Rating: 
Summary: LDS scholars were accessible
Review: AUTHORS RESPOND. Daniel Peterson is mistaken. We have not stated in any interview that we "had not spoken with many mainstream LDS scholars because they were inaccessible." To the contrary, we found LDS scholars very accessible and cooperative. We interviewed some in person or by phone and read extensively in their writings. In addition, two distinguished LDS scholars (in good standing with the Church) reviewed the manuscript of "Mormon America" before publication. -- Richard and Joan Ostling
Rating: 
Summary: A Fairly Good Book (Sort Of)
Review: This is a pretty good book. A lot of work went into it. Outsiders will learn a great deal about Mormon history and doctrine. All but the most informed insiders will also learn a fair amount. But the book is not nearly the balanced and unbiased work that it claims to be, and that some reviewers have celebrated it for being. Its tone, while polite and far from overtly hostile, frequently betrays that unmistakable whiff of condescension that establishment journalists have brought to an irritating art form when dealing with groups that are socially and culturally marginal to their worldview. (Evangelical critics may love that element of the book, but they should be wary: Major journalists adopt the same attitude when dealing with conservative Protestantism. If evangelicals find it acceptable in the case of Mormons, they have no legitimate ground for complaint when they find themselves the objects of similar subtle journalistic disdain.) But there are also substantive concerns. The volume's chapter about the Book of Mormon, for example, consists mostly of arguments against the book, and shows no sign of having given any real attention to the arguments advanced by the book's defenders. The same is true of its treatment of the Book of Abraham. Some will immediately say, of course, that those arguments merit no attention -- but that judgment needs, at least once, to be shown, not merely assumed. If it is assumed up front, then that is simple bias. Likewise, the section on human deification presents a rather simplistic (and, hence, somewhat distorted) summary of LDS scholarly appeals to the patristic literature for support, then documents at some length the fact that, unsurprisingly, several non-LDS scholars disagree with the LDS scholars on the applicability of patristic materials. On the basis of that quite unrigorous test, the authors conclude that the non-LDS scholars are victorious, and that there is no support in patristic materials for the relevant LDS beliefs. This is not unbiased, descriptive writing, it's advocacy. It's a brief for the prosecution. One last example (of many that could be offered): The Ostlings offer a very idiosyncratic (even "liberal") reading of LDS doctrine on the atonement of Christ -- having previously ruled out of court as a "neo-orthodox" innovation the doctrine of atonement that is taught in the Book of Mormon and in sermons and Sunday School lessons across the Church -- and contrast it unfavorably with mainstream Christian views on the subject. This is a straw man technique. Finally, I'll offer a personal observation: I show up a few times in the book, albeit briefly. In each case, in my opinion -- and I think I know fairly intimately what and how I think -- my position has been substantially distorted. I saw one television interview with Richard Ostling where he said, if I recall correctly, that he had not spoken with many mainstream LDS scholars because they were inaccessible. My name is in the phone book.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Primer
Review: This book is a fascinating look at everything Mormon, including their strange (to Christians, anyway) beliefs that God is (merely) an exalted flesh-and-blood man, married, and one of many gods; that the (plural) gods "organized" and did not "create" the universe - knowledge and matter, the Mormons believe, have both always existed; that husbands, wives and children can be eternally "sealed" to each other; that true believers can become gods themselves; and that there is no special sanctity in truth, especially truth that would weaken the "one true church." I found it hard to put this book down, from its discussions of the Messianic/wacko Joseph Smith to the hard-driving (and -marrying) Brigham Young, to the current batch of leaders. Very interesting.
