Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Tvedtnes, John. 1980. The Church of the Old Testament. Deseret Book Company.

Rating:
1

Summary:
Ridiculous!

The basic premise of the book is that the ‘religion’ of the Old Testament (I guess you could call it early Judaism) was organized nearly in an identical way as is the Mormon religion as well as having the same beliefs, priesthood, etc.

Review:
What you have to understand before being able to understand the perspective taken in this book is that the Mormon religion believes that the gospel, as understood by the Mormon religion, has been given to humanity seven times now; each time is considered a separate dispensation. Along with this belief there is an understanding that everything about each incarnation of the gospel is identical. Thus, just as Mormons have temples in which they perform sacred rituals today, they believe that Adam had a temple and performed these rituals, so too did Noah, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, even Christ. All of the dispensations had the same gospel according to Mormonism.

Understanding this you can begin to understand the approach of the book. The book tries to argue that the organization of the Jews in the Old Testament was simply one incarnation of the Mormon belief system and therefore must have had an identical organization, namely: prophets, apostles, seventies, patriarchs, high priests, elders, priests, teachers, and deacons. Also, the Jews of the Old Testament practiced baptisms and other ordinances identical to those of the Mormon religion today.

So, hopefully having made that clear, let me tell you what I think of the book…

This book is nothing but speculation and misinterpretation. Tvedtnes begins by explaining what he is trying to do and quoting a Mormon prophet (Brigham Young) as the basis for making the absurd claim that the ancient Jewish religion was identical to modern-day Mormonism. In doing this he uses modern ‘prophecy’ to affirm this modern religion’s claims. This is like asking a used car salesman if the car he is trying to sale you is a lemon. He has everything to lose by admitting it’s a lemon and everything to gain by lying and saying it’s not. Do you think he’d admit to selling you a lemon? Quoting modern-day prophets to affirm a modern-day claim is just plain silly, but that is how the book begins (p. vii).

Tvedtnes follows this up with a stupid mistake, assuming that the structure of the Mormon religion doesn’t change. On p. viii he claims that the structure of the Church is perfect and therefore cannot be improved upon. If you examine the original structure of the Mormon religion (1830) to that of the religion 14 years later when Joseph Smith Jr. died, it isn’t even remotely the same religion. And if you examine it 159 years after that (2003), it’s also completely different. So much for a perfect and unchangeable hierarchical structure.

Having begun the book on several flawed assumptions, what follows are innumerable flawed interpretations.

On p. 4 Tvedtnes claims that Adam & Eve coveted and stole the fruit that got them kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Didn’t the fruit belong to them? I mean, who else could it belong to? Can you covet your own stuff or steal your own stuff? That doesn’t make much sense to me. Tvedtnes tries to make this argument because he wants the reader to believe that Adam & Eve lived under the same Ten Commandments that were revealed to Moses thousands of years later (in biblical time). Please!

On p. 5 there is a fascinating quote by Brigham Young that actually goes against the premise above that the gospel has been restored multiple times, “The gospel was among the children of men from the days of Adam until the coming of the Messiah.” If this is true, why did it have to be restored at the beginning of each dispensation through the head of the dispensation?

On p. 10 Tvedtnes claims that the Mormon religion practices all of the same things that the ancient Jews did. However, in Judaism circumcision is necessary but not in Mormonism. I also don’t know any kosher Mormons. Another ridiculous claim.

On p. 11 Tvedtnes equates the Jewish practice of washing with the Mormon practice of baptism. I’m no Bible scholar, but I don’t believe they are the same thing.

P. 16 contains a good example of how Christianity can be a very bigoted belief system. Tvedtnes believes that only certain people can be the chosen people of god. What does that mean for everyone else? That they aren’t the chosen? Sounds like supremacist indoctrination.

Ironically, on pp. 22-23, Tvedtnes talks about how the Old Testament outlaws drinking and witchcraft; Joseph Smith Jr. did both (so did his dad).

On p. 57 Tvedtnes argues that ‘Levite’ is synonymous with the Mormon titles of ‘Deacon’ and ‘Teacher’. Mormon Deacons and Teachers are 12-16 years old. Kind of insulting to the priests of the Old Testament don’t you think?

On pp. 67-68 Tvedtnes makes a comparison between the people of the Old Testament voting on their leaders and the Mormons doing so. Sure, Mormons get to vote, but it isn’t a real vote. Mormons just raise their hand in approval and any dissenters are talked to and usually dismissed. There is no democracy in Mormonism. Mormonism is a theocracy.

