Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Hinckley, Bryant S. 1958. That ye might have joy. Bookcraft.

Rating:
4

Summary:
Companion volume to “…not by Bread Alone”; pretty much the same thing

The book is made up of about 120 one-page thoughts on subjects ranging from education to success to politics to religion.

Review:
Having read the companion volume not to long ago, I’m going to use many of the same comments for this volume. First, once again the thoughts don’t seem to be in any particular order. Some are inspired by quotes from others or are almost entirely a quote from other authors. And, once again, some of the ‘profound’ thoughts aren’t actually contributed by Mr. Hinckley.

Also, similar to the earlier book, there are a lot of quotes about how superior the United States is to other countries (very ethnocentric); perhaps I should be a bit lenient considering the time period in which these thoughts were written (just after World War II). Nevertheless, he really does seem to have some deep fixation with U.S. superiority. I’m all for thinking the U.S. is a great country, but it is far from superior to other countries in most ways (the exception being militarily, which I’m not sure is something to be proud of).

I was also less forgiving of some of the religion-oriented thoughts this time. For instance, Hinckley writes, “No man will rise high who jeers at sacred things… Wherever or whenever there is a lack of reverence, there is a reversion to the baser instincts of man, which is followed by a loss of self-respect, remorse and disappointment” (p. 40). I laughed out loud when I read this. I guess this could be rephrased, ‘if you aren’t religious or at least don’t think religious things should be respected, you suck.’ Well, I think many religious things are silly (e.g., Why revere the tool used to kill your God? The cross. I’ve never understood this idea, but I don’t claim to know everything.), so I guess I suck. Damn!

There was also the incredibly wrong assertion made about the speed of a fast pitch in baseball, “The batter stands at the plate with the ball speeding toward him at the rate of 150 miles per hour” (p. 89). Once again, some leeway should be given considering they didn’t have radar guns to clock pitches back in the 1950s, but I couldn’t help but wonder who was pitching back then :) Wow, what an arm!

There are at least two more things worth mentioning. First, the author, whether he realizes it or not, is in many ways a Marxist. For instance, this quote appears to be lifted straight out of a Karly Marx essay, “The creative instinct is deep in the human soul and its reward is satisfaction and joy” (p. 30). Of course Marx would have left out the ‘soul’ part, but he definitely saw the creative instinct as being the most important part of being human. There was an additional thought that really resembled Marx’s ideas, “One hundred years ago four out of five persons were self-employed. Today four out of five people work for others. As a result, the significance of the individual is submerged” (p. 104). Once again, I’m not sure the author realized it, but with thoughts like these, he is nothing short of a Marxist. Woohoo! (I’m a Marxist too, so I can cheer.)

Finally, there was one good thought that I found worthy of writing down, “A part of the creed of the Optimist’s Club reads: “To make all of your friends feel that there is something in them”” (p. 43). I don’t claim to fully understand what Hinckley (or the Optimist’s Club) means here, but the way I interpreted it, I thought it was good advice.

Overall, the book is really kind of laborious to read, despite only taking me about 1 hour from start to finish, because there is no logical connection from thought to thought. Also, the overt ethnocentricity started to get on my nerves. I wouldn’t recommend the book for, well, pretty much anyone, except right wing, god-fearing extremists, but they probably wouldn’t even like it because it doesn’t talk about violence enough. Oh well, it’s out of print anyone, so what does it matter.

O’Dea, Thomas F. 1957. The Mormons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rating:
10

Summary:
Amazing how much he fits into one book

The book is a sociological analysis of Mormonism, written, obviously, in the 1950s. The book covers the origins of the religion, a brief account of the history of the Mormons, the beliefs, and some of the more unique elements of Mormon life. Each of these components is contextualized to facilitate an understanding of how it came about and what factors led to its development. While the treatment of Mormonism in this book is not exhaustive, it is close; as close as one may have come in the 1950s.

Review:
It’s no wonder this is still considered the definitive sociological analysis of Mormonism nearly 50 years after it was published. Not only does the author illustrate a remarkable familiarity with the religion, which is amazing in its own right considering he was a Catholic who grew up in the eastern U.S., but the author is also remarkably insightful and many of his insights are still accurate, despite the veritable flood of research on the Mormons conducted since this book was published.

