Comments on: Four books to understand Mormonism http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/ A Mormon Blog Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:39:41 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61684 J. Stapley Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:52:45 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61684 Thanks for stopping by Todd - not only are you a excellent scholar, but an hilarious commenter...and it is Jonathan. I had to qualify the original post several times in the comments to acknowledge the list as an introduction to Mormon Studies. I think one of the most interesting things noted so far is that the most experienced commenters have recommended Bennion. I think he is an author that is definitely neglected by the younger generations (myself included). Hopefully Laurie will give us some Bennion posts in the near future. Thanks for stopping by Todd – not only are you a excellent scholar, but an hilarious commenter…and it is Jonathan.

I had to qualify the original post several times in the comments to acknowledge the list as an introduction to Mormon Studies.

I think one of the most interesting things noted so far is that the most experienced commenters have recommended Bennion. I think he is an author that is definitely neglected by the younger generations (myself included). Hopefully Laurie will give us some Bennion posts in the near future.

]]> By: Todd http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61683 Todd Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:13:37 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61683 Dear Mr. or Ms. Stapley: Interesting choices. I hadn't thought of my book as an introduction to Mormonism for neophytes, but why not? Someone contact the missionary committee immediately and let's get a copy in every investigator's hands. I think it should be introducted maybe on the 3rd or 4th discussion -- not the first. Let's not push things. As for my four books -- that is really tough. On the spur of the moment, I would pick Arrington and Bitton, The Mormon Experience (as a general overview); Quinn Mormon Hierarchy (I'm cheating, that's two books) (as a more detailed general overview); Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant (covering the church's most important transition point); and The Best of Lowell Bennion (to show the real heart of Mormonism at its best). Actually, picking only four is really tough, isn't it? Tomorrow might be a totally different four. A Mormon Mother. Mountain Meadows Massacre. The list goes on and on. Dear Mr. or Ms. Stapley: Interesting choices. I hadn’t thought of my book as an introduction to Mormonism for neophytes, but why not? Someone contact the missionary committee immediately and let’s get a copy in every investigator’s hands. I think it should be introducted maybe on the 3rd or 4th discussion — not the first. Let’s not push things.

As for my four books — that is really tough. On the spur of the moment, I would pick Arrington and Bitton, The Mormon Experience (as a general overview); Quinn Mormon Hierarchy (I’m cheating, that’s two books) (as a more detailed general overview); Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant (covering the church’s most important transition point); and The Best of Lowell Bennion (to show the real heart of Mormonism at its best).

Actually, picking only four is really tough, isn’t it? Tomorrow might be a totally different four. A Mormon Mother. Mountain Meadows Massacre. The list goes on and on.

]]> By: skip http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61682 skip Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:30:49 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61682 Regarding Molly's post 63 on her consistent use of Bennion and England to enrich her Sunday lesson preparations: "Amen." I use them "religiously" in my talks and lessons. I love their ability to combine intellectual and spiritual reasons to believe in both Christ and the Restoration and put that belief system into action by doing good in our Mormon and non-Mormon communities, often in ways that would take both orthodox and less-than-orthodox Mormons out of their comfort zones. Both Bennion and England give plenty of great reasons to put both the Jettboys and more typical BCC participants on notice that happiness here and exaltation later only come in and through humble belief in the Savior and his teachings, and practicing what he taught and practiced. I've been an avid Dialogue/Sunstone reader my whole relatively short life (if recently passing 40 can be called short), but folks have also recently decided that having me serve in ecclesiastical leadership is also in the cards. As I serve in Church leadership, I often wish both orthodox and less orthodox members would spend a bit less time worrying about Church doctrine and practice (as interesting and fun as they are), and spend more time loving and serving. I include myself in that wish. Regarding Molly’s post 63 on her consistent use of Bennion and England to enrich her Sunday lesson preparations: “Amen.” I use them “religiously” in my talks and lessons. I love their ability to combine intellectual and spiritual reasons to believe in both Christ and the Restoration and put that belief system into action by doing good in our Mormon and non-Mormon communities, often in ways that would take both orthodox and less-than-orthodox Mormons out of their comfort zones. Both Bennion and England give plenty of great reasons to put both the Jettboys and more typical BCC participants on notice that happiness here and exaltation later only come in and through humble belief in the Savior and his teachings, and practicing what he taught and practiced. I’ve been an avid Dialogue/Sunstone reader my whole relatively short life (if recently passing 40 can be called short), but folks have also recently decided that having me serve in ecclesiastical leadership is also in the cards. As I serve in Church leadership, I often wish both orthodox and less orthodox members would spend a bit less time worrying about Church doctrine and practice (as interesting and fun as they are), and spend more time loving and serving. I include myself in that wish.

