Customer Reviews

For Any Latter-Day Saint: One Investigator's Unanswered Questions

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Listen, if there is a mormon in your life, you simply must give them this book. It is NOT "anti-mormon" in the least, as it only quotes from LDS sources and the Bible. It goes through many different areas and asks the reader to reconcile various teachings in different sources with each other, with the Bible, with other LDS teachings, etc.

All I can say is, "WOW!" The author is extremely gracious, and is on a TRUTH quest. She opens the book with quotes from LDS leaders INVITING people to TEST and investigate the LDS beliefs.

Many of her questions are questions I had as well.

Her questions force the reader to come to terms with the fact that LDS teachings are often inconsistent with each other, and with the Bible. This book will help LDS folks see the many errors in their beliefs.

I highly recommend this book both, especially as a tool...give it to an LDS member and ask for their input...the questions are unanswered and you can ask them to help you get the answers.

Through answering the questions, the LDS person will at least face the actual teachings that are so problematic. Since it is not a traditional book (there is no dialogue, or traditional writing...only questions and source material presented to back-up the question), it is not seen as anti-LDS.

This is the ONE book to buy and GIVE to LDS'ers!

Banister's method of examining Mormonism is original, disarmingly simple, and starkly clear: She quotes and documents (with adequate context), without interpretations of her own, earlier authoritative LDS statements side by side with later ones on exactly the same topic, then asks a question and provides choice-boxes for the reader to check, or space to write in an answer. This method is followed for over 650 questions.

In essence, she asks if two clearly inconsistent or contradictory statements can both be true, and if not, which, if either, is true, and how the reader could decide this. She never tells the reader that anything is untrue; she just presents and asks. Thus, the book serves as a test of honesty as well as of clear thinking.

The cumulative effect of 650+ such quote comparisons and questions is powerful. An example: After documenting opposing authoritative quotes, she asks, "Can you explain how [Mormon Apostle's name] could have said that prophecy was being fulfilled [which he did say] if such prophecy never existed and was only a 'typographical error' [which another LDS authority's letter states]? Yes_[Give Explanation]______________________ No______."

Another: "Since only about 40% of 2,200 pages [of Joseph Smith's personal history] was completed at the time of Joseph Smith's death [which previous, authoritative quotes demonstrated], could he have 'thoroughly supervised the writing of his history' as the Preface to the History states? Yes ___ No _ "

Another: "If Joseph Smith was 'troubled" about the use of liquor, why did he issue himself a liquor license? Reason: __________ ".

The author is always respectful, never rhetorical, never gloats. There is only the analog of, "Since you have testified under oath to this court that you, your wife and two children were in Los Angeles at noon on Mother's Day 2001, why does a Macy's security camera in New York City clearly show all four of you together there at noon on the same day?"

This is not necessarily a book to set down and read, however that is what I did. It presents a question and then presents the evidence which shows the change/problem/inconsistancy. If taken topic by topic or used as a reference when a topic arises, it is an excellent resource. It is presented from an evangelical Christian perspective. One of the other reviews talks about changes between the Book of Commandments and the D&C and justifies them by talking about edits made by Old Testament prophets. The edits between the Book of Commandments and D&C are not edits. They are significant doctrinal changes. For example D&C 5:11-21 lost 50% of its content and approximately that amount of other information was added, completely changing the meaning of the section. Section 68 did not originally have ANY information about a higher or Melchezidek Priesthood. The re-write more than doubled the size of the section and competely changed the meaning. There are other books I would recommend for first books or for giving to believing Mormons, but the detail and content is great.

Although this is indeed a better book than most book critical of Mormonism by an Evangelical, it still fails. Firstly, the book is, for the most part, a re-hash of Jerald and Sandra Tanners' book "Mormonism: Shadow or reality," with many of the arguments found therein being simply lifted from the Tanners' book.

Additionally, her interpretations of the Bible seem to be eisegetical as opposed to exegetical, as with her interpretations of the Book of Mormon and so forth.

Another criticism is that she is either intentionally deceitful or simply ignorant of how many of her charges would destroy the Bible's credibility. For example, she makes a huge deal (as do the Tanners) that Joseph Smith edited a number of revelations from the 1833 Book of Commandments. However, as Melvin Peterson pointed out, as a prophet, he was entitled to do so. That this is true is found in the Bible. Jeremiah 36:32 has Jeremiah editing his previous writings. Additionally, as with 99.9% of critics, she claims that Alma 7:10 is incorrect. However, 2 Kings 14:20 claims that the City of David (i.e. Bethleham) is "at Jerusalem."

Moreover, she often claims that unfulfilled _commandments_ as false prophecies. For example, she claims D&C 84:3-5 is a false prophecy. However, (i) it is not a prophecy but a commandment that was not obeyed due to mob persecutions - see D&C 124:48-52 (also see Jeremiah 18:7-10) and (ii) verse 5 was fulfilled at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple according to the diaries of those who were at the event.

She, as with the Tanners, has quotations with the context wrench out. She quotes one LDS as saying LDS do not believe in hell. However, the context was abiut the proverbial sense of hell. LDS theology does believe in hell, contrary her ignorance.

Her arguments against the Book of Mormon were weak, mainly relying on a faulty though popular eisegetical interpretation of 2 Nephi 30:5, prior to the 1981 correction (see Daniel 12:10 for a proper exegetical interpretation of the Near Middle Eastern understanding of "White"), and the charge the Book of Mormon was plagiarised from Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews." Having read "View of the Hebrews," I am amazed why critics continue to harp over this, as the parallels are weak and contrived.

Although this book is one of the best books critical of Mormonism I have come across, it has too many failings such as the above, and many more, that prevents it from being convincing.