It’s possible that one of the reasons this book remains an authoritative source 50 years after its publication is because it takes a naturalistic tone – as opposed to the faith-promoting perspective common among Mormon scholars (though some are better at muting their pro-Mormon perspective than others). For instance, O’Dea presents his analysis with comments like the following, “There is one instance when one suspects that the tension and excitement of the revivalistic present tense [early 1800s] actually got away from the author [Joseph Smith] and that he hurried to regain himself and to keep from exposing himself before his scribe [probably Oliver Cowdery]. When Abinadi is preaching in a prophetic passage, he declares: “And now if Christ had not come into the world, speaking of things to come as though they had already come, there could have been no redemption” (Mosiah 16:6)”(p. 40; see also the quote below from p. 43) The implication, without a forthright admittance, is that Joseph Smith was simply making up The Book of Mormon as he went along (if he were truly translating, he would not have needed to ‘correct’ himself). Few authors have attempted to compend the social scientific research on Mormons into one volume. Of those attempts, this is likely the most naturalistic. This characteristic, in my opinion, also makes this book one of the better attempts.

O’Dea should also be commended for developing a compelling sociological explanation of the origins of Mormonism. O’Dea’s description of the environment of upstate New York and the ‘burned over district’ logically leads to the conclusion that Mormonism resulted not from divine intervention but from the surrounding socio-cultural milieu.

Another important though seldom mentioned idea of O’Dea’s is his discussion of the importance of Mormon temple worship, “It has the effect of increasing the loyalty of the church member by initiating him into secrets and thereby making him a privileged sharer in holy mysteries and by his promising in impressive ceremonial circumstances to be loyal to the church and obedient to its priesthood” (p. 59). While this idea is no doubt worthy of additional research and verification through empirical analysis, having been part of the ‘elite’ membership of the religion and having studied it, I am convinced that Mormon temple worship certainly fulfills this function. It may fill additional organizational roles for the religion, e.g., in-group solidarity, but the additional functions likely derive from the participation in the secret society of the temple and membership among the elite temple goers who are seen as Mormonism’s ‘worthy’.

Having pointed out some of the ways this book excels, let me point out some of the problems. First, there is no substantive discussion of race or sex issues in the Mormon religion. I am speculating here, but I believe his glossing over sex/gender issues in Mormonism likely has something to do with the predominantly conservative worldview at the time (see quote from p. 250). Keep in mind this book was written in the 1950s, at least a decade before the second wave of the women’s movement gathered a lot of steam. It was more common then than it is today to advocate Victorian ideals. O’Dea was likely influenced by the times in which he lived. As a result, he basically concludes that, while Mormon women cannot participate in the actual leadership of the church, they do have lots of stuff to keep them busy. It therefore could be argued that Mormon women are not treated poorly and actually have a degree of equality (the differences in roles and responsibilities aren’t overlooked). Despite the leeway I am willing to give O’Dea on this issue, the missing discussion of gender issues in the Mormon religion is a major short-coming of this book.

But perhaps an even bigger oversight than failing to see gender issues within Mormonism as worthy of discussion is the complete failure to discuss Mormonism’s race issues. Where context could arguably account for the missing discussion of gender roles within Mormonism, O’Dea’s oversight of the looming confrontation of the LDS Church with race issues is surprising given the events taking place while he was writing this book. The 1950s is typically seen as one of if not the the most racially active decades in the twentieth century. That O’Dea failed to mention the Mormon position on race is nothing less than shocking. In discussing the issues facing the Mormon Church, race was by far the biggest one when this book was being written. That should have been followed by gender (as it was, chronologically followed by it in the form of the Equal Rights Amendment confrontation of the late 1970s and early 1980s), and only then should intellectuals have been highlighted as the threat to the religion looming on the horizon they legitimately are. I don’t want to give the impression that O’Dea’s work is somehow flawed or weakened by not including a discussion of race, but it is a significant oversight on his part.

Less an oversight than a topic that could have been covered in greater detail is O’Dea’s point that the primary theme of The Book of Mormon is the apostasy/repentance cycle (p. 28). While I agree that this is the primary theme of the book, what is lacking from O’Dea’s discussion is an exploration of how or whether this has played out in modern Mormonism. It could potentially be argued that this cycle did play out a few times during the early days of the religion, or at least allegations of this cycle occurring were used by Joseph Smith and, arguably, Brigham Young, to control their followers. But since the end of Brigham Young’s tenure as president of the religion, there do not appear to have been any clear instances of such a cycle. O’Dea doesn’t mention the use of this theme by Brigham Young or Joseph Smith, nor does he explain how this them is relevant for the religion of the 1950s. Picking up the idea where O’Dea left off, I believe the theme is now repackaged by the religion at a strictly individual level. No longer does the entire body of the religion pass through these cycles but rather individuals do. As a result, The Book of Mormon’s predominant theme becomes a powerful teaching tool for individual worthiness and to discourage pride and apostasy. Additional study of this topic is likely in order.