Rating:
Summary: Not totally satisfying but objective
Review: This book is a little maddening. If you know a lot about Mormon studies already, it will be an objective but unexceptional book. If you are new to the subject, it will be very good to start with and will possibly make you into a mormon-phile/-phobe. One problem I had, let me explain--each chapter goes like this :"Mormon doctrine on a specific topic. Maybe some background. Problems and entanglements that have developed." (There seems to be very little that is non-controversial about this church.) The problem is that the authors hardly ever step in critically and comment on these things, which I believe detracts from the book. I understand being objective, but there are quite a few times when the discussion becomes a glorified "uh-huh, nuh-uh, uh-huh" and I was waiting for the critical voice to appear and say "C'mon, this guy is completely (whatever)". It would have made a more satisfying book to read some opinion to agree or disagree with. But, if you are new to the whole topic, these things don't detract since you probably want as much pure debate as possible. So, if you know a lot about mormonism, don't buy this book, stick to website debate. Otherwise, if you are new to this topic, it will be a good read.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Book Overall, But Doesn't Go Far Enough
Review: This is an excellent introductory work on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). The authors occasionally bend over backwards to give the "Church' the benefit of the doubt, but they are not granding axes -- they are writing a serious book.Contrary to what a few reviewers on amazon.com suggest, the Ostlings treat the Book of Mormon (and other Mormon "Scriptures") fairly. As the Smithsonian Institution, among others, has pointed out for decade after decade, there is not one scrap of anthropological, archeological, or historical evidence that the Book of Mormon is "true." As for the Book of Abraham (a key scripture in the "Pearl of Great Price") there is devastating evidence that Joseph Smith's "tranlation" bore no relation to the documents he had in hand. For the most part,the Ostlings seem to accept the conventional wisdom about Mormons: that they are family-oriented people with strong moral values balanced against a shaky theology and a sometimes-checkered history. Many critics of Mormon morality and social practices would strongly question that view. On the family orientation, non-Mormon family members are not allowed to attend the temple marriages of their sons and daughters. In addition, the "Church Handbook of Instruction" instructs bishops to act only on "SERIOUS physical abuse" in families, perhaps suggesting they are to ignore mere "physical abuse." Also on morality: for 140 years, Mormonism (beginning with Brigham Young) taught that people of African descent were of the "seed of Cain" and carried a curse that prevented them from becoming members of the Mormon priesthood. Was that moral? Has the Church done anything to atone for such a teaching -- or to make reparations to those affected? Has it removed Scriptures or renounced teachings that advoated such discrimination? As the Ostlings point out, the Church has not done so. Currently (early March, 2000), the Mormon Church is vigorously supporting a California proposition that would forbid that state from recognizing gay and lesbian unions conducted in other states. Such behavior by Mormons MAY be Biblcal (many theologians would argue that it is not), but it is highly dubious in any moral sense. It also raises questions about what a tax exempt institution is doing using Church funds on political causes. Finally, the Church has long celebrated and insitutionalized second-class status for women. Females are grossly underrepresented on the faculty of the Church's university, BYU. There are no women in real leadership roles in the Church -- aside from the women's organization, the Relief Society, whose policies and funding are controlled by the all-male priesthood. The Ostlings touch on all these negative aspects of Mormonism, but they may not fully appreciate their negative implications for the communities with large populations of Mormons. In short, this book deserves to be read. However, some of the issues I've raised merit a more thorough study on the part of those who want to know the full implications of Mormonism for our society.
Rating: 
Summary: I reread the book and still find it problematic
Review: Interestingly enough, I took time to reread the book again and still find it problematic. There are lots of problems with the interpretation of Mormon doctrine and they don't have the background in hermameutics to deal with the idea of temple worship which is filtered through vicarious people. Journalists cannot talk about the Church because a reverent attitude is not the same as a respectful attitude. The Ostlings try to objectify the church or gospel principles but still cannot distill the principles. For example, They never discuss the Articles of Faith in much detail. Hugh Nibley talks about each principle analyzing it from a perspective which is profound and insightful and witty. The Ostlings' lack of philsophical approach fails to deal with the commandments and revelations. They don't have a separate chapter about the concept of prophet as seer and revelator. it's one of the blocks of the church but they write about controversial topics to get people interested. I would like to suggest another book which is a lot more accurate. Read The History of the Church in 8 volumes edited by Brigham H. Roberts. it's the definitive work about the church. Instead of dealing with trivial B. S. and gossip like the Marriot hotel (who cares whether the church is involved in the business? it's not important for spiritual edification) rather than analyzing what the concept of the first vision is etc. etc. I would suggest that someone hire a theologian not a journalist to write a work about the LDS church.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent general work on LDS faith
