Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

White, James R. 2007. Letters to a Mormon Elder. Solid Ground Christian Books.

Rating:
1

Summary:
In my continuing effort to clean out a folder filled with articles and books to read, I found this book I must have downloaded some time in the last couple of years. The book is available online for free here: http://www.alphamin.org/404.html . The book’s author, James R. White, is an evangelical Christian who runs Alpha and Omega Ministries (online it is called Alpha Ministries and can be found at www.alphamin.org). The book begins with an explanation of how Alpha and Omega Ministries was founded: Mr. White was contacted by his sister to help extricate her from lessons with Mormon missionaries. That led him to read up on Mormonism, which ultimately led him to want to “witness” to Mormons.

The book consists of 18 fictitious letters to a fictitious missionary, Elder Hahn, who is supposedly serving in the area where Mr. White lives. The 19th letter is to Elder Hahn’s mission president, who changed Elder Hahn to a different area after finding out he had been talking to Mr. White.

The arguments Mr. White builds in the letters are designed to refute the claims of Mormonism on two levels. First, he uses the previously developed research and arguments of Jerald and Sandra Tanner to point out non-scientific claims Mormonism makes (e.g., the historicity of the Book of Mormon) or to point out historical mistruths or inaccuracies taught by the LDS religion that have been shown to be false (e.g., Joseph Smith did use a peepstone to bilk people out of their money). The second level of argument is directly tied to his ministry and, in fact, makes up the bulk of the content of the books – Mr. White is not content with deconverting Mormons but instead is intent on convincing Mormons that the truth lies in the Bible and in evangelical Protestant Christianity. In his long-winded effort to accomplish this aim, he quotes the Bible at length and spends a substantial amount of time trying to illustrate that the teachings of Mormonism are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Bible.

The book concludes with an invitation to Mormons to read the book and an invitation to other evangelical Christians to read the book and use it as the basis for ministering to Mormons.

Review:
I almost want to say I have mixed feelings about this book, but in truth, I don’t. There is one aspect of the book that is somewhat worthwhile and the rest is awful. The part that is worthwhile, however, is also not ground-breaking in any sense. The author does not contribute any new research toward uncovering the mottled history of Mormonism nor does he introduce any new arguments. He does do a decent job at times of repeating the existing arguments, relying very heavily on the work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner (see Changing World of Mormonism or Mormonism: Shadow or Reality – both are better treatises). So, the only redeeming quality of this book is that it occasionally does a good job of summarizing the work of other people.

Aside from that one positive, there really is everything to dislike about this book. Clearly, the biggest turn off for me is that the author sees problems with Mormonism but fails to see any problems with his own religious beliefs (admittedly I’m biased as an irreligious atheist). He is quick to point out the slightest possible drawback to Mormonism but when it comes to Christianity and its completely illogical beliefs surrounding an unknowable and completely contradictory supernatural being he fails to find any problems. Certainly some examples of his tortured logic and flawed reasoning are in order. For instance, on page 9 Mr. White says, “Note well, Elder Hahn, that the Holy Ghost will never give a testimony that is in conflict with that which He has inspired to be written in the Scriptures.” On the face of it, that seems to make sense. The problem, of course, is knowing who determines if the “testimony” given by the Holy Ghost is in conflict? The answer, unfortunately for Mr. White, is not a good one: whoever wants to. If there was just one Christian religion that uniformly interpreted the Bible, he might have a leg to stand on here. But given the preponderance of Bible-thumping Christian religions, obviously this logic is pure, unadulterated bullshit. The Holy Ghost will testify to whatever you want it to, because it is just your inner voice telling you what you want to hear. Given the claims by so many that the Holy Ghost supports their particular view of things, that, Mr. White, is the only logical explanation.

This leads to several additional flawed arguments. Mr. White takes as an assumption in the book that readers will believe the Bible is authoritative and that they are Christians (i.e., believe in the divinity of Jesus), regardless of their particular denominational affiliation. Those assumptions lead him to say things like, “We see, then, that the Apostles, just as the Lord Jesus, believed in the inerrancy of the Biblical text — that what they wrote contains no errors, no untruths” (p. 10 ). This is, of course, brilliantly idiotic. He is using the bible to prove the truthfulness of the bible. If I’m not mistaken, that is called “circular reasoning.” He is saying that since the apostles – in the bible – quoted the Old Testament – in the bible – this proves that the bible – in the bible – is inerrant – in the bible. In short, his logic is utterly and hopelessly flawed.