There are also a number of issues and topics covered in this book that are either outdated or have had more information brought to bear on them. For instance, O’Dea discusses some of the auxiliaries of the LDS Church and their roles in the religion (see p. 182). While these auxiliaries still exist in a certain form today, the creation of the correlation committee during the 1960s has basically done away with their autonomy. It would now be much more accurate to describe the LDS church as having a centralized authority in virtually all matters, including The Relief Society, Primary, and its various publications. All of these are overseen by the priesthood leadership of the religion, making a discussion of the role of auxiliaries in the religion virtually a moot point.

Another outdated topic covered in great detail by O’Dea is the control of water in the Intermountain West. O’Dea ties the use of irrigation to the Mormon leadership in an insightful way, but the Mormon religion no longer exercises significant control over water rights in Utah. As is likely the case with most parts of the nation that rely on irrigation, water rights are either privately controlled or governmentally managed. In short, while the discussion is an interesting analysis of Mormon fraternity and cooperation, it is no longer relevant to the Mormonism of today.

Another topic briefly discussed by O’Dea is the Pearl of Great Price, which O’Dea notes was alleged to have been translated from ancient Egyptian papyri (see p. 124). Later developments have made his discussion of these books less informative on some levels. The original papyri were discovered during the 1960s and found to contain Egyptian breathing texts, not the book of Abraham as was claimed by Joseph Smith. Ergo, to continue giving credence to the idea that Joseph Smith actually translated a book written by Abraham is to ignore the significant evidence to the contrary. That this phony book has and continues to play a role in defining Mormon theology should not be doubted, but any honest history of Mormonism should note the actual contents of the papyri.

If one were to attempt a comprehensive sociological treatment of Mormonism today, additional topics that should be discussed that either where not issues during O’Dea’s time or were glossed over by O’Dea might include: church and state relations (specifically in Utah), the changing church hierarchy and structure, the global church, church welfare, Mormon women and sexuality, Mormon growth, Mormonism’s retrenchment toward religious fundamentalism, the new Mormon intellectual groups (e.g., Sunstone, Dialogue, The Mormon History Association, etc.), splinter groups, changing Mormon demographics, Mormons and race, Mormons and gender, and the changing conception of the Book of Mormon (i.e., a discussion of the new ‘limited geography theory’ vs. the ‘hemispheric model’).

A few additional points are in order. One important point relevant for today’s revisionist Mormon apologists is to note that O’Dea, in discussing The Book of Mormon and Mormon theology draws the firm conclusion that The Book of Mormon presents and the leadership of the religion espouses the hemispheric model – i.e. the events recounted in The book of Mormon took place in the entire Western Hemisphere, including North, South, and Central America. The following quotes is illustrative of O’Dea’s understanding of this position during the 1950s, “The rebellion of Laman and Lemuel and their people is punished by their being cursed with a dark skin, and from these Lamanites the American Indians are believed to have descended” (p. 22). The hemispheric understanding of The Book of Mormon events was the understanding of the religion and its leaders up until the 1970s, when John Sorenson proposed his limited geography model. There is, of course, ample evidence to illustrate the prevalence of this understanding prior to Sorenson’s revisionism. It would serve Mormon apologists well to admit what they are trying to do, namely, develop a completely new understanding of The Book of Mormon that includes re-writing all historical references to the hemispheric model. Of course, they feel they have to re-write and re-interpret historical references to the hemispheric model because they are striving for a coherent and consistent worldview. Unfortunately, this includes a little ‘lying for the Lord’ to make past prophetic utterances to the contrary work in their favor. O’Dea became aware of and reported the hemispheric model for a reason – because that is what the membership and leadership believed during that time period.

While critical, this review has attempted to point out the insights of O’Dea’s work while simultaneously laying the groundwork for understandings of Mormonism that should be supplemented by reference to the still growing body of social scientific literature on the Mormons. O’Dea’s analysis should serve as a launching point for any serious student of Mormonism. Of course, in the 50 years that have passed since O’Dea wrote this book, a considerable body of literature has made significant headway in addressing many of the lacunae outlined in this review. I highly recommend this book for a number of reasons, but particularly because of O’Dea’s naturalistic tone, critical eye, and, his occasional wit, as is illustrated by this final quote, “As Brigham Young said later in Utah, making use of a hardly appropriate metaphor, “We must gird up our loins and fulfill this, just as we would any other duty [polygamy]” (p. 61).

Hinckley, Bryant Stringham. 1955. Not by bread alone. Bookcraft.

Rating:
4

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

The format of this book is not conducive to summary, so I will forego doing that. The book is made up of about 120 one 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 Hinckley’s comments on the thought. As a result, most of the ‘profound’ thoughts aren’t actually contributed by Mr. Hinckley.

