Interesting Critique of DOM and Rise of Modern Mormonism

[RockyBalboa]

I finished the book in early April, and there's some in the critique that is actually pretty dead on.

It did seem like the Book had an exorbitant amount of time going over the inner political battles of certain members in the Quorum and quite often got away from going over David O. McKay.

Here and there it would start to offer tidbits on McKay, and then get sidetracked again.

Just my opinion.

I'd recommend the book and enjoyed reading it, but I do think it would get sidetracked too often. Seemed like the authors couldn't make up their mind exactly what they wanted to write about, cause in essence you really have 2 books inside of one here. It did also seem like times it would go from in depth research piece and shift tone to an Enquirer article and that created an odd mix in the book.

It did seem to try and redeem itself in the last 50 pages or so going over more of McKay, but quite often the authors seemed to get ADHD in going over McKay, then making a somewhat radical and abrupt turn into more politics before getting back on point. There was a ton of information in the book that I was grateful for and learned about.

I don't think the book was anti-mormon and I didn't read it that way, but I do agree that many times it would get sidetracked. I differ from the reviewer in that I would recommend it too many people and in fact already have.

If me agreeing with certain portions of the review, and having my own opinions on it makes me a mullah in some peoples eyes, I'm totally fine with that.

If anything, it's nice to know that men in positions of authority have their weaknesses like we do, can have their faults like we do, and can get into heated debates like we do, but ultimately still have the spirit of God to guide and direct the church.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

If anything, it's nice to know that men in positions of authority have their weaknesses like we do, can have their faults like we do, and can get into heated debates like we do, but ultimately still have the spirit of God to guide and direct the church.

Word.

[MikeWaters]

Rocky, the reason you say "Enquirer Article" is because, not in a million, bajillion years, would the church ever publish a book like that.

As far as I can tell, the church's preference is for the GA actions to be in a black box. 100% unity from inception, discussion, implementation.

The GAs fear for the weakest testimony among the Saints. It is lowest common denominator.

Historians don't feel this same burden. Sometimes they even want to tell the truth, and tell interesting accounts.

With mullahs considering the book "catty", it's interesting that they never consider that the GAs themselves may have been catty. But the underlying point by the mullahs, is that such cattiness should never be reported. Period. Thus the great discomfort and desire to impugn and slander the authors.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Rocky, the reason you say "Enquirer Article" is because, not in a million, bajillion years, would the church ever publish a book like that.

As far as I can tell, the church's preference is for the GA actions to be in a black box. 100% unity from inception, discussion, implementation.

The GAs fear for the weakest testimony among the Saints. It is lowest common denominator.

Historians don't feel this same burden. Sometimes they even want to tell the truth, and tell interesting accounts.

With mullahs considering the book "catty", it's interesting that they never consider that the GAs themselves may have been catty. But the underlying point by the mullahs, is that such cattiness should never be reported. Period. Thus the great discomfort and desire to impugn and slander the authors.

I'll read the scriptures as they are fascinating, especially if one reads and studies their origins. Understanding the historical parameters is also interesting.

And I'll read the manuals, the Ensign message, but frankly, most Church publications are so watered down, so hagiographic, that the work is BOOORRRING. I'll read it, but that doesn't mean it inspires me.

Works which invigorate my interest in the humaneness of people are ones such as DOM or RSR. Even In Sacred Loneliness inspires.

Perhaps the Church will secretly encourage these histories, while publishing its pablum for the masses. Perhaps the Church will quietly direct wealthy members to help fund these. That's my hope.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Rocky, the reason you say "Enquirer Article" is because, not in a million, bajillion years, would the church ever publish a book like that.

As far as I can tell, the church's preference is for the GA actions to be in a black box. 100% unity from inception, discussion, implementation.

The GAs fear for the weakest testimony among the Saints. It is lowest common denominator.

Historians don't feel this same burden. Sometimes they even want to tell the truth, and tell interesting accounts.

With mullahs considering the book "catty", it's interesting that they never consider that the GAs themselves may have been catty. But the underlying point by the mullahs, is that such cattiness should never be reported. Period. Thus the great discomfort and desire to impugn and slander the authors.

I didn't consider the book "catty". I liked the book, even though it would take sudden tonal shifts which I found odd.

Just seemed like they (the authors) were tripping over themselves, at times loudly, to get their point across, when it just didn't seem neccessary. I know you thrive and feed off of controversy, and it gets your motor going, which is fine for you.

I liked the book in spite of the authors struggle to stay on point.

[Tex]

If one is truly in need of the reassurance that our leaders have weakness, one need look no further than the first General Conference talk of any newly sustained apostle in the last 25 years.

Understanding that the Lord works with imperfect vessels (including us) is fine. But around here, exposing our leaders' foibles is done with the same zeal of the so-called "mullahs" who extol their righteousness. It's just extremity of a different flavor.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

If one is truly in need of the reassurance that our leaders have weakness, one need look no further than the first General Conference talk of any newly sustained apostle in the last 25 years.

Understanding that the Lord works with imperfect vessels (including us) is fine. But around here, exposing our leaders' foibles is done with the same zeal of the so-called "mullahs" who extol their righteousness. It's just extremity of a different flavor.

If you perceive heterodox members pointing out flaws of leaders, it is only as a counterweight to the shallow representation given to us by the bureaucracy of the Church.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised, if the Church bureaucracy continues with the hagiographic presentations, while privately allowing or encouraging professionals to present more balanced perspectives on the side for those who desire them. This may be how the Church will address this issue in the future, through the process of plausible deniability.