Michael Ash - Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_LDS truthseeker]

I've been reading Michael Ash's 2008 Fair Conference report on Shaken Faith Syndrome. I wonder what you all thought about it.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... el-Ash.pdf

Here's my first impressions:

In general I like the article. He makes many good points and accurately describes how many people think about this stuff. Of course many of these arguments he applies to critics apply to LDS as well such as critics won’t even consider the church might be true regardless of any evidence presented. Well certainly there’s many LDS that won’t even consider that the church isn’t true regardless of any evidence presented.


Here’s some specific issues I have with his article:

He starts out immediately in the first sentence using the term “anti-Mormon books” and again in the second sentence “anti-Mormon literature”. So right away he is labeling any valid critics argument as “anti-Mormon” and therefore conjuring up in the minds of all faithful LDS that everything that contradicts what the LDS church has taught must be a lie from an anti-Mormon.

Why can’t apologists use the term “critic” instead of “anti-Mormon”? They do it to put down their enemies and discredit them before they can even begin to bring up an argument. Latter-day Saints object to the world that they don’t really want to be called “Mormons” but instead want to be referred to as Latter-day Saints. Yet these same Latter-day Saints won’t respect someone that disagrees with the church enough to refer to them as a critic instead of Anti-Mormon which makes people think of evangelists waving garments outside of the conference center. The vast majority of critics are not “anti-Mormon”.

He states “many anti-Mormon claims are complete fabrications or are taken out of context.”

Again, that is the exception, not the rule. CRITIC’S arguments (not anti-Mormons) are usually backed up by solid documentation, usually from church-friendly sources.

Ash says “One anonymous Internet-posting critic, for example, claimed that evidence proved that the Book of Abraham was a fraud, while simultaneously admitting that he was completely unfamiliar with the latest scholarly rebuttals to the anti-Mormon accusations. Another on-line critic claimed that he had no intention of reading LDS scholarly arguments because doing so “would be an incredible waste of time.”


I think that deserves some discussion. Using that reasoning, if some nutjob said the earth is flat, we shouldn’t accept that the world is round unless we thoroughly examine that nutjob’s scholarly work. The simple fact is that if the LDS scholars had really good answers to the Book of Abraham problem, it would be on the church’s website, it would be heralded in the media as proof that the church is true, etc. They don’t hesitate to announce things that seem to support the church like NAHOM so if they aren’t doing the same with the Book of Abraham, then it probably isn’t that great of an argument. So if a few Mormon scholars think highly of their theories, but the rest of the world doesn’t, why condemn the rest of the world for not valuing these few Mormons that make up such a small percentage of the population?


If every non-LDS Egyptologist in the world would interpret the Book of Abraham facsimiles as nothing close to what Joseph said they mean but one or 2 LDS Egyptologists say Joseph was somehow right, would it really be worth putting much effort into studying in detail what those two LDS Egyptologists said if they could not even convince their non-LDS colleagues?


Ash’s comment “Several ex-Mormons, for instance, have said that their opposition to the Church is
so strong that they would be unwilling to return regardless of any new information that
might come forth. According to a 2001 informal poll of nearly 400 ex-members, for
example, over half said that “nothing” could open the door for their return to
Mormonism. It’s ironic to see that some ex-members, who claim to leave for purely
intellectual reasons, actually refuse to examine LDS intellectual arguments for nonintellectual
reasons.


That is nothing compared to the idiotic statements that LDS members have said many times like “even if the prophet of the church said it wasn’t true, I would still believe” and “even if there was a truckload of evidence against the church, I would believe” – seriously a truckload and they wouldn’t think twice about it? Now who sounds more close-minded?


Ash brings up “As one Book of Mormon example we’ll explore the anti-Mormon argument that
the Book of Mormon plates could not be made of gold because they would have been too
heavy for Joseph to carry when he ran through the forest from would-be ambushers.”


Ash doesn’t seem to realize or doesn’t want to admit that even if the plates weren’t gold, they would still present a huge problem. The plates wouldn’t weigh 200 lbs but they would still weigh 50 lbs or so as those who handled the container that reportedly held the plates said. Try outrunning 3 pursuers carrying a 50 lb weight. http://www.mormonthink.com/runningweb.htm


Ash dismisses the common-held belief that the Book of Mormon took place in North America. Yet he doesn’t talk about all the real evidence supporting why the church taught that such as Zelph and many statements made by Joseph Smith about N.A. being where the Book of Mormon took place or even the fact that Hill Cumorah is where two big battles took place in the Book of Mormon and that’s where the plates were buried, etc.


Ash states “Despite the claims of the critics, for instance, DNA science and Archaeology are too limited to damage the historicity of the Book of Mormon.”


That is certainly not true. DNA science and Archaeology have been very damaging to the Book of Mormon. They don’t completely dismiss it, but it certainly is damaging.



Ash states “Such critics claim to be “dedicated to pursuing the truth regardless of where
it leads” whereas apologists supposedly know the “conclusions at the start” and sift “the
facts and evidence to find support.” Such a claim is absurd, however, in light of the fact
that no mortal is able to completely divest one’s self of bias.