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.

There are also a lot of quotes about how superior the United States is to other countries (very ethnocentric) and a lot of the language gives the imagery of conquest and the pursuit of perfection – goals I found more psychologically damaging than spiritually uplifting.

As the advice and thoughts jump from topic to topic, there are some resultant contradictions, but surprisingly not many. It was actually kind of refreshing, however, to hear a Mormon quote someone other than Mormons. Many of the quotes are by non-Mormon writers and philosophers.

Overall, the book seems to be the final thoughts of an aged, mildly educated, and somewhat well-read individual. You get the impression that his children went through all of these thoughts with him as he lay dying in his death bed. I don’t know that I can necessarily recommend something that you should read instead. But, this one probably isn’t worth reading.

Hubbard, L. Ron. 1950. Dianetics: the modern science of mental health. Ron Hubbard. New Era Publications.

Rating:
1

Summary:
A jargon-laden repackaging of Freudian psychoanalysis combined with a non-falsifiable philosophy; and this somehow results in religion? I don’t think so…

The book begins with a number of exalted claims about the efficacy of Dianetic therapy. It then proceeds to lay out the underlying ideology/philosophy of Dianetics, “The goal of life can be considered to be infinite survival. Man, as a life form, can be demonstrated to obey in all his actions and purposes the one command: “Survive!”” (p. 34). The reason this is a philosophy and not a scientific theory or theology (or fact, as Hubbard would claim) is because: (1) it is non-falsifiable, which scientific theories must be; and (2) it does not relate to the supernatural, which theology does. Thus, the underlying idea driving Dianetics is not a scientific theory nor a theology, but a philosophy

Once the underlying philosophy of Dianetics is presented, the author proceeds to outline the concepts of Dianetecs. Basically, the goal of Dianetics is to make people ‘Clears’ (p. 27 ). Clears, according to Hubbard, are, for all intents and purposes, perfect. They have absolute control over their minds; they never get sick; they don’t make mistakes; they have no psychosomatic disorders; and they can recall anything and everything from their memory. But the real kicker is that they no longer have any engrams. Engrams are, according to Hubbard, “…the single and sole source of aberration and psychosomatic illness… In “normal people,” in the neurotic and insane, the removal of these engrams wholly or in part, without other therapy, has uniformly brought about a state greatly superior to the current norm. No need was found for any theory or therapy other than those given in this book for the treatment of all psychic or psychosomatic ills” (p. 102). In other words, in order to become a Clear you must undergo Dianetic therapy (called ‘auditing’) to remove your engrams.

The explanation of the concepts involved in Dianetic therapy takes up the middle portion of the book. The last section of the book explains the process of Dianetic therapy or ‘auditing.’ The book seems designed to serve both as an introduction to Dianetics as a philosophy and therapy but also as a guide book to the individuals that serve as ‘auditors’ (a.k.a. therapists). In the version of the book I have, there is also a brief history of Dianetics, which is inaccurate, along with a glossary of Dianetics terminology, which is unfortunately necessary.

Review:
This is an all around terrible book. It has no redeeming qualities. I am not an advocate of banning books for publication, though this one is certainly a worthy candidate. But because I believe most people can make sound decisions when presented with the evidence, I recommend that all future publications of this book contain a warning label that reads:

Real scientific advancements since the publication of this book have illustrated that L. Ron Hubbard had no idea what he was talking about. There is no sound scientific basis for any of the claims made by L. Ron Hubbard. This book should be read primarily as a historical novelty rather than as a guidebook for mental health. Engage in Dianetic Therapy at your own risk. You have been warned!

So, what is wrong with this book? Where to start…

Science
If someone has to claim he is doing ‘science’ as often as Hubbard does in Dianetics (a book which has not 1 single scientific reference, mind you), you can rest assured it isn’t science. I think my favorite quote comes from p. 78, “These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.” Hubbard repeats this claim innumerable times throughout the text (for just a few examples, see pages: 12, 49, 82-83, 154, 190, 194-195, 196). So just what are these ‘scientific facts’ that Hubbard claims? Here’s a good one:

A society which suppresses sex as evil and which is so aberrated that any member of it will attempt an abortion is a society which is dooming itself to ever-rising insanity. For it is a scientific fact that abortion attempts are the most important factor in aberration. The child on whom the abortion is attempted is condemned to live with murderers whom he reactively knows to be murderers through all his weak and helpless youth! (pp. 194-195)

Basically what Hubbard is claiming here is that a fetus that happens to survive an abortion attempt (which is an absurd proposition today considering the methodology used in abortion), will be scarred emotionally and psychologically for the rest of his/her life. Hubbard uses examples of women drinking acids or using copper coat hangers to perform abortions. While I would agree that the use of bizarre, unconventional methods of abortion may result in physiologically damaged children (which may or may not impair them psychologically), current, approved forms of abortion result in no children (that is, really, the point…). As I’ll discuss in more detail below, I think Hubbard’s views on abortion may be the result of a pet-peeve Hubbard dropped into his philosophy because he had a personal experience with it.

