Dorky cover to new FAIR book.

[_harmony]

(I'm one of those people who thinks the Vault should be open, the Brethren should shout our history from the mountain tops, and the books should be open. Then all the weapons our leaders fear would be disarmed.) If we have nothing to hide, why are we hiding things?

The records are more open than you may suppose. Did you attend last year's FAIR Conference?

That question alone demonstrates that you have no idea who I am. Thank you so much for your refreshing tone.

2. Both- see my background above. I don't see it very often in the real world, but I do know people (sometimes close people) who have either struggled or left the Church because of contra-LDS claims. I simply want to give my reasons for not accepting those claims.

So not often. You have no idea how that disappoints me.

I'm not sure why this disappoints you.

I was hoping for something concrete. You are working from an anecdotal foundation; I'd hoped for something more substantial.

Nevertheless, we seek after the one lost sheep.

Publishing a book doesn't strike me as seeking. It strikes me as being more passive, simply providing a source for a seeker. Seeking is an active verb. In that vein, do you ever think about stewardship? Is it your stewardship, or FAIR's, to seek out anyone? Surely it is more appropriate to allow them to seek you out? Isn't that the purpose of the book? Not to seek, but rather to be available to the one who seeks?

FAIR won't make a fortune on my book. We hope we break even. Any profits would be a bonus to help finance future conferences, etc. I won't make any money on this book unless we see a profit (and even then, I can't image I'd make more than a few hundred dollars at best). I didn't write it to make money & FAIR didn't publish it to make money. We know the audience is small.

To be quite honest, this whole subset never occurred to me. There is actually the possibility of making money off this? Strange, if you are indeed seeking the lost sheep. I'm not sure the two should be paired.

As believers in the LDS faith and in Christ's New Testament directives, however, we feel a need to reach out to those who we consider to be confused or lost.

Reaching out to the confused or lost? You consider providing your thoughts (not the Brethren's thoughts, but your thoughts) as reaching out? For a reward, if the above paragraph is true? Why not just direct those seekers to those who are called to know?

I harbor no ill will to those who disagree. Because I believe in the basic teachings of the Church, I feel obligated to help-- by providing my thoughts-- to those who question.

Mike

I sincerely beg your pardon, but this is a concept I truly don't understand. I don't mean to sound rude, so please don't take what I say that way, but why would you think that your thoughts might help someone who is questioning? Let me explain a bit more: I write on this board because it gives me a vehicle for voicing my thoughts. It would never occur to me that anyone outside of a few people in this very small group would even care what I think. I don't think that my thoughts would necessarily be of any help to anyone, because I have no authority by which my words would have substance. Unless I am mistaken, in which I truly beg your pardon, you have no authority either. Yet you have published an entire book of your thoughts, none of which have any more weight of authority than mine (or anyone else's). While I appreciate the time and effort it obviously took for you to complete this project, I am at a loss to understand why you did it. Were you called to do this, by someone who actually has authority? Is it your stewardship to provide your thoughts, which unless I am mistaken have no authority behind them, to those who question? What is the reaction of those who have authority to your book? (By that I don't mean the Brethren; I mean your local authorities.)

And the worst scenario: what if you are wrong?

[_Trevor]

Hardly.

Get serious.

You have to have both registers to appreciate the difference, Coggy.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

If you are genuinely concerned for your fellow church member and are devouted to the cause of building (and retaining) the kingdom, why do you seek to profit from this book?


Lastly, I believe I may have met you years ago in your Ogden pawn shop/electronics store. Are you that Mike Ash?

[_Sethbag]

Mike, I haven't read your book, so would you mind answering whether you address some topics in it?

Do you address the fact that human beings have lived on this Earth for 100,000+ years, and yet Mormon cosmology can really only accept and "explain" the last, say, 6,000 years of it? I realize a couple of scientist apostles several decades ago argued for the existence of "pre-Adamites", yet Mormon theology is fundementally at odds with their existence, and the Mormon church has never even been able to bring itself to admit, officially, that human beings existed prior to 6000ish years ago.

In fact, it would appear that Adam and Eve really have no place at all in the reality of explaining the origin of the human race. There was no "first human" 6000ish years ago, since there were already entire civilizations and proto-civilations by that time, the first systems of proto-writing had already come about, agriculture had already been invented, most major migrations of human beings to the various continents had already occurred, etc.