]]> By: David J http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61681 David J Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:05:39 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61681 <i> I’ll have to put some thought into this if I am to make a cogent comment.</i> Please do. And don't worry about some of the less bona-fide comments and commentors here when you do this, because your list above is really cool, and I'd just like to see what the next 4 or 5 would be. One thing I like about this, as I've said before, is the notion of an <i>annotated</i> bibliography, vs. just a slap-in-your-face-1,000-references sort of biblio when the reader of the biblio has no idea why the compiler put a certain book or article on that list. For example, I keep my own biblios for Biblical Studies, but I annotate them so that I know <i>why</i> I liked (or disliked!) a given volume. And yes, I do put works in some of my biblios as examples of "WTF?" scholarship on occasion. The Tanners or Ed Decker would be a relevant example of WTF scholarship for Mormon Studies (or is it "study of Mormonism"?). PS - I'm finished on Wednesday, and should have the goods in the mail by Thurs. or Fri. (No, this is not a drug deal). I’ll have to put some thought into this if I am to make a cogent comment.

Please do. And don’t worry about some of the less bona-fide comments and commentors here when you do this, because your list above is really cool, and I’d just like to see what the next 4 or 5 would be.

One thing I like about this, as I’ve said before, is the notion of an annotated bibliography, vs. just a slap-in-your-face-1,000-references sort of biblio when the reader of the biblio has no idea why the compiler put a certain book or article on that list. For example, I keep my own biblios for Biblical Studies, but I annotate them so that I know why I liked (or disliked!) a given volume. And yes, I do put works in some of my biblios as examples of “WTF?” scholarship on occasion. The Tanners or Ed Decker would be a relevant example of WTF scholarship for Mormon Studies (or is it “study of Mormonism”?).

PS – I’m finished on Wednesday, and should have the goods in the mail by Thurs. or Fri. (No, this is not a drug deal).

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61680 J. Stapley Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:02:58 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61680 You make good points, Steve H. First, I think that it is important that Redemption through Jesus is <i>the</i> message of the restoration and as such the most important volumes are the Book of Mormon and the New Testament – the witnesses of Christ. Devotional literature is great in as much as it helps people lead Christ-like lives, be better parents, etc. Moreover, correlated church materials are also focused on redemption. Evangelism, consequently, should also revolve around the scripture. Regarding <i>A Marvelous Work and a Wonder</i>, I regret giving it away as I find the arguments and views contained in it not particularly in harmony with the modern message of Mormonism (and often times, my beliefs). I imagine that this is why it was removed from the Missionary Library. Beyond redemption, what does it mean to be Mormon? This is, I believe, where history enters. I believe that there is value in understanding the Prophet in his own time, how our doctrines develop, and how the Church operates. Your point on analysis is I think very important. The big criticism of the <i>New Mormon History</i> is that it is just a bunch of data and authors like Quinn are often assailed for weak analysis. David J., there are a ton of titles that are worthy of the top 10. Many have been mentioned. I’ll have to put some thought into this if I am to make a cogent comment. You make good points, Steve H. First, I think that it is important that Redemption through Jesus is the message of the restoration and as such the most important volumes are the Book of Mormon and the New Testament – the witnesses of Christ. Devotional literature is great in as much as it helps people lead Christ-like lives, be better parents, etc. Moreover, correlated church materials are also focused on redemption. Evangelism, consequently, should also revolve around the scripture.