Ultimately I believe Tvedtnes is trying to give the Mormon religion legitimacy by arguing that they are the true inheritors of the gospel of the Old Testament. But the route he takes to get here is so remarkably ridiculous that I’m amazed this book was ever published. I would love to see what a real Bible scholar thinks of this book. I certainly don’t have the training to disprove all of Tvedtnes’s claims, but I’m sure there are some people out there that would tear this thing to shreds.

Ladanye, Thomas W. 1980. Plain Talk: A Potpourri of Plain and Precious Things.

Rating:
1

Summary:
Collection of thoughts on life, the universe, and everything.

Like the book I just read by Bryant S. Hinckley, the format of this book is not conducive to summary, so I will forego doing that. The book is made up of about 50 two-page thoughts on subjects ranging from education to success to politics to religion.

Review:
The thoughts don’t seem to be in any particular order. Most of the thoughts are a combination of a quote from a writer or philosopher and Ladanye’s comments on the thought. As a result, most of the ‘profound’ thoughts aren’t actually contributed by Mr. Ladanye.

Along with the format problems are the problems with the actual content. Many of the ‘wisdoms’ are suggestions for success but actually trying to live up to all of the suggestions would result in a nervous breakdown.

I can’t count the number of times I have heard or read in self-help books the notion that dreams and goals are worthless without the effort to make them become reality. Well, Ladanye, like so many others before him, harps this point to death.

As I got to thinking about this book and the Hinckley book I just read, I began to wonder who these people think they are that they have the answers to all of life’s problems and that they are so wise that their wisdoms should be turned into a book. Perhaps in the Hinckley case he thought he would give his final advice as a dying man. With Ladanye, he seems to be young, in his forties, when he wrote this. A bit egocentric, don’t you think?

Ladanye also does something quite interesting, he very seldom says who he is quoting but instead says stuff like, “A famous person once said…” or “A great man said…”. Perhaps this is a relic of writing in bygone days, but it gets pretty frustrating.

There are also contradictions between the wisdoms. The one that particularly stood out to me is that Ladanye discourages idleness but encourages loafing. What in the %^*& is he thinking here?

And, not unlike Hinckley, toward the end of the book Ladanye begins giving international advice. I believe Ladanye is now employed as something of a family therapist. Stick to your realm of expertise! Unless you are knowledgeable in world relations, perhaps you should only give advice on family therapy.

Overall, the book, like so many others, isn’t particularly outstanding. It’s just another book from another individual thinking he has all the answers. Sure, some of what is said seems like good advice, but then again, someone else might think that the entire book is great advice and a third person would hate it all. I’m tired of reading books like this. On to a novel or something else.

Wilson, William J. 1980. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Makes a good point, but you have to read the book close to tease it out

The primary gist of the book is, best outlined in the postscript that was included in the second edition (1980) of the book, “Even if all current discrimination were eliminated, the differences in the economic resources of blacks and whites would persist for years until the effects of past racial oppression disappear. Thus, when I speak of the declining significance of race, I am neither ignoring the legacy of previous discrimination nor am I arguing that racial discrimination no longer exists. I am referring to the relative role race plays in determining black life chances in the modern industrial period–in other words, the changing impact of race in the economic sector and, in particular, the changing importance of race versus class for mobility opportunities” (p. 167).

Let me see if I can further elucidate this point, as I think the basic argument of the book is commonly misunderstood. What the author is saying is not that race is no longer important but that a better understanding of the class structure of blacks is now what is needed in order to continue to help blacks. The author outlines a class structure specific to blacks (as opposed to the commonly referenced general class structure in the U.S.) that is polarizing: there is a growing distinction between black educated professionals and the black urban poor living in ghettoes. The point the author is making is that efforts to help blacks as a race (e.g., affirmative action) are primarily benefiting the educated professionals while the urban poor are being overlooked entirely. The author is not claiming that race no longer matters but rather is saying that if we are going to do something about inequality in America today we need to begin looking past race and focus on poverty, which disproportionately affects blacks, but also affects many other groups, all of whom need help.

How the author goes about building his argument is outlined in the quote from pages xi and xii below.

Review:
I think I need to explain, to begin with, the expectations I had of this book before reading it. This book, and the position of the author, was often referenced in a course I took on race and health. The instructor of the course seemed to indicate that the book made a very strong case that race no longer mattered in the U.S. and that class accounted for racial differences. While William Julius Wilson seems to be headed somewhat in that direction, after having finally gone to the source and examined the book, I think his book is misconstrued by many sociologists as indicating something that it never intended to indicate. Basically, the book is a very ‘toned-down’ version of that argument. It does not say that race is unimportant, it simply says that if we want to address race issues in the U.S. today, we are implementing policies that disproportionately benefit those who are already doing well – black educated professionals – and are over-looking the blacks who really need help – the urban poor. In making this argument, the author, almost in passing, groups the black poor with all the poor (race and ethnicity aside) in his attempt to reorient policy makers as to the real problem in America today – poverty!