Another of Hubbard’s ridiculous ‘scientific’ claims is that Dianetics is the cure-all for pretty much everything, ranging from the common cold to cancer and arthritis,

Arthritis, dermatitis, allergies, asthma, some coronary difficulties, eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, etc., form a very small section of the psychosomatic catalog. Bizarre aches and pains in various portions of the body are generally psychosomatic. Migraine headaches are psychosomatic and, with the others, are uniformly cured by Dianetic therapy. (And the word cured is used in its fullest sense.) Just how many physical errors are psychosomatic depends upon how many conditions the body can generate out of the factors in the engrams. For example, the common cold has been found to be psychosomatic. Clears do not get colds. (p. 135)

Any even mildly informed individual will recognize these claims for what they are – absolutely false. Each of the above has been shown to be related to very specific things, none of which have to do with psychosomatic problems or engrams (though, admittedly, ulcers can be exacerbated by stress…). Dianetics, pure and simple, is not a science. Without empirical evidence to back up the claims made in this book, this is nothing more than philosophy and quackery. Dianetics is no more a ‘science of the mind’ than my foot is a foundation for astrophysics.

Literary Style and Readability
I found it remarkably ironic that at the beginning of the book Hubbard claimed he was going to use simple language so anyone can understand what he was saying. This book is written in anything but simple language. There are two primary pieces of clutter that makes this book a chore to read. First, he introduces so much jargon (e.g., Clears, aberrees, engrams, auditing, release, basic-basic, etc.) that if someone were to pick up the book and jump to, say, page 450, they would not understand a single paragraph. What’s more, Hubbard uses some of these words in multiple ways (engrams in particular), resulting in obfuscated jargon. This is particularly annoying considering many of the words Hubbard creates for Dianetics are similar, if not identical, to concepts used in classic Freudian analysis (e.g., repression, abnormal, fixated, etc. – more on the similarities between these two approaches below).

The second component of the book that makes it nearly unbearable to read is the incessant ‘word dropping.’ Hubbard loves to make references to things that are wholly irrelevant to what he is discussing (e.g., Torquemada – p. 342, Gaslight – p. 334, jub-jub bird – p. 281). To the educated reader, he reads like a game of scrabble between two pedants. He usually provides explanations or definitions for these useless additions to the text, but it’s more distracting than enlightening. Of course, the reason he does this is obvious – he wants to come across as smart, knowledgeable, and an expert. But to anyone with a college education, you’ll be able to see this for what it really is – a hornswoggler purloining people’s money using chicanery. (Translation: he’s a crook that is using big words to deceive people; see, anyone can do this, but if you are going to claim you are going to use simple language, you should…)

Finally, the sections and chapters do not have summaries. To the individual reading the book out of passing interest and not as though it were scripture, summaries are invaluable as they encapsulate the gist of sections of the book so you don’t have to read everything closely. Why Hubbard chose not to include summaries is beyond me, but it means you have to read the book much closer than you would a book that is well-written.

Dianetic Therapy – Auditing
So, Hubbard’s approach isn’t scientific and reading his book isn’t enjoyable, but is his therapy worth a hill of beans? No. But not for the reasons you might think. What you have to understand about Dianetics is that it is nothing more than repackaged Freudian psychoanalysis with some really bizarre twists. Basically, Hubbard believes things that happened in people’s pasts, primarily their childhoods, are the cause of their psychosomatic and psychological problems in the present. While his claims about colds and arthritis being psychosomatic are obviously ridiculous, there seems to be a great deal of truth to the notion that psychological difficulties can have roots in the past, particularly during childhood (which is the basis for Freudian psychoanalysis). In this sense, Hubbard is just stealing from Freud. Thus, the reason his approach is worthless is because it doesn’t offer anything new that is actually worthwhile. While not everything Freud proposed has been shown to be accurate or beneficial, Freud’s basic ideas have been illustrated to be worthwhile. In short, there is absolutely no need for Hubbard’s Dianetics, especially considering how terribly he convolutes simple psychoanalytic notions.

For instance, Hubbard can’t just steal from Freud… He has to one-up him. While Freud claimed psychological problems can have origins in childhood, Hubbard pushes the roots of problems further back into a person’s history, so far back, in fact, that it almost seems like Hubbard has to be joking. But, alas, I assure you that he is not. Hubbard claims that people can begin developing engrams (psychological problems) as early as conception and believes that people can even remember being sperm or ova. Gotcha Freud! Top that!