Mr. White does make a very meager attempt to bolster his claims that the Bible is an authoritative source, arguing that there are 25,000 or so hand-written manuscripts of the New Testament, many of which are in accordance (p. 11; do note, my page numberings are off given it was an electronic copy). What he doesn’t say forthrightly here is that these 25,000 manuscripts are mostly scraps that include a verse or two or maybe a chapter of a book. There are not 25,000 exact copies of the entire New Testament. If there were, and they all agreed perfectly, it would be a bit harder to argue that the whole thing was just made up. But, and this is nice of Mr. White, just a few pages later he admits that these scraps are not coherent and do not always agree. In fact, they disagree very often. And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the Biblical canon was voted upon by a group of Catholics and that there are numerous apocryphal books that have just as much historical authenticity as the biblical canon but didn’t make it into the bible because they disagreed with the beliefs of the voting committee. In short, Mr. White has pulled the wool over his eyes and locked himself in a dark room of ignorance – he is unwilling to admit that the one thing he holds as truth on this planet is a hodgepodge of myth, fiction, and fantasy written by a variety of scribes and frauds over several hundred years to propagate a fanciful tell and bolster the claims of a religion. In short, Mr. White is a pot calling the kettle of Mormonism black.

I actually have about 12 pages of notes from the book, but I won’t bore you with all of my criticisms. So, let me point out just a few more of the egregious examples of flawed thinking in the book. One I particular liked was Mr. White’s assertion on page 15 that when Elder Hahn attacks the legitimacy of the Bible he is joining, “ hands with atheists and other enemies of the Christian faith.” Nice “guilt by association” approach. Too bad that is also a logical fallacy. Just because you agree with someone who may or may not be a good person doesn’t mean your argument is flawed. Your argument can still be right, regardless of who else uses it.

In his defense of his interpretations of the bible, Mr. White periodically falls back upon the allegory vs. literal approach, “Latter-day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do not view the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are created in the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image” (p. 27). Sure, that’s a nice argument, but I have to ask, “How do you know, Mr. White, when the bible is allegorical and when is it literal?” I think I know his answer, even though he would never phrase it this way, “Whenever I need it to be allegorical to fall in line with my beliefs, it is.” Nice!

My last point and I’ll wrap things up. In one letter Mr. White focuses on what he calls “the gospel of Jesus Christ.” That gospel, for him, consists of three words, “God saves sinners” (p. 137). Technically, that isn’t a far cry from the gospel of Jesus Christ taught by Mormonism, but that’s a different issue. Where I really have a problem with Mr. White’s reasoning is when a social scientific understanding of “sin” comes into the equation. Sin is a social construction; it is a notion that is created for and in behalf of religious groups to warrant their existence. Without religion there is no sin and without sin there is no need for religions. In short, the very basis for Mr. White’s religious beliefs is a social construction that, in turn, leads his religion to claim it is necessary. If you stop allowing Mr. White to label actions as sins, there is no longer a need for the fictitious Jesus to save you from them. Of course, Mr. White, and other Christian leaders like him, have a vested interest in not letting that happen – that means they would actually have to go out and get a real job, contributing positively to society. Now wouldn’t that be a shame – doing real work instead of giving people neuroses about how an invisible sky-daddy is watching everything they do and counting their private actions against them in their efforts to return to live with him in his make-believe fantasy kingdom.

Overall, in light of the recent publication of Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins and the availability of the Tanners’ work online for free, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to read this book. It is far too long, the logic is flawed on every level, the tone is belittling, manipulative, and demeaning, and its aims are misguided. The letter-writing format gets repetitive and distracts from the arguments the author tries so desperately to make. I’m glad Mr. White feels a need to raise awareness about the problems with Mormonism, but replacing one flawed system with an even more flawed system is not the answer.

Twain, Mark. 2007. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. Pocket.

Rating:
10

Summary:
What a story!

Hank Morgan is a fiery shop boss in the Colt Arms Factory in New England during the late 1800s when he is knocke unconscious by another worker who gets the better of him during a fight. When Hank wakes up, he finds himself in Britain during the 7th century C.E. in the time of King Arthur. As it just so happens, before Hank can be burned at the stake for threatening to blot out the sun, the solar eclipse he predicted takes place and everyone in King Arthur’s royal court cowers at his command. Hank is given what was formerly Merlin the Magician’s position as chief executive and renamed The Boss. The Boss then begins to reform ancient Britain, introducing dynamite, fireworks, bicycles, electricity, telephones, etc.

But, as is only becoming of someone of his rank, he must inevitably go on a quest. It just so happens that a damsel in distress, Sandy, has come a-calling and has a mission for a knight. So, Hank embarks on a journey with Sandy and returns victoriously having saved a pen of pigs that used to be a queen and maidens but was mysteriously transformed, though only Sandy knows this.

