wales@locus.UUCP (12/01/86)
I would recommend _The_Mormon_Experience_ by Leonard J. Arrington and
Davis Bitton (Vintage Books, 1980; ISBN 0-394-74102-1) as a good treat-
ment of the LDS (Mormon) Church from an historical/sociological per-
spective. The authors are both LDS, but this book does about as good a
job as I have seen of treating its subject without blatant side-taking.
For doctrinal information on the LDS Church, I would recommend James E.
Talmage's two major works, _Jesus_the_Christ_ and _Articles_of_Faith_,
both of which are published by Deseret Book Company (the principal LDS
publishing house). These two books are overtly and unabashedly pro-LDS.
Anti-Mormon works, in my view, are _not_ a good source of information on
the LDS Church, for two main reasons:
(1) The authors of these books frequently do not have a good understand-
ing of our religion. As a result, they spend a lot of their effort
setting up -- and then knocking down -- straw men. Whenever I do
read anti-Mormon literature, I almost always come away with the
feeling that the object of the author's barbs is a distorted carica-
ture of what I really believe and practice.
This, by the way, should probably serve as a warning flag to all of
us, of whatever belief, regarding "anti" literature in general.
(2) To the extent that anti-Mormon authors (most of whom are "born-again
Christians") _do_ understand LDS beliefs, about all they usually end
up doing is showing that there are numerous fundamental differences
between "Mormonism" and "born-again Christianity".
I freely concede the existence of such differences. The mere fact
that they exist isn't sufficient to disprove the LDS religion,
though, unless you have already decided that "born-again Christian-
ity" is proven beyond doubt. Of course, most anti-Mormon writers
have already made said decision (as is their right, even if I don't
agree with them).
My apologies, by the way, to anyone who feels uncomfortable with, or of-
fended by, the term "born-again Christian". I intend no negative conno-
tations thereby, and am using it solely for purposes of identification.
I'm not really sure what the best term to use is. Most followers of
this persuasion seem to prefer calling themselves and their belief sys-
tem simply "Christian" -- but to me this usage implies that those with
differing beliefs cannot also be Christian (a view which I completely
reject; as a member of the LDS Church, for example, I classify myself as
a Christian).
-- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683
3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA
wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU ...!(ucbvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales