Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Appendix C"

(Claims made in "Appendix C: Recommended Resources": format)
(468: format)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
|
 
|
 
====468====
 
====468====
 +
||
 
*{{AuthorQuote|Studying Mormonism is a difficult task given the fact that much of the historical documents dealing with LDS history are extremely difficult to obtain, even for a trained researcher.}}
 
*{{AuthorQuote|Studying Mormonism is a difficult task given the fact that much of the historical documents dealing with LDS history are extremely difficult to obtain, even for a trained researcher.}}
 
||
 
||
Line 29: Line 30:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|
 
|
 +
 
====468====
 
====468====
 
||
 
||

Revision as of 18:21, 6 February 2009


A FAIR Analysis of:
Criticism of Mormonism/Books
A work by author: Richard Abanes

Claims made in "Appendix C: Recommended Resources"

It should be remembered, however, that websites by devout Mormons tend to be overtly biased and permeated with LDS propaganda.
One Nation Under Gods, p. 468.

∗       ∗       ∗
Page Claim Response Author's sources

468

  •  Author's quote: Studying Mormonism is a difficult task given the fact that much of the historical documents dealing with LDS history are extremely difficult to obtain, even for a trained researcher.
  • The Tanner's obtained many of their documents directly from the Church.
  • Author's opinion.

468

  •  Author's quote: It should be remembered, however, that websites by devout Mormons tend to be overtly biased and permeated with LDS propaganda. Consequently, they are listed separately since it is this author's opinon that such sources of information are highly skewed and can be unreliable.
  • Given the nature of this book, this statement by the author is loaded with irony.
  • Author's opinion.

471

  • After listing 15 critical web sites, the author mentions FARMS, which is said to be "highly biased, very unreliable" and that it "can be confusing to [the] average reader due to use of technical terminology, often misleading due to its use of historical, archeological, and linguistic arguments unverifiable by persons not possessing higher education. Very controversial."