In addition to potentially developing engrams as early as conception, Hubbard has some absolutely asinine notions about consciousness. He basically believes that whenever someone is sleeping, hypnotized, or otherwise unconscious, they are remarkably susceptible to developing engrams (children in the womb are also susceptible; see p. 130). His solution is to demand absolute silence in all of these situations, “In passing, it should be mentioned that only absolute silence, utter silence and tomblike silence should attend an operation or injury of any kind” (p. 171).

One example Hubbard gives of the necessity of silence (p. 173) is the idea that if two people get into a fight while a third person is unconscious or semi-conscious (e.g., in the dentist’s chair breathing nitrous oxide), that person will invariably go insane. I was so impressed by Hubbard’s argument here that I reduced it to a formula: Happy A + Sad B = Crazy C. Pythagoras has nothing on Hubbard ;) This is just about the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Returning to the comparison between Freud and Hubbard, Hubbard also talks a lot about sex. He doesn’t develop Oedipus complexes, but he certainly has his fair share of sexual fixations. I would submit that a full-third of the engrams discussed by Hubbard have something to do with sex, forced sex, rape, abortion, or some other violent sexual encounter. While I’m the first to admit that sex (and rape, in particular) can have drastic consequences on the human psyche, I am not a big believer in the idea that most psychological problems boil down to sex. But, once again, I think what we have here is a personal experience of Hubbard’s that is being forced into his philosophical therapy where it doesn’t belong.

But what makes Dianetics so fascinating in the end is the fact that Hubbard claims it is not just a form of therapy, “Dianetics is not psychiatry. It is not psychoanalysis. It is not psychology. It is not personal relations. It is not hypnotism. It is a science of mind and needs about as much licensing and regulation as the application of the science of physics. Those things which are legislated against are a matter of law because they may in some way injure individuals or society” (p. 245). I think I agree with Hubbard here; Dianetics is not therapy. It is quackish ideology laced with superstition and rooted in nonsense.

But Hubbard does make one good point that I think should be the key message derived from this book – those things that are potentially harmful should be regulated. Considering how ridiculous Dianetics is and the fact that Hubbard believes any Joe Schmoe after reading Dianetics should be considered a fully-qualified auditor that can treat psychological disorders, someone should be regulating and licensing these imbeciles! Who knows what damage scientologists are doing to their patients? In fact, I think after I finish this review I’m going to send a copy of it to my local congressional representative and encourage them to look into the regulation of Dianetics therapy ‘cause what they propose to do to people is pretty scary!

Several Miscellaneous Points
First, the book claims, at the end, that ‘50 million copies are in print.’ I’ve always hated claims like this about The Book of Mormon and The Bible. These claims are meaningless when the sponsoring organization (The Mormon Church and innumerable Christian churches) literally print these books and give them away free of charge. Claiming that 50 million copies of Dianetics are in print is meaningless because Scientologists print the copies and give them away. In fact, the copy I read was given to me free. Just because they’ve printed a gazillion copies doesn’t mean the book is worth anything. In fact, the actual price of the paper pulp is worth more than the contents of the book. My suggestion – recycle the book. Reading it certainly isn’t worthwhile.

Second, Hubbard makes an error that has been clearly refuted by Stephen J. Gould in ‘The Mismeasure of Man’: he reifies theoretical constructs. In short, Hubbard comes up with ideas about how the brain works then claims that actual components of the physical brain control the brain in accordance with his constructs. His constructs may be useful for understanding how we think, but they have no basis in the physiology of the human brain. This is just one more example of the ridiculous claims of Hubbard; he really didn’t have a clue, despite his ability to write very big books.

Third, I wonder if anyone has ever studied Hubbard in relation to this book. I’m just speculating here, but I’ll bet he had a rough childhood and this book illustrates how he, personally, dealt with his past in such a way that he actually turned out to be a successful author. But, in addition to this being how he coped with his past, I’m thinking there is more to the therapy. I’d wager that Hubbard was mildly autistic and this was the basis for his fixation on silence. Many autistic individuals are particularly sensitive to certain noises. For most people, when they are unconscious, they are simply that – unaware of the world around them. But for someone that is as fixated on the detriments of noise as is Hubbard, I’m thinking there has to be something else going on. Finally, Hubbard’s views on homosexuality, sex, and abortion seem to indicate that there may also have been something else going on here. Perhaps he just had bad experiences in these areas, but whatever it was, he certainly had some problems along these lines.