Thus, while the misconstrued notion is seemingly related to the actual argument of the book, I think a closer reading of the text by those who use it so commonly in their courses, research, and conversations would reveal that the author is not making an ‘anti-black’ argument but rather a ‘let’s do something about poverty’ argument that overlooks racial and ethnic boundaries. When the author’s real argument is understood, I can’t help but admit that I agree with his point 100%. That said, let me move on to some of the criticisms I have of the book.

On a purely literary note, the book is not very clear, often repetitive, and has a tendency to get off topic and roam on unrelated tangents. If the author had stuck more closely to his arguments and the primary thesis, not only would it have made for more engaging reading but it may have prevented the necessity for including an entire chapter to explain the book in the second edition. Interestingly, the postscript is a good example of the benefits of criticism – the postscript is the clearest and most lucid part of the book. The postscript seems to illustrate that there is very little as effective as criticism for getting an author to clarify his/her argument.

As far as the author’s theoretical analysis, I have several criticisms. First, I’m not really sure why the author feels it is necessary to claim he is creating a class structure specific to blacks. Despite his claims, he proceeds to use the existing class model of the U.S. (i.e., lower, middle, and upper classes) for blacks. Perhaps the author felt that by illustrating how blacks are fanning out and even polarizing in the class structure that he was in some way moving beyond traditional understandings of class, but in the end I was left with the impression that his discussion of class structure could have been tremendously simplified if he had just said, ‘Blacks are spreading out over the traditional U.S. class structures, but they seem to be pooling primarily in two places – on the very lowest rung and near the upper-middle class.’ That is really the gist of his argument.

Another theoretical point the author tries to develop is that there is a difference between sociopolitical and economic racism. The author argues that in the past blacks suffered primarily from forms of economic racism (they did not control the means of production and, in fact, didn’t even control their labor), but now, the author argues, the racism blacks suffer is primarily sociopolitical in form – they are not in power politically and live in segregated sections of cities. I won’t disagree that the forms of racism have changed over time, but I’m not sure that this distinction adds additional understanding and, in fact, it may actually cloud understanding. Where one lives and political power are both based on economic power (as much as I hate to admit that money rules our lives, it certainly seems to be the case). Given this fact, sociopolitical racism is, at very best, a disguised form of economic racism. Thus, to draw distinctions between the two isn’t necessarily informative and may actually be misleading.

Despite my minor theoretical disagreements with the author, I should point out that the book is also informative. The author presents some very interesting information (primarily historical in nature) on racism during the 18th and 19th centuries, like the fact that in the Southern U.S. cities and towns were not segregated (to prevent blacks from building a power base). This discussion ultimately led to the author illustrating how the white, slave-holding class in the South worked to keep the poor whites and blacks down. Whether this was intentional or simply the wranglings of a group that wanted to maintain their wealth and power is uncertain (though Wilson seems to depict it as intentional), but it certainly does not present the wealthy whites of the Southern U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries in a positive light.

Overall, though I’m a bit hesitant to admit it due to the lack of clarity in developing his argument, I will admit that I can see why this book deserves its place as a classic sociological work. By refocusing policy and research toward the real disparity in the U.S. – poverty – Wilson has made a solid contribution to both sociology as an impactful science and to humanity.

Rector, Connie, and Diane Deputy. 1980. The Celestial Connection: Faith-Promoting Stories on Family Research. 1st ed. Bookcraft.

Rating:
5

Summary:
exactly what the title says – faith-promoting

The book is a collection of stories about different divine interventions that have facilitated the Mormon goal of providing salvation for the dead. Let me expound just briefly on this concept for those unfamiliar with it.

Mormons believe that it is necessary to be baptized and participate in several additional rituals (temple endowment, washing and anointing, etc.) in order to finally enter into heaven (their conception of heaven is different from most Christian religions as well, but I’m not going to go into that here). Of course, if everyone must participate in these ordinances/rituals, then everyone that did not participate in them (which would include pretty much everyone who lived past the age of eight and died prior to 1830, with the possible exception of ancient prophets and some of their followers) would not be able to enter heaven. But Mormons, in consideration of those that never had the chance to hear the gospel, also believe that these rituals/ordinances can be performed for the deceased by living proxies (like pinch-hitting). Because it is impossible to determine if individuals have accepted the efficacy of these rituals in the afterlife (meaning they want to become Mormons), Mormons have decided that they will just do the ordinances for everyone and those that don’t want to accept them don’t have to. Thus, in a quite literal sense, Mormons intend to convert not only everyone that is currently living, but also everyone that has ever lived.

