Reading this book review hurt my head. She is actually suggesting that mormons read an exmormon memior. What a twit and doesn't she know that's a big no-no for all TBMs?

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2013/09/18/ex-mormon-memoir/

Among the most ridiculous statements by Jana is this gem here:

"I certainly don’t agree with many of Wilder’s critical assessments of Mormon theology. She is persuaded that the biblical God, the God of grace, is not to be found in my religion; as you can see from this spirited blog discussion several months ago, any depiction of evangelicalism as a champion of grace and Mormonism as a defender of works is grossly oversimplified. Also, some of her explanations of Mormonism border on caricature, e.g., “the fruit of Mormonism is to create gods (polytheism), spawn converts to a false gospel (even drawing people away from biblical Christianity), and save those who are already dead . . . this last one is creepy.” I am not a polytheist, unless you count the fact that I worship Joss Whedon as well as Jesus Christ, and I don’t quite recognize the religion Wilder is talking about here."

You don't explain why her suggesting Mormons should read the book merits name calling on your part. Nor do you bother to explain why the particular paragraph you quoted deserves ridicule. It is a little puzzling out of context, but in the review it made perfect sense.

Her reviewing I could follow. Your comment, not so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2013 11:41PM by Brother Of Jerry.

When have you ever seen a mormon encourage other Mormons to read a book about a person who has left the TSCC? That's highly unusual given mormom propensity to reject anything that hints of being anti material.

Also, how exactly is the caricature wrong that Reiss highlights? Glad you read the full article even if my posting wasn't perfection in your eyes.

I'm calling bullshit here. Reiss clearly doesn't know Mormon theology (see below), and her attempt at sarcasm fails miserably.

D&C 76:58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

D&C 132:20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

D&C 132:37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2013 08:43AM by ldsmakesmewantlsd.

I knew she was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out ldsmakesmewantlsd.

She's just creating a straw man.

She's answering a weak criticism of Mormonism to avoid tough subjects like the Book of Abraham, polyandry, the historical character of the Book or Mormon (or lack thereof), or other instances where the LDS Church just get the facts wrong.

It's a lot easier to answer these vague theological and spiritual disputes. She's also approaching this as if Mormons never present a caricature of mainstream Christian beliefs.

Plus I was really put off about this business of "all religions have skeletons in their closet." Ugh!!!

Yes. But all religions do not claim to be God's one true and living church, and require "exact obedience." It's easier to roll with the skeletons, when that's not the case.