Hank continues with his plans of reforming Britain, but lets slip another plan to the King that he wants to secretly go among the peasants as a commoner himself. The King likes the idea and signs on. They embark on a series of adventures that end with both of them being sold into slavery and very nearly being hung.

Due to a misheard comment several years earlier, Hank is forced to battle another knight who was offended by the remark. In an effort to crush the ancient norms of chivalry, Hank not only battles the knight (using a lasso), but challenges all of the knighthood of Britain. His challenge pays off when he pulls out his six-shooters and lays waste to ten of the knights, the rest breaking ranks and running.

After this incident, three years of bounty follow during which Hank’s reforms become common place – except in the Catholic Church. Ultimately Hank is deceived by the Church, King Arthur is betrayed by his son Mordred and the greatest knight of England, Lancelot, who has been in love with Guinevere for ages. When all of this comes to a head, both Mordred and Arthur are dead and the nation is without leadership except for the Church.

Of course Hank can’t let this situation stand. Gathering up his very best men, he destroys his wonderful factories and holes up in a cave. The last of the knights, totaling some thirty-thousand, come against him and 53 of his best men (52 and Clarence). Nearly all of the knights are destroyed. But what Hank and Clarence hadn’t considered is what the decaying men’s bodies would do to them seeing as how they can’t leave the cave.

In the end, Merlin, the magician that has plagued Hank since his arrival, sneaks into the cave disguised as a woman and casts a spell on Hank, causing him to sleep for 13 centuries or until his own time again. After the spell, Merlin is killed and the story ends.

Review:
There is no doubt in my mind that Samuel Clemens is one of the greatest writers of all time. This book is not only superbly written, but absolutely hilarious and remarkably insightful. Some of Clemens’ insights into humanity are astonishing.

The story itself is pretty good, though the ending is a little bit well, open. You aren’t sure exactly what happened, though you have a pretty good idea. I would love to read something about ‘the writing of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court’, it likely draws upon Rip Van Winkle as well as numerous other writers and writings of the day.

There is also a lot of commentary about the Catholic Church and its oppressive nature. Whether this is based in early American anti-Catholic sentiment or just plain anti-religious sentiment, I don’t know (both are possibilities considering the time period). Perhaps the aforementioned book about this book, when written, will answer that question. I chose to look at it as anti-religious sentiment and thoroughly enjoyed it throughout.

Overall, this book is a definite must read for everyone. I recall having read a children’s shortened version when I was about ten, but reading in its original form is a treat. Read this book.

Macionis, John J. 2007. Sociology. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Rating:
8

Review:
Very well designed introductory text

Having just taught a course using this text I do have some opinions about it.

First, the positive. Macionis has gone to great lengths to make the text interesting. One way in which he has done this is by scattering numerous relevant pictures and artwork throughout every chapter; I actually had one student comment specifically about the artwork and how it was well chosen. He has also included a number of very informative maps, tables and graphs, all in vibrant colors, that are designed in such a fashion that even first year undergraduate students with little or no background in sociology can understand them.

As for the coverage of the text, it is fairly comprehensive, hitting upon all of the major social institutions of interest to sociologists and sub-disciplines within the field of sociology. The text is also quite up to date for the most part, including references to recent world events (e.g. 9/11).

Now for the negative. I should note at this point that despite having more critiques than compliments, I did find the text to be the best of a number of current introductory texts, these are just ways that I felt the book could have been improved.

First, the information isn’t flawless. Of course part of this criticism includes the fact that I disagree with the author on some points, but there are also several instances where the author makes claims without references to back them up and other claims that are either dated or simply erroneous. I don’t know that a textbook will ever be able to adequately cover all of the information necessary and do so flawlessly, so to critique the book on this measure is probably asking too much. Besides, with how fluid sociological understanding is some of the claims in the text with which I disagree are controversial topics anyway. Perhaps to remedy this Macionis could attempt to incorporate both sides of the argument as he tries to do when discussing sociological theory; at least, he does so to a degree (see my critique of his coverage social theory below).

Second, the attempts at offering a global perspective are rather limited. Again, this may not be something that is easily remedied because information about large parts of the world just isn’t as available as information about the U.S., or available at all for that matter. And, of course, the text is written to be an introductory text in the U.S., so to focus on the U.S. does make sense in that regard. I found this to be particularly lacking in light of the fact that Macionis claims to be something of a world traveler. Even though he includes occasional snippets from his journeys, there are numerous opportunities to incorporate a more global perspective that are overlooked. In an attempt to discourage ethnocentric American attitudes it would have been nice to have more information about the rest of the world and greater attempts could have been made to incorporate that information.