In their goal to accomplish this, the Mormon Church has encouraged its members (and even funded some individuals) to do genealogical research – looking up the names and relevant information (birth, death, marriages, etc.) for the deceased. This information is collected centrally and members of the religion that have participated in these rituals then act as proxies for the deceased in these rituals. With the exception of Sunday and major holidays, thousands of these ordinances are performed every day in LDS temples around the world in the Mormon Church’s never ending quest to convert everyone to Mormonism.

This book relates how some individuals’ received “divine” help and guidance that facilitated their goal of collecting names and information in order for the deceased to receive these ordinances. The stories range from coincidental occurrences (finding a book at a swapmeet) to dream sequences and hearing voices.

Review:
With that lengthy introduction, let me make a few, brief comments about the book.

As far as the writing goes, there are no Pulitzer Prize winning contributions. The stories are written by the individuals involved, but thankfully, the editors (Rector and Deputy) paid close enough attention to the writing that the grammar and spelling mistakes are nearly non-existent. It isn’t brilliant writing, but it does get the job done.

Normally, I am very critical of faith-promoting writing. Much of it makes unsubtantiated claims with which I take issue. Even though I am inclined to see the experiences related in the book as coincidental occurrences, hallucinatory dream sequences, or accounts that have been revised after the fact in order to bolster religious faith, the authors never really make historical fact claims. As a result, I don’t think the book can be criticized from this perspective. The authors hold no pretenses that this book is a logical argument for the existence of a god or the actuality of his influence. It says it is faith-promoting, and it approaches every experience with that perspective in mind.

I should note that, as an agnostic that used to be a Mormon, I do not believe in supernature (or at least do not believe there is proof of supernature). Every one of the accounts in the book can be explained in ways that do not include divine intervention. The book does not argue for supernature; supernature is assumed. When you approach life with an understanding that there is an active god, it isn’t too difficult to see his hand in pretty much everything, but since the authors don’t try to hide this fact, so be it.

Overall, the book isn’t particularly well-written but neither is it unreadable. I may not agree with the causal attributions in the stories (that they are divine), but since there are virtually no attempts to claim anything other than that which is unprovable (the existence of supernature), I can’t help but give this book an adequate rating.

Smith, George H. 1980. Atheism: The Case Against God. 1st ed. Prometheus Books (Accessed January 23, 2007).

Rating:
10

Summary:
Brilliant exposition of atheism

The book consists of four basic parts. It begins with an exposition of atheism and illustrates how critics of atheism muddle the definition in a vain effort to refute this position. The author then contrasts reason with faith and explores revelation. The third section refutes arguments for god by illustrating how they are logically inconsistent. The fourth section focuses more explicitly on Christianity and illustrates how the precepts of Christianity are absurd.

It is clearly stated from the beginning of the book that the author is not at all interested in an objective treatment of theism and atheism – he clearly comes down on the side of atheism. The author is explicit in his denunciation of god (and religion), “It is my firm conviction that man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear” (pp. x-xi). The author also notes that his purpose in writing the book is not to convert people to atheism, but rather, “…to demonstrate that the belief in god is irrational to the point of absurdity; and that this irrationality, when manifested in specific religions such as Christianity, is extremely harmful” (pp. x-xi).

I will address some of the problems with the book below. But before addressing the problems, it is imperative I discuss some of the basic definitions provided by the author.

First, the author lays bare the definition of atheism, “The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist” (p. 7). The author goes on to explain that attributing positive beliefs to atheists is not accurate, “… the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system” (p. 21). Atheism is a negative position – the lack of belief – not a positive position. Anyone who makes a blanket statement regarding positive beliefs of atheists obviously does not understand the label and is in error.

The author also discusses the definition of ‘agnosticism’, “Agnosticism, as a general term, now signifies the impossibility of knowledge in a given area. An agnostic is a person who believes that something is inherently unknowable by the human mind. When applied to the sphere of theistic belief, an agnostic is one who maintains that some aspect of the supernatural is forever closed to human knowledge” (p. 9; see also p. 12). When clearly explained, agnosticism is shown to be not an alternative to atheism but a different conceptual idea altogether. One can simultaneously be an atheist and agnostic. For instance, one can lack a belief in god and also hold the belief that knowledge of god is impossible. By simply claiming that you are an agnostic you are not actually presenting your position on god (whether or not he/she/it exists) but simply saying whether or not it is possible to know if god exists.