Regarding A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, I regret giving it away as I find the arguments and views contained in it not particularly in harmony with the modern message of Mormonism (and often times, my beliefs). I imagine that this is why it was removed from the Missionary Library.

Beyond redemption, what does it mean to be Mormon? This is, I believe, where history enters. I believe that there is value in understanding the Prophet in his own time, how our doctrines develop, and how the Church operates.

Your point on analysis is I think very important. The big criticism of the New Mormon History is that it is just a bunch of data and authors like Quinn are often assailed for weak analysis.

David J., there are a ton of titles that are worthy of the top 10. Many have been mentioned. I’ll have to put some thought into this if I am to make a cogent comment.

]]> By: Steve H http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61679 Steve H Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:44:59 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61679 J, I would probably ignore Jettboy. What he has to say that is helpful has been said by others here, and what he hasn't seems to indacte that he was a bit lazy in reading the comments of others. Your difference between Mormonism (meaning something like the restored gospel--although the term could also mean a certain cultural reading of that restored gospel) and Mormon studies is a useful one. I admit that until that point in the thread, I had some of the misgivings others had expressed. I would also like to comment that while I find historical sense vital to our understanding of most issues, I would qualify it. First, your intorduction about changes in worldview is important. It would probably not be best to introduce someone to the restored gospel primarily as history, at least if what you mean by that is confronting the difficult matters of church history that often seem (and I emphasize this word) to present contradictions. It takes time to build depth of doctrinal understanding and the strong understanding and testimony of the atonement that helps us to see through some of the seeming paradoxes that such study can lead to. This is not to say that we should hide church history from new members, but that we oughtn't to get those who are more involved in learning the vital truths that are central to the gospel bogged down in the finer points of history. Second, I would like to point out that historical sense is of very little use without the ability to read texts for nuance. Thus, while you claim ’ Consequently, history does win the day. I can think of no other way to really comprehend Mormonism. I understand my grandma because of the stories that remain…the details and narratives of her life. So too with the Church. To approach Mormonism from say devotional literature without historical analysis is to look at the thin veneer that covers us.” I would counter that there is some very good “devotional literature that gives a secondary place to the discussion of history and yet strikes very much to the heart of our beliefs by the careful exegesis of texts with attention to prophetic interpretation of those texts. It is when such texts wander too far from good reading that they tend to gush the stuff of cultural trapping disguised as true religion. In fact, some of these great works of excellent reading are ones that I would recommend to a new convert before those that approach history with a critical eye, though this is definitely a worthy pursuit if approached in the spirit of better understanding one’s faith. I am wondering why you cringe to have given away a copy of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. I am probably a member of the church today because my mother read that very book. However, I am very ambivalent about this, as my mother hadn’t read much of the Book of Mormon before her baptism, and this has been one of the factors, I believe, why she is no longer an active member of the church. Because of this, though it sounds obvious, I would like to point out that whatever else we read, it will not lead us to Christ if we neglect the book of Mormon (I’m not saying anyone here implied this), and I would try very hard to make this the book I would give to someone outside the church interested in “Mormonism,” if they were at all willing to accept it. J,
I would probably ignore Jettboy. What he has to say that is helpful has been said by others here, and what he hasn’t seems to indacte that he was a bit lazy in reading the comments of others. Your difference between Mormonism (meaning something like the restored gospel–although the term could also mean a certain cultural reading of that restored gospel) and Mormon studies is a useful one. I admit that until that point in the thread, I had some of the misgivings others had expressed.
I would also like to comment that while I find historical sense vital to our understanding of most issues, I would qualify it. First, your intorduction about changes in worldview is important. It would probably not be best to introduce someone to the restored gospel primarily as history, at least if what you mean by that is confronting the difficult matters of church history that often seem (and I emphasize this word) to present contradictions. It takes time to build depth of doctrinal understanding and the strong understanding and testimony of the atonement that helps us to see through some of the seeming paradoxes that such study can lead to. This is not to say that we should hide church history from new members, but that we oughtn’t to get those who are more involved in learning the vital truths that are central to the gospel bogged down in the finer points of history.
Second, I would like to point out that historical sense is of very little use without the ability to read texts for nuance. Thus, while you claim ’ Consequently, history does win the day. I can think of no other way to really comprehend Mormonism. I understand my grandma because of the stories that remain…the details and narratives of her life. So too with the Church. To approach Mormonism from say devotional literature without historical analysis is to look at the thin veneer that covers us.” I would counter that there is some very good “devotional literature that gives a secondary place to the discussion of history and yet strikes very much to the heart of our beliefs by the careful exegesis of texts with attention to prophetic interpretation of those texts. It is when such texts wander too far from good reading that they tend to gush the stuff of cultural trapping disguised as true religion. In fact, some of these great works of excellent reading are ones that I would recommend to a new convert before those that approach history with a critical eye, though this is definitely a worthy pursuit if approached in the spirit of better understanding one’s faith.
I am wondering why you cringe to have given away a copy of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. I am probably a member of the church today because my mother read that very book. However, I am very ambivalent about this, as my mother hadn’t read much of the Book of Mormon before her baptism, and this has been one of the factors, I believe, why she is no longer an active member of the church. Because of this, though it sounds obvious, I would like to point out that whatever else we read, it will not lead us to Christ if we neglect the book of Mormon (I’m not saying anyone here implied this), and I would try very hard to make this the book I would give to someone outside the church interested in “Mormonism,” if they were at all willing to accept it.