Does your book comment on, or can you address, the Noah's Ark situation? The church teaches to this very day that this was a real event that actually happened, which was global in scope, ie: the literal reading of Genesis. And yet it's perfectly clear that examination of the evidence that is abundantly present in the Earth itself shows that this did not happen. At no time in the at least last few hundreds of millions of years does the Earth appear to have been submerged, with the mass annihilation of all animals save those who then originated at some particular spot in the world and then spread back out from there. It simply never happened. Given the existence of parallel flood legends in other ancient Near Eastern mythologies, it's pretty clear that Noah's Ark story is simply a myth.

Do you address the loss of credibility suffered by these kinds of teachings? If not, I think you should, because they are huge gaping wounds in the church's credibility. Some people dismiss things like this as unimportant, but that's naïve and akin to putting one's head in the sand. The fact is that LDS leaders have represented themselves as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, who receive, and have received, Truth from God, who have received Truth through Scriptures revealed by God and angels, and who recognize the various books in the Bible as being the Truth from God barring translation errors. They have taught as Truth a view of world and human history which, as it turns out, is nothing more than inherited mythology of our particular tribe, and which turns out to be utterly, totally, and completely false and unlike true human and world history.

I mean seriously, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Seventies, and everyone else in the leadership cannot bring themselves, in 2008, to officially admit that Noah never saved the human race from annihilation by a worldwide flood on a homemade gopher wood ship filled with pairs of animals. This just demonstrates vividly how wedded they are to ancient mythology, an incorrect worldview, and the inability to accept and admit that their scriptures and past Prophets, Seers, and Revelators got it wrong. Yet every scientifically literate person in the world today either knows, or should know, what these Prophets of God cannot bring themselves to admit.

Of course it is my view that things like this, and many more, all support the understanding that these Prophets are really just men like you and me, with no special hotline to a cosmic source of Truth, who are the blind leading the blind. They may be nice guys, but they don't actually represent on Earth a God who really exists, and has given them the authority to tell the rest of us what this God wants us all to do. As such, they are usurpers.

[_Trevor]

I feel vindicated on my sense of the aesthetics of the cover of Mike's book after reading the MA&D thread on it:

However, I sadly have to agree, that's one of the suckiest book covers I've ever seen. You definately need to get that changed.

It is certain that Br. Ash knows the artist (if it is not himself), and thus would be almost compelled to defend the work, but on the other hand, although I confess I have seen better covers than this...

That being said, and no offense to whoever designed the cover, but I have some graphic design friends who could blow that cover out of the water.

Even Lord Kerry chimes in:

I have some graphic design wife who can also blow it outta the water, but its the content with which Ash absolutely ROCKS.

So I guess it's not just a critics point of view.

[_MAsh]

2. Both- see my background above. I don't see it very often in the real world, but I do know people (sometimes close people) who have either struggled or left the Church because of contra-LDS claims. I simply want to give my reasons for not accepting those claims.

So not often. You have no idea how that disappoints me.

I'm not sure why this disappoints you.

I was hoping for something concrete. You are working from an anecdotal foundation; I'd hoped for something more substantial.

Sorry. I have nothing to more to offer on this. I didn't solict a survey.

Publishing a book doesn't strike me as seeking. It strikes me as being more passive, simply providing a source for a seeker. ...Isn't that the purpose of the book? Not to seek, but rather to be available to the one who seeks?

You are correct. I want to make this information available to those who are looking for answers.

FAIR won't make a fortune on my book. We hope we break even. Any profits would be a bonus to help finance future conferences, etc. I won't make any money on this book unless we see a profit (and even then, I can't image I'd make more than a few hundred dollars at best). I didn't write it to make money & FAIR didn't publish it to make money. We know the audience is small.

You consider providing your thoughts (not the Brethren's thoughts, but your thoughts) as reaching out? ... Why not just direct those seekers to those who are called to know?

Yes. My thoughts. The Brethren aren't call to know everything. There's nothing wrong with any Church member expressing ideas on speculative matters or things beyond revealed doctrine. I don't understand why this seems problematic.

I harbor no ill will to those who disagree. Because I believe in the basic teachings of the Church, I feel obligated to help-- by providing my thoughts-- to those who question.

