cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - Interesting Critique of DOM and Rise of Modern Mormonism

- Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Interesting Critique of DOM and Rise of Modern Mormonism (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19057)

Interesting Critique of DOM and Rise of Modern Mormonism

It's interesting, but as he attacks the bias of the authors, he doesn't address his own biases.

Ironic.

IOTW, I am saying that there is a 99% chance that he is a mullah, and upset at the "human" presentation of these men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 216529)

It's interesting, but as he attacks the bias of the authors, he doesn't address his own biases.

Ironic.

The most interesting part of the critique were his comments about what they chose or excluded from their source material.

If you go here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-...stRecentReview

You will see him praising a book defending Joe McCarthy.

Any guess towards his politics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 216531)

The most interesting part of the critique were his comments about what they chose or excluded from their source material.

Sorry, I didn't see that he had access to the source material. Did he?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 216535)

Sorry, I didn't see that he had access to the source material. Did he?

I'm not saying if he was wrong or right, I'm just pointing out his contention.

On page 2 of his reviews that I linked to above, he says this:

Quote:

Ann Coulter has established a name as an intelligent and sarcastic voice of conservatism. She dishes it out with the best of them and the negative reviews posted here let you know her points are legitimate or she would be ignored.

QED. Mullah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 216538)

On page 2 of his reviews that I linked to above, he says this:

QED. Mullah.

I really don't care about his political leanings. Let me quote the most interesting parts of the critique:

Quote:

Then something happened to the book. Instead of covering what David O McKay thought and did, the book began to be second- and third-hand accounts of what others thought about what David O McKay thought and did. Given that the authors had un-paralleled access to the material that McKay's longtime secretary, Clare Middlemiss, collected, there is no excuse for this.

Two authors are listed on the book. However, that is really a simplification of the facts. One author, William Robert Wright, is a nephew of David O McKay's longtime personal secretary, Clare Middlemiss. Ms. Middlemiss was privy to just about everything that went on with McKay and she amassed 215 volumes of scrapbooks covering McKay. She always planned on writing a biography, but age and health prevented her. She did encourage her nephew to use these materials to produce a work on President McKay, however. So I am puzzled why so much of this book is based on other materials. Wright eventually teamed up with an acquaintance, Gregory Prince, and he is the actual writer of the book.

The two authors spent years gathering other material. Perhaps the most frequently used source of events in the book are second- or third hand accounts gained from interviews from participants in the decades old events being discussed. The authors did quote McKay's "diaries" fairly often (kept by Middlemiss), but there are very few footnotes to the other materials. Since the authors rely so much on 20 or 30 year old memories, I find it unpardonable that there is very little in the book about what Middlemiss herself said about events of which she was a witness.

Quote:

And absolutely and unforgiveably the worst thing this book does is leave out almost any mention of the spiritual greatness of David O McKay. There is almost no mention or quote from any of his numerous sermons. There is almost no testimony. There is almost no account of his personal ministrations to so many in the church.

Does he have a legitimate point here or not? That's what I'm curious about.

Quote:

Instead of covering what David O McKay thought and did, the book began to be second- and third-hand accounts of what others thought about what David O McKay thought and did.

That's why it's a biography, not an autobiography. It's not a journal. If the reader wants to know President McKay's thoughts, he'll have to wait for the omniscient version.