]]> By: Aaron B http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61678 Aaron B Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:25:58 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61678 It is? Aaron B It is?

Aaron B

]]> By: Julie M. Smith http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61677 Julie M. Smith Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:37:13 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61677 'impactful' is a nasty word ‘impactful’ is a nasty word

]]> By: David J http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61676 David J Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:06:10 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61676 J, It seems to me that people are offering great substitutions and appendices to your list. My question, then is: If you could expand your list by maybe 4 more titles, what would they be? Let's expand this list to maybe 8 or 10. I'm very intrigued with all of this, as I've spent most of my Mormon studies time in original sources (Dean Jessee and Dan Vogel) but never bothered to venture into the (to me) new and exciting socio-historical realm of Mormon studies like Jan Shipps, Lowell Bennion, Armand Mauss, etc. Very good stuff! Let's keep it going. J,

It seems to me that people are offering great substitutions and appendices to your list. My question, then is:

If you could expand your list by maybe 4 more titles, what would they be? Let’s expand this list to maybe 8 or 10. I’m very intrigued with all of this, as I’ve spent most of my Mormon studies time in original sources (Dean Jessee and Dan Vogel) but never bothered to venture into the (to me) new and exciting socio-historical realm of Mormon studies like Jan Shipps, Lowell Bennion, Armand Mauss, etc.

Very good stuff! Let’s keep it going.

]]> By: Aaron B http://bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/07/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61675 Aaron B Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:24:40 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2005/12/four-books-to-understand-mormonism/#comment-61675 "There is a reason very few “average” Mormons participate here. The list of picks proves that piont abundantly. After all, how many Mormons outside of the “Nacle” would actually suggest most of the picks any of you have given?" So what? You seem to completely misunderstand the point of this post. No one solicited a list of books that the "average" Mormon would pick as meaningful. I took Stapley to be soliciting a list of academic works that were impactful to the avid reader of Mormon Studies. Aaron B “There is a reason very few “average” Mormons participate here. The list of picks proves that piont abundantly. After all, how many Mormons outside of the “Nacle” would actually suggest most of the picks any of you have given?”

So what? You seem to completely misunderstand the point of this post. No one solicited a list of books that the “average” Mormon would pick as meaningful. I took Stapley to be soliciting a list of academic works that were impactful to the avid reader of Mormon Studies.

Aaron B

]]>