Michael Ash - Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_Corpsegrinder]

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

LOL! No, I’m not an undertaker, a butcher...or even a serial killer. The name comes from a dumb, low-budget 70’s horror flick.

And thank you for the detailed and heartfelt answer. But to be perfectly frank, you provided me with an answer to a question I did not ask. Specifically, you answered as if I had asked the following:

“Why do some people not get an answer from the Holy Ghost when they pray regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?”

But in reality, my question was as follows:

“How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that some Christians claim the Holy Ghost told them the Book of Mormon was not true?”

This is a common tactic which I’m familiar with because I, as a missionary, was instructed to do much the same thing. I.e., I was told not to answer difficult questions; rather, I was told to answer the question that should have been asked. Here’s a link to a video of Robert Millet from BYU saying, in effect, the same thing:

http://newnewsnet.BYU.edu/flv/overcomingobjections.html

Do you honestly think the bait-and-switch tactic enhances the Church’s credibility?

The bait-and-switch tactic might have worked in the era before the internet--when Robert Millet was growing up--but it certainly won’t work in an age when the Church can no longer hide its embarrassing secrets.

If anything it will simply undermine the Church’s credibility even more.

[_Stormy Waters]

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.

Aside from the ethical questions raised by this teaching style, this has the potential to backfire. For example let's say there is a member who has only been fed milk. Let's say this member believes that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon directly from the gold plates. That's the way he's always seen it depicted in pictures and seminary videos. Then one day while flipping through the channels he sees an episode of South Park about Mormons. In the episode Joseph Smith has his head in a hat translating the Book of Mormon.. After doing some research he finds out that the "Anti-Mormons" were telling the truth. What will this member think? How will this member feel? Not everyone will act the same, but I can tell you from personal experience that I felt like I had been deceived. I didn't leave the church then, but the way I viewed the church changed. The church became like a used car dealer. Expect them to point out the good, but the negative aspects may be omitted or glossed over. So I don't think you can justify this method of teaching just because it cultivates a relationship with God, because in some cases it will destroy that "relationship" as it did with me.
Also note that they say that a member may stay at level A for a lifetime. It's one thing to say that the members will be told the whole story when they are ready. It's quite other to say it's okay to NEVER tell them the whole story.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Aside from the ethical questions raised by this teaching style, this has the potential to backfire.

Yeah, and it’s not like the apologetic community are the only ones to use the bait-and-switch tactic to avoid answering difficult questions. In fact, when I hear Bob Millet talking “about milk before meat” I get a mental flash of Bill Clinton saying, “It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is…”

[_keithb]

LOL! No, I’m not an undertaker, a butcher...or even a serial killer. The name comes from a dumb, low-budget 70’s horror flick.

And thank you for the detailed and heartfelt answer. But to be perfectly frank, you provided me with an answer to a question I did not ask. Specifically, you answered as if I had asked the following:

“Why do some people not get an answer from the Holy Ghost when they pray regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?”

But in reality, my question was as follows:

“How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that some Christians claim the Holy Ghost told them the Book of Mormon was not true?”

This is a common tactic which I’m familiar with because I, as a missionary, was instructed to do much the same thing. I.e., I was told not to answer difficult questions; rather, I was told to answer the question that should have been asked. Here’s a link to a video of Robert Millet from BYU saying, in effect, the same thing:

http://newnewsnet.BYU.edu/flv/overcomingobjections.html

Do you honestly think the bait-and-switch tactic enhances the Church’s credibility?

The bait-and-switch tactic might have worked in the era before the internet--when Robert Millet was growing up--but it certainly won’t work in an age when the Church can no longer hide its embarrassing secrets.

If anything it will simply undermine the Church’s credibility even more.

Not only did this video have that nice piece of advice for bait-and-switch, but it also played up the whole --we're-picked-on-so-we-must-be-true angle a lot. So, because Warren Jeffs and David Koresh were/are also persecuted, does that mean that they're also true?

