Michael Ash - Shaken Faith Syndrome
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:30 pm
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.
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.