Recent Viewer Mail

One of the side benefits of running a Mormon blog is getting email questions on LDS doctrine or history from readers. The questions I get span the entire spectrum of LDS belief, from faithful Mormons to doubting Mormons to former Mormons to anti-Mormons. For the benefit of anyone with similar concerns, here's a selection of questions I've received over the last couple of months.

A reader asked for information about "appeal procedures for an excommunicated member," specifically whether such a person always has a right to appeal to the First Presidency and what the procedural details were. I replied that the letter from the bishop or stake president communicating the result of the disciplinary council is supposed to contain information on appeal rights. I also provided a link to some online CHI material on the appeal process.

A reader asked for advice about how to approach an impending meeting with the stake president to confess a serious sin (no details provided). I carefully composed the following short reply: "Confession is a private matter between you and the church official you are meeting with, so there's really no advice I can offer other than have an open and honest conversation. In general, those hearing confessions have great sympathy for those who have erred."

An LDS reader asked about the LDS view of the Gospel of Thomas, a friend having recommended it to her. In reply, I pointed her to D&C 91, provided a couple of quotes on the Gospel of Thomas from articles by BYU religion prof Thomas Waymant in the recently published book How the New Testament Came to Be, and gave links to earlier DMI posts here and here.

A graduate student who is also a returned missionary but is a little iffy about the Church at the moment asked if I'd read Fawn Brodie's controversial biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, as this grad student knew a friend who had read it and gotten very angry with the LDS Church. This grad student also asked how I could read anti-Mormon literature without "being swayed" and what tips I had for "keeping the faith" while reading such material. I provided a longer-than-usual reply to this inquiry.

After first suggesting she consider the Joseph Smith biographies by Remini and Bushman before reading or relying on Brodie, I gave the following short evaluation of No Man Knows My History:

I read No Man Knows My History about three years ago. Its good points: Brodie is a fine writer who put together an entertaining narrative; she consulted many of the widely scattered sources rather than just relying on "standard" LDS sources; she looked at the difficult events and issues in Joseph's life as well as the uplifting ones. Its bad points: it is now rather dated (first published in 1945); Brodie relied on Dale Morgan's research and advice for much of her material and approach, and Morgan has sort of a spotty record (he never really published anything); she adopted a naturalistic perspective that is unwilling to even consider the veracity of Joseph's spiritual experiences; and she used a psychological approach (looking into the mind of Joseph) that most historians, whether LDS or not, regard as a suspect approach.

Regarding anti-Mormon writings, I replied as follows:

I don't recommend true anti-Mormon books to LDS readers -- they don't use their sources fairly and sometimes they simply lie in order to score their points. As for the critical history books, I don't really recommend them to average Mormons who are just looking for a good book on LDS history. There are plenty of LDS-friendly books now that cover the same material. But if you are a serious LDS history buff or a grad student/scholar with a professional interest in that area, you'll end up reading some of them. No less an authority than Richard Bushman advises the curious to confront the tough questions directly and read broadly on them, which means reading accounts by scholars sympathetic to the LDS view as well as the critical accounts. That seems like sound advice.

And there was the kind reader who informed me I was misspelling the name of John Widtsoe in my posts (I was using "Widstoe"). A quick check aroung the Bloggernacle revealed I wasn't the only one misspelling his name! I had to go physically check my copy of Rational Theology before I accepted the correct spelling: W-I-D-T-S-O-E. Such an accomplished and respected LDS scholar deserves to have his name spelled correctly.

Comments

[Duff]

Dave, one can only hope none of your iffy Mormon readers happen upon Christopher Hitchens God Is Not Great. His take on Mormonism would be just a tad different from yours. Fawn Brodie will seem like an angel in comparison to the Hitch.

[Todd Wood]

I would agree with Duff on this one.

[Clark Goble]

Funny. I actually linked to Hitchens Slate article on us from my sidebar. Hitchens is always doing pure polemics. I don't think too many take him seriously. Even a lot of atheists are embarrassed by him. Plus he showed up on the Daily Show drunk lambasting us and came off pretty badly.

[Duff]

Clark, its pretty easy to dismiss Hitchens as a mere polemicist, but not so easy to refute the many stinging critiques he has made against all religion. In fact, I don't hear anyone actually refuting any of his various essays against Mormonism, Judaism, Islam or any of the many permutations of Christianity. All anyone says is, "he's a drunk", or "he's an angry person." So what? Being a drunk, or even angry, is not the same thing as being wrong. Ad hominems are not the same thing as proofs, or even a respectful contra-argument.

Hitchens came off pretty badly on the Daily show, but he murdered that poor idiot Hanity on his show and was devastatingly effective lambasting ... Falwell on Anderson Cooper. Dismiss him as not "serious" at your peril.

[Edited.]

[Jon in Austin]

"In fact, I don't hear anyone actually refuting any of his various essays against Mormonism, Judaism, Islam or any of the many permutations of Christianity."

Indeed

[Duff]

Jon in Houston, if you think that piece is a refutation of Hitchens premise, it only shows you haven't read the book, or refuse to accept that religion has a lot to answer for.
Saying Hitchens "has an angry spirit" and doesn't understand the good religions have done for humanity is not a refutation of what Hitchens is saying.
I suppose you would also answer his description of Joseph Smiths younger years and the founding of his "ridiculous cult" by retorting that Hitchens can't be right because he couldn't even get the name of Lehi (Lephi) correct. But, then, I don't want to speak for you.

[Geoff J]

Duff,

I suspect Hitchens is just type of bombastic atheist that the theists approve of. In my opinion (and I have admittedly only read a few of his articles online), he comes off as such an over-the-top buffoon that he becomes the embarrassing poster child for atheists.

See a recent post on him and this subject over at FPR.

[Jon in Austin]

No, I haven't read the book, but what new athestic arguments does Hitchens make that haven't been discussed ad nauseum? He seems to lump all religious people into a single group, declares they are all ignorant, misogynistic, racist bigots who by teaching religious principles to children perpetuate their evil ways. And this is new and groundbreaking? Atheists have been whining about these same issues for ages, Hitchens just get more air time for being dynamic and inebriated.

[Duff]

Jon,
Let me guess, you didn't read Fawn Brodie either, did you. All those atheists, all saying the same thing. No wonder the church discourages you guys from reading this stuff put out be the "enemies" of the church.
But. You should know better that to criticize something you haven't read. Its not nice.