As you may remember in the Book of Ester a corrupt nobility attempted to contrive an excuse to kill every Jew in the Persian Empire.

Consider the Great Fire of Rome as another example. Nero did it and everyone knew it then and knows it now. But he needed to redirect the blame such that the people of Rome with their eyes wide open would welcome the lie. So he just singled out the most lied about, hated, and misunderstood group of people in the entire empire and everyone welcomed the opportunity to massacre the Christians.

"According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat and rumors held Nero responsible.[83] To deflect blame, Nero targeted Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned.

Tacitus (a respected historian and a Roman senator at the time) described the event:"

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

What had the Christians done to deserve such treatment? Absolutely nothing. The same is true today, though thankfully the world is a lot more civilized place than in the days of Rome.

[Maureen]

...To my surprise, it was just speculation such as this "gem"...Footnote 17 from page 19..."Joseph Smith Sr. probably had a strong influence on Joseph Smith Jr., since it is recorded that he had numerous visions before and after Joseph Smith Jr.'s First Vision experience."...

What do you mean by speculation Curtis? It's well known that Lucy Mack Smith wrote about her own husband's dreams. Are you questioning that a Father can have an influence over his son, or are you questioning that Joseph's father had visions/dreams?

Joseph Smith Sr. Visions

M.

[Blackmarch]

What do you mean by speculation Curtis? It's well known that Lucy Mack Smith wrote about her own husband's dreams. Are you questioning that a Father can have an influence over his son, or are you questioning that Joseph's father had visions/dreams?

Joseph Smith Sr. Visions

M.

If I recall right, their family history had visionary people throughout it, and not just Joseph smith Sr, and etc...

[PrinceofLight2000]

What do you mean by speculation Curtis? It's well known that Lucy Mack Smith wrote about her own husband's dreams. Are you questioning that a Father can have an influence over his son, or are you questioning that Joseph's father had visions/dreams?

Joseph Smith Sr. Visions

M.

Neither, he's pointing out that the writer of this book is misconstruing facts in a light that paints the Smith family as a bunch of liars and fanatics.

[Maureen]

Neither, he's pointing out that the writer of this book is misconstruing facts in a light that paints the Smith family as a bunch of liars and fanatics.

Is that what you're saying Curtis?

M.

[curtishouse]

My point is rather simple actually. When one looks to footnotes, you should expect to see citations and references. When all you see are words such as "probably", "most likely", etc., that is nothing more than speculation. If you're on the "anti" side of the fence, you will agree with his speculation. If not, you will disagree with his speculation. No matter where you stand, it is speculation regardless. When one resorts to using speculatory words like the author has used instead of solid facts with references cited, it makes his case rather weak imo.

[Maureen]

My point is rather simple actually. When one looks to footnotes, you should expect to see citations and references. When all you see are words such as "probably", "most likely", etc., that is nothing more than speculation. If you're on the "anti" side of the fence, you will agree with his speculation. If not, you will disagree with his speculation. No matter where you stand, it is speculation regardless. When one resorts to using speculatory words like the author has used instead of solid facts with references cited, it makes his case rather weak imo.

That's fair, so I hope you use the same judgement when reading "pro" writings.

M.

[curtishouse]

That's fair, so I hope you use the same judgement when reading "pro" writings.

M.

Indeed I do. That's why I look at the footnotes so I can investigate a concept or point further and gathering where they got their information.