Finally, the book is blatantly elitist and prejudicial. Hubbard goes so far as to claim that Clears are “on whom our racial future depends” (p. 196). Additionally, he believes more primitive people (African tribes, specifically, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he included races other than whites) are inherently more psychologically disturbed than are whites (p. 200). So, not only does Hubbard have some very strange notions about humanity in general, but he also believes certain groups of people are better than others.

Conclusion
I apologize for the length of this review, but I think it was necessary. This is, after all, the primary text for an entire religious movement. However, after having read this book, I cannot understand why that is. The primary reason I took the time to read this book was because it is associated with Scientology, which is argued to be a religion. But unless a great deal of theology has been added to the ideas in Dianetics, I fail to see why it should be categorized as a religion. Classic definitions of religion include a notion of the supernatural or some means of relating to it. Other than the occasional off-handed reference to God, Dianetics does not address religion whatsoever. Thus, unless there’s something I’m missing, I don’t think categorizing Scientology as a religion is accurate. It should, instead, be considered an organization for practitioners of Dianetics therapy akin to Alcoholics Anonymous or Sex Addicts Anonymous. As such, it should certainly be regulated. Of course there is the MLM aspect of Scientology, but since I am not particularly familiar with that aspect, I’m not going to comment on it at this point.

Overall, this book is worth only the cost of the paper pulp it is printed on. Your time would be better spent watching television than reading this book (and I don’t think all that highly of just watching television). At best it will confuse you; at worst, it will lead you to contact an auditor, who is, in my estimation, more than likely to really screw you up. I have to admit I liked some of L. Ron Hubbard’s science fiction, but his personal philosophy on life is better left in the past than proselytized as the science of the future.

Evans, Richard L. 1945. … and “the spoken word,”. First ed. Harper & Brothers.

Rating:
3

Summary:
an occasional good thought

The book is a collection of thoughts on various subjects. The thoughts went with the weekly broadcasts of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The author is the person (turned General Authority) that wrote and read the thoughts during the broadcast. The broadcast is called “Music and the Spoken Word”, this is the ‘spoken word’ portion.

Review:
I actually gave this one two stars, mostly for some witty thoughts and sayings and for one essay that I’m sure the Mormon Church would never have allowed published today, but it is great.

So, I’ll start with the witty thoughts:

“We might well think twice before offering a kingdom for a horse – until we are sure that we want a horse, and need one, and can afford to give a kingdom for it.” (p. 15)

“Unless there is a constructive purpose and an honest reason for doing so, don’t look for things that it would be unwise to find.” (p. 28)

“More tragic than he who thinks there are no more worlds to conquer is he who thinks he has finished his education – he who supposes that there are no more truths to be revealed.” (p. 50)

Now on to some of the problems. Evans employs quite a few straw man arguments – fictitious counter arguments that are easily defeated. On page 79 for example, he attacks agnostics using a straw man. As an agnostic, I know what I believe. If I believed what he claims agnostics are supposed to believe then he might have a point, but I don’t – it’s a straw man.

The book is pretty boring and repetitive; my mind drifted quite a bit. I also started wondering after about 20 pages of reading why I should be taking advice from Richard L. Evans? What makes him so special? I never came up with a good answer, which might explain the majority of his advice.

On page 25 Evans talks about how you shouldn’t follow the crowd, especially if you believe you are right (a similar argument is presented on pp. 98-99). What I found interesting is that the Mormon Church doesn’t tolerate dissent? Don’t throw rocks when you live in a glass house doesn’t apply to religions?

On pp. 33-34 he talks about how some parents are choosing not to force religion on their children. He compares this to essentially not telling your kids anything that might be good for them – like not to touch burning stoves or stabbing yourself, etc. What he fails to see is that you don’t have to push religion AND everything else on your children. You can choose to teach your children certain things and not teach them others. With some things it might be better if left for the individual to figure out later on. Anyway, I think you get the point.

On page 13 he talks about freeing women to have equal rights, but then turns around and argues that women should still be treated as special and not be introduced into ‘men’s spheres’ (the workforce) – a separate spheres argument. I just don’t understand the logic of talking equality and then telling women that they can be equal but not work and not leave the house. How is that equal?

Evans also has conflicting ideas about education. He wants teachers to teach values and live them, but only if they are the ones he agrees with. Just a few pages later he criticizes the Nazi’s for doing this very same thing; of course, the Nazi philosophy wasn’t one he agreed with so I’m sure he felt justified.

On page 60 he talks about not being afraid, but he doesn’t tie this into the ‘the fear of god’ that most religions advocate. Interesting.

