Anyone read this book?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

If you think the Holy Ghost is going to hang around to testify about truth while you're engrossed in an anti-Mormon book on your honeymoon....

Does the Spirit of Christ not have to testify of all truth, regardless where it is found?

Doesn't the gift, (peculiar use of the word) of the Holy Ghost testify of truth regardless where it is found?

Here is where I differ, I believe that Christ, aka the Truth, comes out regardless where you find the information. In other words, 'anti-literature' such as 'No Man' can be just as uplifting as 'Rough Stone.'

I think the inconsistencies in the church leadership, it's policies, and doctrines, which, for any rational person would show that the church is not true, allows us to work out our own salvation.

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (Brigham Young, January 12, 1862, Journal of Discourses, 9:151)

"There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own, say they, to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem....Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them, They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course." (Brigham Young, presented in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 20, 1853, found in Journal of Discourses, 1:312)

"We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God...would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Apostle Samuel Richards on Nov. 13, 1852, recorded in the Millennial Star, 14:393-395)

"Some may say, Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am. I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are, this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (Brigham Young, October 6, 1855, Journal of Discourses, 3:45)

The church should be a model for our lives, but it should not be the model we explicitly follow for our exaltation. The church is the carnal being, the church inside us is the spiritual being the Lord wants.

[RockyBalboa]

Did you really just say that Anti-Mormon literature can be uplifting?

Rarely have I ever read/heard/seen anyone has thoroughly deceived as you are.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I'm not sure if this book qualifies as "anti-Mormon" or not, but am nonetheless reticent to substitute a categorical claim for an actual argument (the latter having clearly articulated reason and/or evidence). Certainly a fixed definition of "anti-Mormon" is difficult, and I'm not persuaded that such is even necessary or desirable. The subjective element of human perception is at play, although I'll concede that some works and persons leave more room for eisegesis (ambiguous and subjective interpretation, traces of conflicted authorial intent, concession of valuable but unintended interpretation etc.) than do others.

Most all Mormons agree that Ed Decker's writings are "anti-Mormon" but I suspect that the situation gets much fuzzier if we're discussing Nietzsche, Foucault, Hillary Clinton, Michael Quinn, Books about Mark Hoffmann, or Big Love. Some works have been considered anti-Mormon at one time but not at another (Juanita Brooks' book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a great example). Bushman's book would in all likelihood have gotten him in hot water at different times in Church history.

Having said that, I find D&C 88: 118, 90:15, 93: 53 and Article of Faith 13 useful on these matters. D&C 88: 118 is quite interesting:

"And as all have not faith [Full Stop!], seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

Whether or not the book particular to this discussion qualifies as a "best book" or one of the "good books" (D&C 90: 15) I don't know, but then I believe it's possible for it to be good for one person and not for another. Going off nothing more than the brief comments on Amazon, I suspect I wouldn't find it to be so, but that is only my suspicion.

I appreciate Fus' citation of Church leaders denouncing unquestioning obedience. I could add a couple dozen other quotes to the mix. I would find it amusing that so many of my fellow Church members choose two or three quotes that more or less support the dogma of unquestioning obedience if they weren't so staggeringly ignorant of the strength of other perspectives. They accuse people who are aware of the contrasting quotes and arguments of "picking and choosing" doctrines and of "stirring up contentions" when they themselves are, in fact, engaged in those very practices.

So fus, my concern here is that you might read this book just to spite the narrowminded, and moreso because of some of the responses you've gotten to your post. I hope your motivations are elsewhere. The book's merits (or lack thereof) are in some measure inextricable from your own purposes, at least to the degree that you are aware of such.

[Indy Coug]

I'm not advocating unquestioning obedience, but I am in opposition to the concept that the search for truth needs to be conducted PRIMARILY on the fringe of "Mormon thinking", where fusnik seems to have bought his primary residence.

When you languish out on the periphery, a lot of patently false philosophies of men start creeping in and the tendency for an individual generally is to gradually steer away from the truth.

It's my opinion that the collective leadership of the Church has built up enough credibility over the years for us to at least initially passively accept everything they say without having to take some pathologically contrarian position until we convince ourselves by whatever conventional or unconventional means at our disposal.

Certainly, the leadership doesn't need or require unquestioning obedience, but there are well-established, well-known "recipes" for gaining an understanding and a testimony of what they are saying, and it's not from beating the bushes out in the spiritual hinterlands.

It is also my opinion that even someone with a thorough, deep understanding of the Gospel and its fundamentals should have more then enough on their plate to digest and meditate upon from the conventional sources without having to venture so far off the beaten path in the so-called quest for enlightenment.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

When you languish out on the periphery, a lot of patently false philosophies of men start creeping in and the tendency for an individual generally is to gradually steer away from the truth.

I believe this to be true, many times in our searches for truth, we find ourselves on the periphery regardless the scholarship, subject matter, etc.

Is this bad? Is not pushing the limits of our ingrained thoughts, beleifs, feelings what progresses the world and pushes us forward?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's my opinion that the collective leadership of the Church has built up enough credibility over the years for us to at least initially passively accept everything they say without having to take some pathologically contrarian position until we convince ourselves by whatever conventional or unconventional means at our disposal.

Certainly, the leadership doesn't need or require unquestioning obedience, but there are well-established, well-known "recipes" for gaining an understanding and a testimony of what they are saying, and it's not from beating the bushes out in the spiritual hinterlands.

This sounds a lot like what Brother Brigham says is pleasing unto the will of the Lord. Is it not our duty to pave our own path, establish our own personal relationship with the Lord, and get to the point in this life where we see the face of God, and drink directly from His cup?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Too bad more people around here don't have the balls to speak up and stand up for what's right.

What a joke this statement is. Yes, it's too bad that more of us can't be like you Rocky and defend the kingdom from every strange idea or thought that gets anonymously posted on an internet chat board. If only we had "the balls". I think it's clear that the vast majority of us disagree with much of what Fus posts about religion. However, we seem to be able to grasp the idea that it's his fake name attached to those posts and not our own fake names. We don't feel the need to call for his recommend, or attack him personally because we recognize that there are people in the world who think differently than we do. Even amongst our own people (gasp). In the end it is Fus that is responsible for his own thoughts and writings.

I have no problem with those who take a reasoned approach in disagreeing with Fus's posts. It is my observation that you rarely if ever take such an approach.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

What a joke this statement is. Yes, it's too bad that more of us can't be like you Rocky and defend the kingdom from every strange idea or thought that gets anonymously posted on an internet chat board. If only we had "the balls". I think it's clear that the vast majority of us disagree with much of what Fus posts about religion. However, we seem to be able to grasp the idea that it's his fake name attached to those posts and not our own fake names. We don't feel the need to call for his recommend, or attack him personally because we recognize that there are people in the world who think differently than we do. Even amongst our own people (gasp). In the end it is Fus that is responsible for his own thoughts and writings.

I have no problem with those who take a reasoned approach in disagreeing with Fus's posts. It is my observation that you rarely if ever take such an approach.

I prefer to cut through the crap. I really don't give a rat's ass if you like my approach or not. I call it like I see it. So if you want to be part of the non-juevos club, be my guest.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I prefer to cut through the crap. I really don't give a rat's ass if you like my approach or not. I call it like I see it. So if you want to be part of the non-juevos club, be my guest.

I'm not sure if you meant that to be funny, but that is the best laugh I have had all week.