That’s true but Ash needs to be more fair and simply say that apologists and critics have equal bias. The way he writes things is to imply that non-member critics are a lot more biased than LDS members and should be believed over them.


The ABC analysis at the end is very interesting. And it is that way because the church makes it so. The church could go right to C but they choose to try to keep people in A and when people leave over issues, that perhaps they wouldn’t have if they were taught the whole story from the beginning, it is the church’s decision and they need to be accountable for it. I realize it’s a numbers game. If they teach A, then a lot more people may join the church but with a low retention rate. But if they teach C then very few members would join but those that did join would be very loyal and not leave over disturbing historical issues because they were taught these already and accepted them.




He seems to proclaim FAIR and FARMS, with all their mountains of scholarly research, as the solution to “anti-Mormon” attacks. Yet they have zero authority to speak for the church. When the church defers to FARMS or FAIR over what they publish in the Ensign, print in the lesson manuals and proclaim at the pulpit, then they should be believed over what the church and the prophets have and continue to teach as truth. Otherwise it’s just a handful of members with some entertaining theories often contradicting what the church teaches.



He also way overstates the strength of the FAIR/FARMS arguments. I admit they often sound good when you are grasping at straws to defend the indefensible like polyandry, Book of Abraham or denying blacks the priesthood, but the critics arguments usually are much more rational in my humble opinion.

[Guest]

He states “many anti-Mormon claims are complete fabrications or are taken out of context.”

Ash says “One anonymous Internet-posting critic, for example, claimed that evidence proved that the Book of Abraham was a fraud, while simultaneously admitting that he was completely unfamiliar with the latest scholarly rebuttals to the anti-Mormon accusations.

Ash dismisses the common-held belief that the Book of Mormon took place in North America.

Ash states “Such critics claim to be “dedicated to pursuing the truth regardless of where
it leads” whereas apologists supposedly know the “conclusions at the start” and sift “the
facts and evidence to find support.”

In short, Mormons do not lose their faith because they attempt to rationalize Mormonism. Rather, they lose their faith because they rationalize Mormonism incorrectly. Hence the assertion that Mormon apostates never really understood Mormonism to begin with. So yes, Shaken Faith is, in its own way, very insightful.

IMHO, the principal weakness of Shaken Faith (and Mormon apologetics in general) is the fact that Ash assumes that people join the Church for mostly intellectual reasons. By attempting to rationalize the irrational he ignores the fact that faithful Mormons are motivated by primarily emotional factors.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Religion evolved precisely to provide emotional support in an uncertain environment. And indeed, Mormonism, in certain situations, does this extremely well.

[_subgenius]

...Religion evolved precisely to provide emotional support in an uncertain environment....

speculation, or rather, imagination.....precisely.

[_Corpsegrinder]

speculation, or rather, imagination.....precisely.

Sub, could you, maybe, review your posts before you it the SUBMIT button? Just in case you want us to actually understand what you’re trying to say?

[_Stormy Waters]

I found the part from Daniel C. Peterson to be disturbing.

He [Stanley Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti- Mormon version of the same story. ...On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level.Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments....
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved.

Here apologists have conceded that the church doesn't tell the regular membership the whole truth. Why? Because some people will lose their testimonies. I think it's disgraceful that the church pries into the most personal, private details of their members lives. Requires them to pay 10% of their income. Commands them to sacrifice two years of their lives spreading the gospel and bringing others into the church. Have them covenant to consecrate everything to the church. But at no point during this process do they feel the obligation to tell their members the whole truth.

[_jo1952]

I found the part from Daniel C. Peterson to be disturbing.

He [Stanley Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti- Mormon version of the same story. ...On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level.Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments....
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved.

Here apologists have conceded that the church doesn't tell the regular membership the whole truth. Why? Because some people will lose their testimonies. I think it's disgraceful that the church pries into the most personal, private details of their members lives. Requires them to pay 10% of their income. Commands them to sacrifice two years of their lives spreading the gospel and bringing others into the church. Have them covenant to consecrate everything to the church. But at no point during this process do they feel the obligation to tell their members the whole truth.

Hi Stormy Waters,

My take is that Level B is from the perspective of the anti-Mormon. Therein is where the "evil, false and chaotic" is born. This does not equate into the "evil, false, and chaotic" to be accurate or true.

Since it is the Holy Ghost who is the witness of Truth on the earth (and this is NOT an original LDS belief, but is rather first taught in the New Testament), the Church appropriately teaches investigators and members HOW to be able to discern the Holy Ghost and learn how to eliminate the other noise we are all bombarded with while we are in the physical world. I have known no other religion which works as diligently as the LDS Church does on teaching how to recognize and to communicate with God through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Once an individual achieves this type of continual communication with the Holy Ghost (regardless of whether they are LDS or of any other religious persuasion), then nothing that man offers through their own interpretation of scripture or man's personal failings will have the same effect or ability to cause a person to lose their faith in God.