Review: Mormon America is a well-written, broad description of the LDS Church, its history, its doctrines, and its members. It is also the first quality work on this subject I have seen from non-Mormons that is written for a general audience (Jan Shipps is also good, but writes at a different level). I am myself an active member of the LDS Church, returned missionary, and BYU graduate. I enjoyed the accounts of the elders at work in New York, of the LDS families working to live their religion, and of the new converts embracing the Church, finding in these accounts much that matches my own experiences in the Church. There are a number of minor errors, but overall I was pleasantly surprised at the accuracy of this work. The Ostlings have obviously dedicated countless hours to research and interviews, and constructed their book with meticulous care. I would recommend it to anyone unacquainted with the LDS faith that wishes to know more about us. Naturally, the Ostlings do not shy away from controversial topics, the inclusion of which in this book will no doubt upset some Church members. They also seem to feel an obligation to present both the positive and negative aspects of the faith as they see them. They are, after all, both non-LDS and journalists. I am convinced that their book represents their honest attempt at a neutral assesment of the Latter-day Saint religion and its importance in the modern world. There is much here for readers to appreciate, whether or not they share the authors' attitudes toward the Church. In any work of such broad scope, most readers will question the emphasis given some material and the omission of other pertinent information (for myself, I wonder why S-F writer Orson Scott Card's name does not appear in the chapter on LDS celebrities). Nevertheless, Mormon America is most remarkable, in my opinion, for all that it does cover. Readers from outside the LDS Church, in particular, will find many, if not most, of their basic questions about the faith answered in this volume. A glance at the religion shelves of the local bookstore tends to show a few how-to-witness-to- the-Mormons books, a couple of specialized volumes on Mormon history, and maybe a few by LDS leaders and scholars. A general book on the Church by non-LDS authors, one that neither attempts to promote nor denigrate the faith, has been sorely wanting. Mormon America fills this niche admirably. It is considerably better than I would have expected for the first major work of this kind, and will be welcome reading for those beginning a study of the Mormon religion.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: In their preface, the authors express the hope that "insiders will see themselves portrayed fairly while learning some things they would not have known otherwise." For this insider, that hope was not realized. I guess you could say that there were things I learned from Mormon America, but I suspect that many of these things are false. For example, I learned that on April 7, 1847, the lead company of pioneers at Winter Quarters, Nebraska, set out for . . . Iowa? I learned that (contra D&C 20) teachers can ordain deacons. I learned that Roger Reid resigned from BYU, but Brian Evenson was fired. I learned that the Book of Abraham introduces the doctrine of polygamy. (Where?) I learned that Stan Larson has been excommunicated. (If that's true, it was by far the quietest excommunication of a Mormon intellectual in recent years.) I learned that Thomas S. Monson, one of the most enthusiastic University of Utah supporters among Church leaders, actually did his undergraduate work at archrival BYU. More irritating than inconsequential inaccuracies were what I perceived as misrepresentations through selective presentation of the truth. Eugene England's Abelardianism is presented as the Mormon theory of the Atonement, despite hundreds of statements by Church leaders to the effect that there was a metaphysical price to be paid for our sins, and Jesus paid it. A seriously-flawed critique of Mormon appreciation of C.S. Lewis that was written by a teenager is presented as authoritative, while opposing viewpoints by seasoned LDS religious and literary scholars are given short shrift. Perceived problems with the historicity of the Book of Mormon are mentioned, but the Ostlings falsely assert that defenders of the Book of Mormon "offer no explanation" to resolve them. I believe that Mormon America was written without malice on the part of the authors, but their own theological predispositions have prevented them from presenting a fair and even-handed portrait of Mormonism.
Rating:
Summary: AUTHORS RESPOND
Review: From Richard and Joan Ostling, co-authors of "Mormon America": We welcome vigorous reaction and criticism since we recognize that our book opens up sensitive and highly controversial matters. But we must object when "Oscar Z" implies we fabricated interviews. We assure readers that every direct and indirect quote in our book comes either from our interviewing or documented published sources. The LDS Church recommended lawyer Sheffield as a prize convert from Protestantism and he was interviewed by Richard Ostling for the 1997 "Time" cover story. The published article did not quote him but this and some other interviews were retained for use in the book. As our book points out, David Wright acknowledged that "his views departed from the LDS belief system" and this was why he was eventually excommunicated. Oscar Z is misinformed: Wright has not sought to regain active Mormon membership and confirmed Jan. 27 '00 he has no plans to do so. (Note: we had to post a 5-star rating simply because we had to list a number in order to post this response.)
Rating:
Summary: Lousy piece of junk about Mormon Church
Review: It's quite funny that 2 Prez authors supposedly attempt to understand the church but they see it more as a commerical organization which is a relatively minor point. I doubt that they really read the Book of Mormon. I think that the book is worth getting only for the nice photos esp. the one about FHE (Family Home Evening). Apart from that, the numbers are sort of useful but it's totally worthless for doctrinal matters. Instead, read Hugh Nibley and talk to some missionaries instead of reading this shebang.
|
