UPDATE: I know this paper isn’t Friedman’s. Hat tip to Keri Brooks. This is acknowledged in my comment, below, but Peter R of LDSLaw pointed out that I hadn’t actually made a correction. Since my comment appears to not be sufficient, and I DON’T want to appear to not acknowledge my mistakes, I write this update.
Recently, I wrote a posted about a gross misrepresentation of LDS belief–including getting our disciplinary councils wrong, here:
http://www.fairblog.org/2009/04/11/fun-house-mirrors/
Moreover, on 15 March 2009, the HBO TV series, “Big Love,” screwed things up so badly that the Temple scenes were the LEAST inaccurate and the LEAST objectionable part of the programme. It is recounted by others here:
http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2009/03/17/big-love-the-mormon-temple-endowment-ceremony-isnt-what-they-got-wrong/
We Latter-day Saints are often subjected to such gross misrepresentations. While it is annoying, like unwanted step-children, we ARE getting used to the abuse.
What is unusual is a portrayal by somebody unsympathetic to our faith who actually tries to get things right. It is on the site of Dr. David D. Friedman (son of Nobel laureate, Milton), or Santa Clara University. Though his field is Law and Economics, he may well be the next Jan Shipps:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_06/papers_05/LDS.htm
Thanks for linking to this; it’s an interesting paper. Professor Friedman teaches at my university. I took an undergraduate economics class from him, and I’m planning on taking a law class from him if I can fit it into my schedule.
I don’t believe he wrote the paper, however. It’s listed on his index of papers as a seminar paper from the course “Legal Systems Very Different from Our Own”. The author wished to remain anonymous.
Anonymous it may be, but I also agree: very thorough.
You are right, Keri; it is anonymous. I was researching the term “Love Court” and came upon that paper on Dr. Friedman’s web site in Google–and went right to it. It was only later–after posting–that I realised it.
Still, it carries some weight, since he posted it. 😉
Thanks for the clarification, Keri. I thought the tone and writing style were different from his other publications. Still, its an interesting piece, so I’m glad Professor Friedman posted it.
Yeah except for that whole “Strengthening the church committee”, it was fairly well researched. People learn! Hearsay is not evidencE!!!
NOYDMB,
What about the “Strengthening the church committee” is hearsay? The church has long acknowledged the committee’s existence.
Christopher.
CFR. I would love to see where the church admits to a committee that listens in on people’s phone calls and monitors everything an individual says. Let’s see those references. OK?
Christopher,
It appears that None Of Your Dmn Business answered your question as to what about the committee is hearsay.
David, thanks I guess. I am capable, though, of noticing when someone responds to a question I asked.
NOYDMB, I find your answer a bit defensive. Why such seeming hostility in answering my simple question?
P.S. David, I don’t need you to leave a comment pointing out when NOYDMB responds to me.
Sorry Christopher.
Do you have any references or not?
Thanks,
Any references for what, NOYDMB? For the committee’s existence? Sure, go check the footnotes in the article. Or references that the committee “listens in on people’s phone calls and monitors everything an individual says”? Since I never made such a claim, and don’t believe such to be true, I don’t feel the need to try and find any references to support such a claim.
This is a good reference.
wiki .
The links in the article that was originally posted are broken. Wiki is a far better resource, and actually includes web links for the articles. Much better.
Hi, nice posts there 🙂 thank’s for the interesting information
Thanks, good article.
I think I’d have to agree that the article is well-researched and thoughtful. It’s a nice start.
But I also have to agree that the author is a bit too credulous of the idea that the Strengthening the Members committee is some kind of Gestapo. He appears not to know that it is a fundamental principle of secret police organizations that the existence of the organization must be widely know for it to be effective. The article itself acknowledges that few members have even heard of the Strengthen the Membership committee.
Some small details are wrong. I find it disquieting that they are usually wrong in a direction unflattering to the Church.
I see it as a good scholarly article, written in good faith, by someone attempting to set aside his prejudices (but he does have them.)
Hi Vader!
EVERYBODY has biases. The question is whether one can portray others fairly in spite of them. Frankly, that goes for anti-Mormons, as well as Latter-day Saints.
One reason, I think, for the negative bent on our Strengthening the Members Committee is that there is not much about it. Even if they speak with President Monson several times per day, they DON’T normally interact with any of us in the Ward and Branch level–not even with leadership (I had been a Branch Clerk and a Ward Clerk for several years each, and served as a counselor on a Bishopric and two Branch Presidencies since that committee was formed.). Even at the Stake level (I am presently Assistant Stake Clerk), I have never heard that committee mentioned at any Stake Presidency meeting or in any Stake PEC, Welfare, or High Council meeting. Frankly, unless there were something major, like a mass apostasy brewing, I doubt that the committee would directly involved at all.
I think that, since there isn’t much done by the Strengthening the Members Committee that directly concerns any of us, we don’t hear much about it. But its existence, I suppose, makes great fodder for “bogey man” stories told by enemies of the Church.
Any fair-minded, neutral person should try to get as much information as he or she can. The fact that most of it is by anti-Mormons–which cannot be completely refuted–would tend to give a negative bent.
Maybe we at FAIR and FARMS should get on the ball! 😉
Do I make sense?