|
|
4.0étoiles sur 5
Strikes me as basically accurate, Sep 20 2002
The hook in this book is Mormondom. If you're not interested in that, you probably won't like Higher Authority.Just to be clear about where I'm coming from, I'm not a Mormon, nor would I ever consider becoming one, given what I know about their beliefs and practices, which is quite a lot. As a Catholic-minded Christian interested in other religions, I have spent a good deal of time looking into Mormonism. It is true, for example, that Mormons at one time practiced blood atonement, as described in the book. It is also true that they wear special temple undergarments. Mormons also believe that God was once a man, and that men can become Gods, ruling over other planets as God rules over ours. One of their theologians put it this way: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Those at this site who have objected to the book's depiction of Mormonism, calling it "Mormon bashing," have not specifically stated where the author has misrepresented Mormonism. Not in the area of beliefs, at least as far as I can discern. It is also well-known that the Mormon Church discourages critical investigation of its origins, history, beliefs, and practices. Unlike Christianity (and I do not consider Mormonism a part of Christianity), which has allowed itself to be subjected to several centuries of the most intense critical scrutiny, and which continues today in the Jesus Seminar and other corrosive endeavors, Mormonism does not allow such activity. But the real problem with Mormonism is that it's a non-historical religion claiming to be a historical one. For example, unlike the Bible, which contains records of events that happened not that far removed from when they were written down, the Book of Mormon (written, or "translated"--as the Mormon Church claims--only about 150 years ago) claims to describe events some of which occurred more than 2,500 years ago. Moreover, despite the efforts of New World Archelolgy to establish the historicity of the Book of Mormon's descriptions about the "Lamanites" and "Nephites," no evidence has not been forthcoming. In other words, the Book of Mormon claims to present history for which there is no corroborating evidence. Nor did Mormonism arise out of a pre-existing faith-community as Judaism and Christianity did. Bottom line, it just isn't an historical religion. I think the book does a pretty good job in getting this point across. Despite its critical stance toward Mormon beliefs, the book is quite fair-minded in its portrayal of Mormon practice. Especially in the character of John Harley--loyal but troubled and not very devout--we get a sympathetic Mormon character. Harley, a convert, joined the Mormon Church basically because he needed to be saved--from his own destructive tendencies. He struggles with Mormon beliefs and rigidity, but is grateful for the stability it brings to his life. Pratt Toomey is also portrayed quite favorably, although in an entirely different manner, as is Lester Horner. Yet, we don't really get much of a sense of what Mormon life is really like. That is one of the things I think some of the other reviewers are complaining about. Will Price, the villain, on the other hand, is an entirely unsympathetic character. Would it be possible for a devout, fanatical Mormon to behave as he does?--that is at the heart of this book. Is Mormonism capable of producing--even likely to produce--a Will Price? Would Mormon Church authorities authorize and condone such actions to preserve the pristine image of the LDS Church? I don't know, but it's a fascinating question, and one that, given the secretiveness, authoritarianism, wealth, and power of the Mormon Church, can't easily be brushed aside. And that's probably what's really troubling to those who intensely dislike this book: it's all too plausible.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
de Stephen White
de Stephen White
de Stephen White
de Stephen White
de Stephen White
