http://www.amazon.com/review/RD38M103D7P17/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0982532180&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=#wasThisHelpful.

I'm drafting my comment to it now.

Your review is wordy and largely insubstantial, a nest of non sequiturs with but one shaky thesis: That a wronged party inappropriately blames his blind and ignorant victimizers instead of pitying them (and therefore his book should not have been published and is not worth reading).

Paragraph 1: You make the obvious claim that Baker, sad and angry about his faith's lack of integrity, is writing from a "disillusioned" perspective. You say he discovered that Mormon origins are "obscene," that this point is "axiomatic," meaning that it goes without saying or is a clear first premise. You say what Baker has said has been said better in other books.

You then perform an ad hominem, making the obvious claim that not every thought should be published (implying that Baker's thoughts are not worthy of publication). You then say Baker's book should have been "peer-reviewed." If his book were an academic monograph or article, I would agree with you. It's not. Could it have been edited better? Maybe. You give us no examples though.

Paragraph 2: You say "Baker is justified in his dismay at Mormon origins." Again, this means nothing, or it's vague enough to mean anything, positive or negative about the LDS church. One could be "appropriately" "dismayed" at Mormon origins based on Mormonism claims of supernatural events, that a Prophet of God saw God and Jesus and "translated" a brass plates from an ancient people who populated the Americas somewhere.

You finally say something critical of the LDS church, that Baker is "appropriately angry at being lied to by the official Church." Your problem with Baker's book though is that "he blames them instead of pitying them." Does one typically "pity" the person who has lied to one about a religion one has devoted much of one's life to? Are you suggesting that "anger" is never an appropriate response in such a circumstance? Who is or are the "innocent" you mention that you claim Baker "harshly" and "inappropriately attacks"?

You say that there is a "larger view" that Baker does not include that makes the book harsh and inappropriate. You write that "It is reasonable to conclude that Mormonism is man-made." Okay, something critical of the elephant in the room. Then you say, "but it isn't reasonable that a Mormon...can turn the critical eye of reason on himself." Really? Baker did. Why can't anyone else? One would hope any human being has enough of a spark of agency left that he or she could at least learn to be self-critical, and that self-criticism and reflection on one's actions and beliefs have some place in any healthy approach to being human. But your point is that some people can't, that they are trapped "emotionally" or "financially." One of the arguments that academics in religious studies will use to differentiate a destructive from a nurturing religion is that people can leave a benevolent and nurturing one. There may be high "exit costs." But at the end of the day, one can leave. You are saying that Mormonism, in "most" instances, cannot be escaped because the exit costs are so high that even recognizing the man-made nature of it is impossible because "their minds' limit accessing this knowledge." You go so far as to state categorically that "most people are unable to freely access this knowledge." And somehow Baker is wrong and his book shouldn't have seen the light of day because he did attain a measure of freedom, he did recognize that the LDS church is mad-made and not of divine origin, but he failed to take into account how grossly chained the ranking Mormons with whom he deals are to the LDS church and its doctrines and hierarchy.

You are saying that such ranking or committed, unfree, members of the LDS church are beyond criticism or must be handled gently and carefully for any lies or actions that they perpetrate. "They know not what they do"? You write, "The general authorities of the Church are the least likely to ever see clearly anything affecting the Church because they have the greatest investment in the Church." So what? A gang-leader has the greatest investment in the success of the gang and therefore he'll never question it, and because of that he cannot be criticized or even handed out some harsh words for what he does?

Your thesis boils down to this statement: "Baker blames them instead of pitying them." If one was advanced enough in some Fowlerian stage of belief, one might be able to take that position after being lied to and spending over 30 years of one's life devoted to a Big Lie. But who among us is that evolved spiritually to really forgive and forget such a travesty? Is it reasonable to expect Baker to be such a real and genuine saint? Society makes no such excuses or gives no such passes to what is essentially fraudulent behavior. Frauds, liars, and cheaters are punished. You might reply that the LDS church leaders do not know that they are lying, but you don't know that, and even if they are blissfully unaware of the damage they cause, that doesn't excuse them. I can run over someone blissfully unaware, but if I'm tracked down and proven guilty I will have to pay the consequences.

I think the point is that "his fellow victims" who keep doing hurtful deeds, no matter how ignorant of that damage they are, remain his adversaries. They are the adversaries of all of us, of all of society. We should be better protected from the harm they can cause. They must be educated about the ill they do. They must be brought to see the light by any ethical being committed to limiting the hurt and damage in this world. Ignorance of the law is a poor defense before the law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2012 04:18PM by derrida.

Want an easier rebuttal? Do the review by “IVAN AMY”.

This person is a dufus. Little would this person know that people that think like that are the reason the better folk are leaving the church. That review is full of fallacious nonsense. This person said they owned a bookstore and had the books referenced in his personal collection. I don’t care if this person owns the Library of Congress. That lying sack of poo sure as poo did not look up Baker’s references!

I get that Lane was easy to rebut but man I get really motivated to take the time to pick through totally BS reasoning posing as something more and aiming to trash a book (Baker's) filled with real pain. The guy is angry and hurt and feels completely responsible for leading his family into a destructive and deceptive organization. And Lane's response is to tell him to shut up.

A lot of believers, especially fundamentalist ones, hold truth as very secondary to what they take to be the Good or the Faith. And they do not seem to get that their obfuscation and lying are outrageous (and maybe a bit terrifying) to the rest of us. If such deception and self-deception can be allowed to stand, there is nothing between us and total injustice other than which zealot is willing to go the farthest, i.e., engage in criminal acts, to prove his belief is more true than the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2012 08:51PM by derrida.