The Crucible of Doubt's Crucible

[Katy Lied]

I just cant spare some time to read it. But you look handsome in the photo.

[creekster]

The Crucible of Doubt's Crucible

In the preface I explain that this is the first LDS related book I have read in many years.

This reinforces that I am different.

My best friend left the church shortly after his Mission. He is a successful lawyer in Switzerland now. He is a big football fan and we talk about football all the time. He has never read a pro or anti Mormon book since he quit going to church. He simply decided to stop going and he proceeded to live his life as he chose. That's what you claim you're doing, but instead you're spending your time writing this stuff? The distinction you're drawing is one without a difference; that's what I see being reinforced.

I didn't read the givens' book and I dont plan to read yours. I do read the scriptures. And sometimes some collateral sources. But otherwise I don't feel the need for a lot of help deciding what I want to believe it or how I am going to spend my time.

[CardiacCoug]

My best friend left the church shortly after his Mission. He is a successful lawyer in Switzerland now. He is a big football fan and we talk about football all the time. He has never read a pro or anti Mormon book since he quit going to church. He simply decided to stop going and he proceeded to live his life as he chose. That's what you claim you're doing, but instead you're spending your time writing this stuff? The distinction you're drawing is one without a difference; that's what I see being reinforced.

I didn't read the givens' book and I dont plan to read yours. I do read the scriptures. And sometimes some collateral sources. But otherwise I don't feel the need for a lot of help deciding what I want to believe it or how I am going to spend my time.

Super mean post.

[creekster]

Super mean post.

I'm just trying to help!

[cougjunkie]

The Crucible of Doubt's Crucible

My best friend left the church shortly after his Mission. He is a successful lawyer in Switzerland now. He is a big football fan and we talk about football all the time. He has never read a pro or anti Mormon book since he quit going to church. He simply decided to stop going and he proceeded to live his life as he chose. That's what you claim you're doing, but instead you're spending your time writing this stuff? The distinction you're drawing is one without a difference; that's what I see being reinforced.

I didn't read the givens' book and I dont plan to read yours. I do read the scriptures. And sometimes some collateral sources. But otherwise I don't feel the need for a lot of help deciding what I want to believe it or how I am going to spend my time.

SU is proving he is everything he pretends not to be. He is Nikuman (lawyer) Utah Dan (asshole) and John Dehlin (sex parties) wrapped in to one.

[SeattleUte]

My best friend left the church shortly after his Mission. He is a successful lawyer in Switzerland now. He is a big football fan and we talk about football all the time. He has never read a pro or anti Mormon book since he quit going to church. He simply decided to stop going and he proceeded to live his life as he chose. That's what you claim you're doing, but instead you're spending your time writing this stuff? The distinction you're drawing is one without a difference; that's what I see being reinforced.

I didn't read the givens' book and I dont plan to read yours. I do read the scriptures. And sometimes some collateral sources. But otherwise I don't feel the need for a lot of help deciding what I want to believe it or how I am going to spend my time.

This is ironic. I reiterate in the preface that I no longer read books about Mormonism of any perspective except that the Givenses's book was thrust upon me. Please take my word for it; I read it under protest. Their book, though published by Deseret Book, has all of the trappings of a scholarly work--it is laden with quotations from philosophers, scientists, poets, novelists, and theologians (including of course C.S. Lewis), in addition to LDS leaders, and densely footnoted, including textual material. That sort of thing invites responsible critique, does it not? What is there to fear from little me, anyway. I'm no University of Richmond professor. If this is a fight, I'm David and they are Goliath. But the preface also includes a disclaimer that I'm not trying to undermine anyone's faith.

[CardiacCoug]

SU and creekster trying to one-up each other on how few books they read? This is some weird tactic they teach at law schools? I'm confused.

[SeattleUte]

SU and creekster trying to one-up each other on how few books they read? This is some weird tactic they teach at law schools? I'm confused.

How many books have you read about Zoroastrians? I'm sure I've read more books about Mormonism than you have about Zoroastrians. I've read enough of them.

[creekster]

SU and creekster trying to one-up each other on how few books they read? This is some weird tactic they teach at law schools? I'm confused.

I read lots of books and it is clear that SU does as well (probably a lot more than me, in fact). But I am not about to start reading books about whether or not I doubt or, one more step removed, whether or not the book about whether or not I doubt is well-considered. Moreover, SU has been fiercely protective of his self-proclaimed status as a former adherent who has left it all behind. And yet, he has now entered the pantheon of the Tanners and their ilk. I don't care that he has, and I suspect his book is like his posting here, which is to say interesting if not always persuasive, but I think he should be honest with himself and us as to what this means concerning his position.

[creekster]

This is ironic. I reiterate in the preface that I no longer read books about Mormonism of any perspective except that the Givenses's book was thrust upon me. Please take my word for it; I read it under protest. Their book, though published by Deseret Book, has all of the trappings of a scholarly work--it is laden with quotations from philosophers, scientists, poets, novelists, and theologians (including of course C.S. Lewis), in addition to LDS leaders, and densely footnoted, including textual material. That sort of thing invites responsible critique, does it not? What is there to fear from little me, anyway. I'm no University of Richmond professor. If this is a fight, I'm David and they are Goliath. But the preface also includes a disclaimer that I'm not trying to undermine anyone's faith.

I am not scared of you. But (to use a phrase i really don't care for) it is what it is. why you cant admit it is beyond me. Congrats on your book, in any event, and I hope it brings you satisfaction.

[SeattleUte]

I read lots of books and it is clear that SU does as well (probably a lot more than me, in fact). But I am not about to start reading books about whether or not I doubt or, one more step removed, whether or not the book about whether or not I doubt is well-considered. Moreover, SU has been fiercely protective of his self-proclaimed status as a former adherent who has left it all behind. And yet, he has now entered the pantheon of the Tanners and their ilk. I don't care that he has, and I suspect his book is like his posting here, which is too say interesting if not always persuasive, but I think he should be honest with himself and us as to what this means concerning his position.

I think the Givenses would agree that we moved beyond the Tanners, which is the whole point of their book.

[creekster]

I think the Givenses would agree that we moved beyond the Tanners, which is the whole point of their book.

OK. I will defer to those who have read it. But I merely said you were in the same pantheon.

[CardiacCoug]

How many books have you read about Zoroastrians? I'm sure I've read more books about Mormonism than you have about Zoroastrians. I've read enough of them.

Sure, if I published little Kindle responses to books about Zoroastrianism in which I wrote "I no longer read books about Zoroastrianism of any perspective" then you'd have a good point there.

It's OK to still have a mild interest in Mormonism and occasionally read books about it. You're a lot like the commentators on the Salt Lake Tribune website who are the first to comment negatively on every story about BYU sports while simultaneously claiming to have zero interest in BYU sports.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SU and creekster trying to one-up each other on how few books they read? This is some weird tactic they teach at law schools? I'm confused.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How many books have you read about Zoroastrians? I'm sure I've read more books about Mormonism than you have about Zoroastrians. I've read enough of them.

I have read one.