The final point I think is worth mentioning in the summary is a point the author makes rather late in the book. The author notes that, for an atheist, discussing a theist’s belief in god is often futile. To determine if rational discussion is worth your while in your discussion of god with a theist, the author provides a simple test, “Before discussing any theist’s claim to rationality, the following question must be asked: “If your arguments are shown to be incorrect, will you relinquish your belief in god?” If the answer is “no” – as it often is – then any further discussion with this person is a waste of time. Any claim to rationality or concern with truth is mere pretense on his part, since he is indifferent to the validity of his arguments. This, to put it mildly, is hypocrisy” (p. 227). Thus, if your goal in reading this book is to arm yourself with the logic to illustrate to a theist that their belief is misguided, you may be foiled by the simple fact that many theists refuse to wield to rational thought – they insist on believing despite reason.

Review:
Having summarized the topics covered in the book and outlined some of the basic understandings necessary for an intelligent discussion of atheism, I now turn to my thoughts on the book. The logic employed in the book is brilliant. I found virtually every argument outlined by the author compelling. Additionally, the book is better written and far more engaging and intelligible than scripture. Speaking of scripture, this book also kept drudging up one of my least savory thoughts since leaving the religion of my youth: I spent the first 25 years of my life reading gibberish (scripture). This is especially appalling considering this book has existed as long as I’ve been able to read. Oh the hours I could have saved! I actually bought this book for a friend over a year and a half ago and bought for myself The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Boy did I get shorted on that deal. The Christ Conspiracy is a piece of trash; this book is an invaluable guide to making sense of the arguments employed by theists.

Well, enough with the praises. The book has a few problems, minor though they are. First, the book is purely philosophical. While this isn’t a problem in itself, the author makes the unfortunate mistake of trying to push the philosophical arguments beyond their boundaries when he delves into the realm of psychology. “A psychological sanction, if successful, causes the emotion of guilt… A man motivated by guilt, however, is a man with a broken spirit; he will obey the rules without question. A guilt-ridden man is the perfect subject for religious morality, and this is why psychological sanctions have been extremely effective in accomplishing their purpose” (p. 301). I don’t disagree that from a philosophical stand point religion can be seen as psychologically damaging. But given there is actual psychological evidence that details some of the problems with religion on the human psyche (see Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993), that literature should be drawn upon.

Another problem with the book is the author’s simplistic analysis of ethics. While I don’t necessarily disagree with the underlying argument of the ethics section, it does draw heavily on a rational-choice perspective, which makes the author’s approach subject to the same criticisms that the rational-choice approach is subject to. In short, the discussion lacks an understanding of the roles of social structure and culture in determining an individual’s ethics. It also fails to note that ethics can be culturally specific, though it does point out the indeterminate and contextual nature of ethics. I don’t want to give the impression that the author’s discussion of ethics is flawed, only that it it doesn’t cover everything it should.

Another problem with the book, though some could argue this is also a positive, is that the book focuses exclusively on Christianity after the first section on theism/atheism. The benefit of focusing on Christianity is that the book provides a detailed discussion, which no doubt would have been pared down had other religions been included. But it would also have been nice to see the application of the author’s logic to Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Perhaps a companion volume has done this?

My final problem with the book is that the author fails to make a clear distinction between the two types of skepticism (see p. 128). The author jumps into his discussion of skepticism by denouncing skepticism and claiming it is often situated as a forerunner to theism and Christian theology. What the author fails to note is that he is referring just to the philosophical position of ‘universal skepticism’, which is altogether different from scientific skepticism. Universal skepticism doubts the existence of everything, claiming nothing is as it appears. Scientific skepticism, on the other hand, “is a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method” (from Wikipedia). Because the author does not clarify which skepticism he is referring to in his discussion, I found myself confused and defensive. Once I realized that he had not drawn the appropriate distinction and that he was referring only to universal skepticism (he later praises scientific skepticism), his arguments made sense. It would have been useful to have the clarification at the beginning rather than as an ‘Aha!’ moment later on.

I could go on to highlight some of the better excerpts from the book, but there are far too many to do the book justice. I think everyone should read this book, though I’m not so optimistic as to think that irrational theists will be willing to change their positions in light of the rational and reasoned approach the author presents.