[_Stormy Waters]

The bait-and-switch tactic might have worked in the era before the internet--when Robert Millet was growing up--but it certainly won’t work in an age when the Church can no longer hide its embarrassing secrets.

I agree. The church will not be able to control the dialogue like they have in years past. I believe more and more people who have questions will go straight to the internet for the answers instead of the missionaries or their local church authority.

Sometimes I wonder if the admonitions to keep the computer in a public place and monitoring internet use is more about trying to control the information church members consume than it is about pornography.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Sometimes I wonder if the admonitions to keep the computer in a public place and monitoring internet use is more about trying to control the information church members consume than it is about pornography.

If this is what the Brethren are doing then they’re not alone.

In 2002, China outlawed internet pornography and used this pretext to shut down more than 60,000 websites, including sites dedicated to human rights and opposition politics.

[_Fence Sitter]

I agree. The church will not be able to control the dialogue like they have in years past. I believe more and more people who have questions will go straight to the internet for the answers instead of the missionaries or their local church authority.

Sometimes I wonder if the admonitions to keep the computer in a public place and monitoring internet use is more about trying to control the information church members consume than it is about pornography.

I wonder if the division inside the Quorum of the 12 regarding LDS apologetics might be in part because some of the brethren realize that internet access is going to be ubiquitous and they had better be prepared with some sort of response while the older generation may be underestimating its impact.

It would also be interesting to see if missionaries are encountering investigators who use mobile devices during discussions.

[_jo1952]

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.

Hello Keithb whose name, interestingly, really isn't Keith!!

You are putting words into my mouth. I never said anyone was "deluded into thinking" anything; however, I understand what I think you meant to say....

You may find it interesting that I believe that even when a person does leave the LDS faith that this is a necessary step for them to take in their journey. The Bible teaches us that God would rather have us feeling either hot or cold toward Him....it is those who are lukewarm in their feelings about Him who are the ones most difficult to reach. In other words, whatever denomination or world religion they hang their hat, that that is where they should be.

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.

I believe Father is amenable to individuals of any world religion who profess belief in Him. If they do not believe (yet) in His Son, they are most likely going to be easily taught about and will accept Jesus while they are waiting for their resurrection. Heck, the Jews believe in the God of Abraham, they just are blind to the fact that Jesus IS that God. Paul teaches us that ALL of the Jews are going to be saved. (Wouldn't that include even Judas?) Then, when you consider that Gentiles are adopted into the House of Israel if they accept Christ (and the House of Israel for the most part, currently have not accepted Christ), there is great potential for universal salvation (aside from the Sons of Perdition...and I even have some interesting concepts about them).

I appreciate that you have shared your position. I think that the fact you are interested enough in the subject to be participating on any Board concerning God, that even though you are currently "cold", you also will be teachable and receptive in the hereafter without much resistance.

Love,

jo

[_ludwigm]

In 2002, China outlawed internet pornography and used this pretext to shut down more than 60,000 websites, including sites dedicated to human rights and opposition politics.

Collateral damage. Today, in the era of intelligent systems (computer in every cannonball), the collateral damage can be planned.

United States Department of Defense document uses "Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack."

I associate again... MAD...

The term 'collateral damage' has also been borrowed by the computing community to refer to the denial of service to legitimate users when administrators take blanket preventative measures against some individuals who are abusing systems. For example, Realtime Blackhole Lists used to combat email spam generally block ranges of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses rather than individual IPs associated with spam, and can deny legitimate users within those ranges the ability to send email to some domains.

[_Drifting]

My own insight into "Shaken Faith Syndrome" would be that Mike Ash is talking about his own shaken faith. His articles seem to me to be journal type entries detailing his personal search into the areas of Church history and anachronism that cause(d) him to doubt.

It's like he was showing the world his own personal mental gymnastics that he uses to maintain a belief in a Church that deep down (perhaps subconciously) he knows doesn't stack up.

The importance of his work to the Church has been reflected in their decision to can it during the first cull of apologetic contribution - the demise of Mormon Times.

That's got to hurt.