On page 11 Evans says, “To call a man something he isn’t doesn’t make him what we call him, whether it be good or bad. Labels are useful if they tell the truth. They are treacherous if they don’t.” Interestingly this is now called ‘labeling theory’. If I’m not mistaken, Evans is wrong. Often when we do label someone something they end up becoming that very thing. Guess science won this battle.

Evans doesn’t have a clue as to causal relationships (p. 22), “To begin with, unchastity is the forerunner or the companion of most other evils – certainly of drunkenness, of hate and jealousy, of distrust, of disease, of broken families, and of broken lives.” He then continues with a thought that runs counter to Mormon theology, “Unchasitity is the greatest evil of the age and to give way to it is to set out upon a road on which there are certain regrets and from which there is no sure return.” (p. 23) Has he never heard of repentance?

I particularly liked this thought, “It is an encouraging note in an otherwise dark picture, and we have reason to hope that there may come a day when faith and belief will be as popular and as fashionable as doubt and skepticism once were.” (p. 74) If current trends hold, which I don’t think they will, he might just be right, but I doubt it.

He made a point on pp. 90-91 that people need to be for something good, not just against something bad. I think I liked this because I occasionally listen to conservative Republican talk radio and all I ever hear them talk about is how wrong the liberals are. Apparently they aren’t for anything, just against liberalism; no creative thoughts, just counter-creative thoughts.

On page 99 Evans argues that modernizing trends are removing humanity from their fundamental nature, but he defines the fundamental nature of humanity as religion. I think our understanding of the fundamental nature of man has changed from religion to something else – evolution maybe.

I found his essay on loving your job (p. 101) to be particularly un-insightful. It’s pretty easy to say something like that when you are getting paid to write thoughts and not shoveling dirt or hauling garbage; kind of naive if you ask me.

I thought that this phrasing sounding an awful lot like George Bush Jr., “What are we fighting for? We are fighting for the destruction of evil wherever we find it, and we must no more tolerate it among ourselves than we do among our enemies.” (p. 110) And, as with Bush, I think this is a rather ethnocentric perspective; why are Americans right and everyone else wrong?

Evans also had an interesting interpretation of utopia, “Though armed conflict were to cease, though the thunder of cannon, and the sound of marching feet were heard no more, yet no man and no people would long enjoy the fruits of peace, except on the basis of personal and national righteousness, and continuing conduct in accordance with those principles on which righteousness is based. that is what it means to win the peace.” (p. 115) I guess writing as a Mormon he probably thought religion was necessary. I think utopia is much more plausible without religion – but what do I know?

This last essay I reproduced in full because I found it a scathing rebuke to the Mormon Church for excommunicating its dissenters and disallowing counter opinions:

p. 98 – The Minority Voice

“In spite of a long-advocated tolerance, there are times when all of us find annoyance because someone has disagreed with us. But the fact remains that to establish something on the basis of opinion without proof, or authority without reason, is as difficult now as it ever was, or more so – even though it may be annoying. In governments, as long as we have known anything about them, as far back as history has anything to concerning them, men who have attempted by sheer authority to impose edicts without reason and fiats without the conversion and support of those whom they affect, have seen the beginning of trouble – but not the end. But governments are not the only ones who have been historically guilty of such things. Men in their private lives have been guilty. Social, religious, scientific, and professional movements, societies, and institutions have sometimes been guilty. Oft times constituted authorities, like individuals, have made the mistake of assuming that anyone who had an opinion contrary to the majority was necessarily wrong, or of unsound mind, or disloyal, or dishonest. Indeed, it has gone further than that. In those places where a single sovereign will has held dominion over all the destinies of all his subjects, men who presumed to have a contrary opinion have often been obliged to change their views, or have their mortal existence cut short – a sort of permanent censorship designed to insure unanimity of opinion by liquidating all contrary views. A more civilized and refined form of the same kind of practice is to call a man a name when he disagrees with us – publicly proclaim his disloyalty or incompetence or dishonesty – discredit his reputation. “Name-calling,” it has been said, “is a subtle way of diverting attention from the facts.” We shouldn’t call a man a name merely because he has an opinion of his own. He may be right – and even if we’re sure he isn’t, it doesn’t necessarily follow that he is dishonest or disloyal, or of unsound mind. In the name of tolerance and reason, it must be recognized that he who disagrees with us is not necessarily an undesirable citizen. If that were true, then everyone is an undesirable citizen, because no two people think alike in all things. The minority voice – the unintimidated right freely to express honest contrary views – is essential to the survival of freedom and to the maintenance of progress. In the affairs of men, any institution or any country in which there is the imposition of one mind and one will in all things, is a fundamentally weak institution or country, leaning perilously to one side, and lacking the structural strength of opposing forces.”