Interesting Critique of DOM and Rise of Modern Mormonism

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No. Thats not it.

What you're saying is, a bad light is cast on Benson because he did bad things. Sure, he did good things too, but not when he was around McKay, so those things don't have a place in this book. This book is about McKay, and the only McKay-Benson stories worth mentioning are the bad ones, because that's all that happened.

So yeah, that's exactly it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

What you're saying is, a bad light is cast on Benson because he did bad things. Sure, he did good things too, but not when he was around McKay, so those things don't have a place in this book. This book is about McKay, and the only McKay-Benson stories worth mentioning are the bad ones, because that's all that happened.

So yeah, that's exactly it.

How trite and inexact.

The important aspect of the Book was to accurately portray DoM. And Benson is only tangentially mentioned, not a high point, or low point, but to illustrate his leniency in administration. If the facts presented are negative to you, perhaps those very limited circumstances are negative. What makes you think there are others worth mentioning that were left out?

The Book would be ten thousand pages if it wanted to describe all persons thoroughly.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

What you're saying is, a bad light is cast on Benson because he did bad things. Sure, he did good things too, but not when he was around McKay, so those things don't have a place in this book. This book is about McKay, and the only McKay-Benson stories worth mentioning are the bad ones, because that's all that happened.

So yeah, that's exactly it.

But your argument doesn't transcend that is what I was saying no to. Oh, and the book talks about lots of DOM's challenges. ETB was one of them. That is the reason it is noteworthy.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh, I think it had an agenda. The authors clearly did not like Benson or Lee.

I don't care too much for you. But that doesn't mean I have an anti-Tex agenda. I also don't like mayonnaise. But I don't have an anti-mayonnaise agenda.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't care too much for you. But that doesn't mean I have an anti-Tex agenda. I also don't like mayonnaise. But I don't have an anti-mayonnaise agenda.

Maybe after reviewing the fact they developed a dislike for him or his manners. Again, a personal response to somebody doesn't translate into an agenda to slam a person. In my mind, they appeared to be quite gentle on him. I've heard and read much worse than what they gave.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

What you're saying is, a bad light is cast on Benson because he did bad things. Sure, he did good things too, but not when he was around McKay, so those things don't have a place in this book. This book is about McKay, and the only McKay-Benson stories worth mentioning are the bad ones, because that's all that happened.

So yeah, that's exactly it.

By the way, on second read I should clarify that I don't necessarily say that he "did bad things." He did things that through our modern lens are hard to understand. The Birchers were to anti-communism as the ALF is to environmentalism. I stop short of calling them a terrorist group, but they sought to destroy the lives of those who were not ideologically pure, simply put, and members of the church became a huge part of that effort because, in part ETB, was a leading Bircher. DOM was very wise to get a handle on it.

I actually think it depends on how you look at it. Ultimately, ETB obeyed the counsel of his leader. I cannot imagine that was easy for him to do. I respect that. Whatever else you might say about ETB, he was obedient and by the time he was president of the church anti-communism was no longer his focus. If you believe what you read there were others during the same time period who ignored the directives of their leaders.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

By the way, on second read I should clarify that I don't necessarily say that he "did bad things." He did things that through our modern lens are hard to understand. The Birchers were to anti-communism as the ALF is to environmentalism. I stop short of calling them a terrorist group, but they sought to destroy the lives of those who were not ideologically pure, simply put, and members of the church became a huge part of that effort because, in part ETB, was a leading Bircher. DOM was very wise to get a handle on it.

I actually think it depends on how you look at it. Ultimately, ETB obeyed the counsel of his leader. I cannot imagine that was easy for him to do. I respect that. Whatever else you might say about ETB, he was obedient and by the time he was president of the church anti-communism was no longer his focus. If you believe what you read there were others during the same time period who ignored the directives of their leaders.

Yes. ETB should get credit for toning down his act. That was quite a transformation.

[Tex]

The bottom line is, I don't think the book fairly characterizes the McKay-Benson or McKay-Lee relationship. Pretty much the only times Benson is mentioned, its with respect to either communism or John Birch. Call me crazy, but I don't think those are the only interactions of note that Benson and McKay had. Just a hunch.

Another example: I find the story that Lee felt hurt/angry at being "snubbed" for the First Presidency totally implausible. To the best of my knowledge up to that point in church history, no President of the Twelve had served in the First Presidency. Even 50 years later it's very rare (Hinckley/Monson being exceptions). That he grow pouty over such a thing strikes me as outside Lee's character.

Lastly, my point is best illustrated by this: I'm told, "hey, Tex, it's a biography of McKay, okay? It's okay if we have an incomplete picture of Benson/Lee/whomever." All right, fine. Note that when people cite DOM around here, they don't typically do so referring to McKay. They cite other anecdotes concerning some other church bete noire, and heft it as representative of that person.

We get it with Benson (crazy John Bircher!), Lee (stubborn racist!), and oh my, do we ever get it with McConkie. We could sustain 10 simultaneous anti-McConkie threads on the Mormon Doctrine publication story alone.

The book produces a distorted picture of a disharmonious quorum, and its what CGers love to latch onto. Personally, I think the authors intended it that way.

Other than that, the book was pretty good.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

The book produces a distorted picture of a disharmonious quorum, and its what CGers love to latch onto. Personally, I think the authors intended it that way.

I didn't think that it did. I guess that was my point, but maybe we have different ideas of harmony. I assume that there are big personalities, all of whom are smart and all of whom have strong opinions. I wouldn't be able to wrap my head around the idea that those opinions never competed with one another. I assume there is robust disagreement at times.

As to your comment that people around here love to latch on to the conficts...if that is true it is because it humanizes them and makes them normal folks rather than deified monoliths, terrible to behold. When they write Bush 43's biography I guess they will focus a lot of attention on the conflict with Colin Powell. That is because their mutual successes and failure are public record, but the story of the internal conflict has not been told. It is no different here. I think there is some hyper-defensive here and I understand in this atmosphere where it comes from. But ETB and BHL being wrong about some things doesn't make the church untrue.

[FarrahWaters]

We know what the FP and the 12 decided on. What we don't know is who thought what first, who disagreed, and how they came to a decision.

If this was nothing but a prophet getting his way, it would be the President and a few bureaucrats to carry out his orders.

Instead, we see that the Q12 is a check on the FP, and vice versa. This is good, because it makes it hard for an evil or misguided man to lead the church astray.

If you look at the FLDS mess, it's pretty clear that Warren Jeffs, and the lack of a council or quorum (as they used to have) is a big part of why they are in a pile of doo-doo.

--posted by mike