Interesting Critique of DOM and Rise of Modern Mormonism - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 05-02-2008, 05:05 PM

He's a John Bircher. That review was garbage and I doubt his analysis is accurate.

He'd make the taliban look like liberal secular people.

MikeWaters · 05-02-2008, 05:06 PM

1. you would have to be a moron to not use and quote from contemporaries of DOM in his biography. It's like he is saying 'I wish they used no other source than Middlemissl'

I think you can agree this is STUPID.

2. I can't remember much about the footnotes. So is he arguing that he wanted more quotes from Middlemiss, but he doesn't want quotes from other sources? I think his suggestion that the Middlemiss was only an incidental little-used source in the book is WAY, WAY off.

MikeWaters · 05-02-2008, 05:08 PM

Jan Shipps said this book was the most important book in Mormon history in 10 years.

For me, it was paradigm shifting. Completely changed my views on church structure, and the nature of General Authorities. Previously it was a black box for me.

Indy Coug · 05-02-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

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.

It's not atypical for a biography to contain excerpts from journals, public statements. Is there some reason why they should be excluded from his biography? Obviously I haven't read the book yet (I just finished RSR), I was just curious to hear from those that have read it if some of these criticisms had merit.

Archaea · 05-02-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It's not atypical for a biography to contain excerpts from journals, public statements. Is there some reason why they should be excluded from his biography? Obviously I haven't read the book yet (I just finished RSR), I was just curious to hear from those that have read it if some of these criticisms had merit.

It's well documented and we have no idea to what the biographers had access. They use her notes extensively, so I'd be surprised they didn't ask her opinions.

MikeWaters · 05-02-2008, 05:12 PM

If you are coming from the mullah-perspective that this book is nothing but slander against GAs (which I totally disagree with), the strongest criticism is that one of the major sources was Paul H. Dunn, and the authors while sourcing him, did not readily make it apparent that he was the one giving the information (i.e. in some cases you wouldn't know if you didn't check the footnotes).

I don't think Paul Dunn is apostate. You can look at this from two perspectives: 1) he might have an ax to grind, even if he is being truthful, 2) free of his calling and mantle, he feels more liberty to talk about the history and culture, whereas if he were a 70, he would be restricted from doing so.

Jeff Lebowski · 05-02-2008, 05:27 PM

What an absurd review. The sad thing is that some folks may read that p.o.s. review and miss out on a wonderful book.

Indy Coug · 05-02-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What an absurd review. The sad thing is that some folks may read that p.o.s. review and miss out on a wonderful book.

I don't buy a lot of books from Amazon, but I like to read a handful of both the most favorable reviews and the most negative reviews. Usually the most negative reviews (if they are in the minority) are a lot more absurd than this one. I thought this one had a couple of interesting claims and just wanted a little perspective from those here that had read it (rather than character assassination of the reviewer).

I'm buying the book anyway.

Jeff Lebowski · 05-02-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't buy a lot of books from Amazon, but I like to read a handful of both the most favorable reviews and the most negative reviews. Usually the most negative reviews (if they are in the minority) are a lot more absurd than this one. I thought this one had a couple of interesting claims and just wanted a little perspective from those here that had read it (rather than character assassination of the reviewer).

I'm buying the book anyway.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book and I have referred it to several friends who run the gamut from conservative to liberal. Without exception, they all loved it.

I can see how a John Bircher would get offended by the book. Or a diehard BRM-fan like grape.

The notion that it doesn't show the spiritual or positive side of DOM is nonsense. I gained a lot of admiration for the man. I am sure you will enjoy it.

Tex · 05-02-2008, 05:49 PM

The review is actually pretty decent (sorry, Leb), although uses a little stronger language than I would. I think there are certainly some redeeming qualities that the book has (and make it worth reading), but it does suffer from some bias and agenda-pushing.

Specific complaints, such as the targeting of certain disfavored apostles, or the inclusion of 3rd hand evidence, or the lack of focus on McKay's spiritual gifts are all legitimate.

I reviewed only one chapter for CG (link below), but I found much the same result, and said as much:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13841

05-02-2008, 05:05 PM	#11
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	He's a John Bircher. That review was garbage and I doubt his analysis is accurate. He'd make the taliban look like liberal secular people. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

05-02-2008, 05:27 PM	#17
Jeff Lebowski Charon Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo) Posts: 9,564	What an absurd review. The sad thing is that some folks may read that p.o.s. review and miss out on a wonderful book. __________________ "... the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

05-02-2008, 05:49 PM	#20
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	The review is actually pretty decent (sorry, Leb), although uses a little stronger language than I would. I think there are certainly some redeeming qualities that the book has (and make it worth reading), but it does suffer from some bias and agenda-pushing. Specific complaints, such as the targeting of certain disfavored apostles, or the inclusion of 3rd hand evidence, or the lack of focus on McKay's spiritual gifts are all legitimate. I reviewed only one chapter for CG (link below), but I found much the same result, and said as much: http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13841 __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

05-02-2008, 05:06 PM	#12
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	1. you would have to be a moron to not use and quote from contemporaries of DOM in his biography. It's like he is saying 'I wish they used no other source than Middlemissl' I think you can agree this is STUPID. 2. I can't remember much about the footnotes. So is he arguing that he wanted more quotes from Middlemiss, but he doesn't want quotes from other sources? I think his suggestion that the Middlemiss was only an incidental little-used source in the book is WAY, WAY off.

05-02-2008, 05:08 PM	#13
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Jan Shipps said this book was the most important book in Mormon history in 10 years. For me, it was paradigm shifting. Completely changed my views on church structure, and the nature of General Authorities. Previously it was a black box for me.

05-02-2008, 05:12 PM	#16
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	If you are coming from the mullah-perspective that this book is nothing but slander against GAs (which I totally disagree with), the strongest criticism is that one of the major sources was Paul H. Dunn, and the authors while sourcing him, did not readily make it apparent that he was the one giving the information (i.e. in some cases you wouldn't know if you didn't check the footnotes). I don't think Paul Dunn is apostate. You can look at this from two perspectives: 1) he might have an ax to grind, even if he is being truthful, 2) free of his calling and mantle, he feels more liberty to talk about the history and culture, whereas if he were a 70, he would be restricted from doing so.