With this knowledge, why would any church think it was necessary to interfere with an individual's milk-stage of understanding God by feeding them negative information created by man (whether or not what man is saying is true or not)? It seems reasonable to me to expect any church to offer positive reinforcement which would then free the individual from needing to deal with information that may or may not stunt their blossoming relationship with God.

Indeed, it has been my personal experience that once I was able to establish a strong personal relationship with Father, that it doesn't matter if the Church or its leaders are perfect. In fact, I recognize very keenly that man is imperfect and he does not, nor is he capable of, administering the Church perfectly. Man is fallible; God is not.

Best regards,

jo

[Guest]

-

[_Corpsegrinder]

Since it is the Holy Ghost who is the witness of Truth on the earth (and this is NOT an original LDS belief, but is rather first taught in the New Testament)...

Jo, on my mission I regularly encountered Christians from other denominations who claimed the Holy Ghost had told them the Book of Mormon was not true. How would you reconcile this with your post?

[_jo1952]

Jo, on my mission I regularly encountered Christians from other denominations who claimed the Holy Ghost had told them the Book of Mormon was not true. How would you reconcile this with your post?

Hi Corpsegrinder (what a great name! Do you actually work in the funeral business? Maybe are you a butcher--non-serial?)

I never served a mission for the Church. However, since becoming involved in Apologetics three years ago, I am constantly faced with this same issue. At first it actually stumped me. I learned that my own Testimony, though very strong, and I thoroughly enjoyed just living the Gospel -- you know, keeping the two great commandments of loving God and loving others through following Christ's example, that there was still something wanting in my Testimony. Now, I had studied and read the Standard Works several times over the years, was faithful in attending Church, praying, etc.

Being exposed to Apologetics was an eye-opener for me. I joined the Church as an adult. As such, I had missed out on going to Seminary, being involved in the various groups that helped teach children, etc. When I prayed the prayer about the Book of Mormon, I had a very profound experience with the Holy Ghost - even though I had experienced Him before many times as a Lutheran....just nothing as intense as this. But I digress....

In Apologetics I was obliged to need to explain what my beliefs really looked like. Not just in a mantra type or milk-level of understanding way. But at a nitty-gritty level. It was an awesome thing to go through. Suddenly, everything opened up to me at a different level of awareness. I started to recognize the layers and layers of understanding to be had in scripture. I began to see the types and patterns laid out throughout all of scripture. While this was happening, I recognized that peoples of other faiths had mostly not yet had this experiencing of the Holy Ghost. Though I did have the great opportunity of meeting many who had been very much guided by the Holy Ghost and were very filled with Him--beautiful!! I also came to realize that every single one of us is on their private journey. We are also each at our own point in that journey. Some are still very much at the milk stage in their understanding of God. It soon became very apparent that there was also more than one reason people receive (or think they are receiving) a different answer from the Holy Ghost.

The best way I can describe this now, is through scripture:

John 14:16-21

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

AND

John 14:23-26

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

AND especially:

John 16:12-13

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

In other words, when Father deems we are able and ready to receive more Truth (and there is a whole heck of a lot of Truth out there), Father will tell the Holy Ghost to reveal it to us. Thus, I reconcile that there are those who will not receive personal revelation that the Book of Mormon is of God because they are not yet ready to receive it. Some may never be ready. Some may even have it being withheld because Father is not ready for them to receive it because they are of greater use for His purposes right where they are. If that happens to be within another denomination or even an entirely different type of world religion, then that is where God will keep them and use their love for Him for the greater good they can accomplish there. I would place someone like Ghandi in this category. If he had been a Christian (let alone an LDS Christian), he could never have accomplished the work which God needed him to perform.

Enough for now.

Regards,

jo

[_keithb]

In other words, when Father deems we are able and ready to receive more Truth (and there is a whole heck of a lot of Truth out there), Father will tell the Holy Ghost to reveal it to us. Thus, I reconcile that there are those who will not receive personal revelation that the Book of Mormon is of God because they are not yet ready to receive it. Some may never be ready. Some may even have it being withheld because Father is not ready for them to receive it because they are of greater use for His purposes right where they are. If that happens to be within another denomination or even an entirely different type of world religion, then that is where God will keep them and use their love for Him for the greater good they can accomplish there. I would place someone like Ghandi in this category. If he had been a Christian (let alone an LDS Christian), he could never have accomplished the work which God needed him to perform.

Enough for now.

Regards,

jo

But, you could turn this whole argument around and apply it equally to the claims of the Protestant sects: Mormons are deluded into thinking that the Mormon church represents God's will on earth. When they are ready, he leads them away from the Mormon church into the true Christian faith.

Or, you could say the same thing about Islam, or Hinduism, or Scientology, or ... lots of things. Also, if people DON'T have the answer right now, isn't it probably the most prudent course of action to simply say, "I don't know right now whether or not god exists, and so I am waiting until I have more information to make a final decision. In the interim, I will take the default position that said god doesn't exist, because that position seems the most reasonable and supported by the facts that I know to date." This is essentially my position on religion.