Third, the coverage of sociological theories is actually rather limited. There is no chapter looking just at sociological theories. Though the ‘dominant’ theories are included throughout (Structural-Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Theory), there is absolutely no discussion of Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis, Rational Choice Theory (there is a brief mention of this), World Systems Theory, Political Processes Theory, etc. I can understand why the coverage would be limited: Exposing novices to too many theories would likely confuse them and there is limited space in the text, but to fail to even mention or briefly summarize many of these theories, though their advocates are fewer than those of the ‘dominant’ theories, dismisses a large body of understanding in the discipline.

My last criticism (I do have more, but I doubt anyone wants to read more) is relating to the supplementary materials included on the companion CD-ROM. The CD does have some very useful information and a few exercises that might be useful to the students. However, it also includes some word games that I thought would be more appropriate for 8th graders than college students. Also, because I chose to present the course material using PowerPoint I would have preferred to have been able to copy and past some of the illustrative maps. However, all of the maps included on the supplementary CD are in Flash and can’t be easily imported into PowerPoint. They would work great if you want to switch in between the two while teaching the class, but they don’t work together very well.

Overall, the text is pretty comprehensive, well-written, and engaging. I don’t particularly like making students pay this much for a text, but in order to get the engaging photos, artwork, and colorful graphs (which some would argue are worthless but I find to be helpful) you have to shell out the cash. Is the text worth it? Well, I guess it depends on your approach to introduction to sociology. If you would rather cover some very specific areas in depth rather than many areas broadly, you would be better off with a different text or a reader of your own creation. Or, if you don’t belong to one of the three predominant theoretical approaches, continuously explaining your approach because Macionis doesn’t incorporate it may become rather tedious. If you don’t fall into either of these categories you would probably find the text to be very useful.

Scupin, Raymond. 2007. Religion and Culture: An Anthropological Focus. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall.

Rating:
4

Summary:
Lot of info; not all accurate

The book is a collection of essays covering the anthropology of religion, ranging from theories to descriptions of the major world religions to their histories.

Review:
The book is very long and covers a lot of material. Alone it could serve as the text for a course on the anthropology of religion. As I had two books for the course I took, I didn’t read the entire book (it’s over 400 very dense pages). But the material I did read, mostly the chapters by Scupin himself, were not very impressive.

Two things bothered me. First, Scupin doesn’t ever mention rationalization or secularization in his discussion of religious modernization. It’s as though Scupin doesn’t want to consider late 19th centuries ideas about the eventual decline and disappearance of religion. I got the impression that Scupin was writing either to express his beliefs or to appeal to a religious audience. Even if he doesn’t agree with the ideas they merit discussion.

The second thing that bothered me was Scupin’s treatment of the oppressive elements of religion. Understandably, scholars are supposed to be objective and, ideally, they will treat religions fairly. Scupin, however, presents many of these things in a positive light. For instance, on p. 414 he discusses the resurgence of the wearing of the hijab among Muslim women. Scupin argues that this is a demonstration of Muslim women’s dissatisfaction with Western colonialism. There is certainly a degree of this, but there are other elements to it and, it isn’t universally an option for women. To argue that it is just a political statement is to misconstrue what can be an oppressive element of certain cultures.

Overall, though the book is informative and contains a great deal of information, the treatment isn’t entirely objective and can, at times, misconstrue elements of religions. I should also note the the index isn’t very comprehensive. If you choose to use the book for a course in the anthropology of religion, I would suggest making it the sole course text. However, I would also suggest that you supplement the text with information on the stuff that is missing (e.g. secularization and rationalization), as the book’s treatment isn’t complete.

King, Stephen. 2007. Blood And Smoke. Unabridged. Simon & Schuster Audio.

Rating:
8

Summary:
good short stories, but that’s all they are

“Lunch at the Gotham Café” – Steve Davis shows up for a lunch meeting with his ex-wife and her lawyer but ends up facing down a psycho maitre’d who goes berserk for no reason.

“1408″ – Mike Enslin, a best-selling author of a number of ghost story books (he is actually a ghost-story debunker) decides to spend the night in what is supposed to be a haunted hotel room in New York City. A skeptical introduction turns into a nightmare as Mike finds out that this one is the real deal.

“In the Deathroom” – Fletcher, a U.S. citizen in Central America, is brought in by the police of the country because of his affiliation with some insurgents. He is introduced to a torture device, but pulls a quick one and gets away, then uses the device on his captors.

Review:
These were pretty good stories. As is the case with most short stories, there isn’t much depth to these stories, but they are pretty interesting nonetheless. I would definitely recommend them for anyone who likes Stephen King and is looking for some good short stories.