Mike

I sincerely beg your pardon, but this is a concept I truly don't understand. I don't mean to sound rude, so please don't take what I say that way, but why would you think that your thoughts might help someone who is questioning? Let me explain a bit more: I write on this board because it gives me a vehicle for voicing my thoughts. It would never occur to me that anyone outside of a few people in this very small group would even care what I think. I don't think that my thoughts would necessarily be of any help to anyone, because I have no authority by which my words would have substance. Unless I am mistaken, in which I truly beg your pardon, you have no authority either. Yet you have published an entire book of your thoughts, none of which have any more weight of authority than mine (or anyone else's). While I appreciate the time and effort it obviously took for you to complete this project, I am at a loss to understand why you did it. Were you called to do this, by someone who actually has authority? Is it your stewardship to provide your thoughts, which unless I am mistaken have no authority behind them, to those who question? What is the reaction of those who have authority to your book? (By that I don't mean the Brethren; I mean your local authorities.)

And the worst scenario: what if you are wrong?

Most people value the thoughts of others (at least some others). I value the thoughts of Darwin, Einstien, Thomas Aquinas, the Pope, Billy Graham, Stephen J. Gould, Hugh Nibley, Dieter Uchtdorf, my bishop, my banker, and many other people. Some people have expressed appreciation for the articles I've written for FAIR. I am the sole authority on my thoughts-- which gives me the right and authority to speak or write about my thoughts.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong about something and it wouldn't be the first time that someone valued the thoughts of someone who was incorrect.

Mike

[_MAsh]

I feel vindicated on my sense of the aesthetics of the cover of Mike's book after reading the MA&D thread on it:

However, I sadly have to agree, that's one of the suckiest book covers I've ever seen. You definitely need to get that changed.

It is certain that Br. Ash knows the artist (if it is not himself), and thus would be almost compelled to defend the work, but on the other hand, although I confess I have seen better covers than this...

That being said, and no offense to whoever designed the cover, but I have some graphic design friends who could blow that cover out of the water.

Even Lord Kerry chimes in:

I have some graphic design wife who can also blow it outta the water, but its the content with which Ash absolutely ROCKS.

So I guess it's not just a critics point of view.

A friend liked a latest Rambo. Oh, well.

Mike

[_MAsh]

If you are genuinely concerned for your fellow church member and are devouted to the cause of building (and retaining) the kingdom, why do you seek to profit from this book?


Lastly, I believe I may have met you years ago in your Ogden pawn shop/electronics store. Are you that Mike Ash?

A profit for 3+ years of work would be nice, but it would be gravy. I have bills to pay and have sacrificed a lot of time to write it-- and I'm out probably more in funds then I'll ever make back (gas to libraries, printing & ink, purchase of source books, etc.). I think that many doctors are genuinely concerned for their patients but they still charge them.

And yes, I work in Ogden-- but at a Jewerly/Electronics store (not a pawn shop). I sell consumer electronics.

Mike

[_MAsh]

No sethbag, I don't address those issues directly. I do mention them in passing-- briefly in a different topic. I'm sorry but I don't see these as problems. I believe in evolution, an ancient earth, and a limited flood. But I'm not going to get into a debate on those here-- don't have the time nor desire.

Mike

[_Mister Scratch]

If you are genuinely concerned for your fellow church member and are devouted to the cause of building (and retaining) the kingdom, why do you seek to profit from this book?


Lastly, I believe I may have met you years ago in your Ogden pawn shop/electronics store. Are you that Mike Ash?

A profit for 3+ years of work would be nice, but it would be gravy. I have bills to pay and have sacrificed a lot of time to write it-- and I'm out probably more in funds then I'll ever make back (gas to libraries, printing & ink, purchase of source books, etc.). I think that many doctors are genuinely concerned for their patients but they still charge them.

And yes, I work in Ogden-- but at a Jewerly/Electronics store (not a pawn shop). I sell consumer electronics.

Mike

Dear Mike---

First of all, please allow me to congratulate you on your publication. I really hope you've set aside time for a proper celebration. Kudos to you!

That said, if you don't mind sharing, what was the payment scale like that you received for this book? I.e., were you given an advance? Further, what is the royalties set-up like? Is it the typical 10% for the first 10,000 copies, 15% for the next 10,000, and so forth? If you don't feel comfortable discussing this, I completely understand, though I have to admit I'm very curious.

Cheers, in any case, and a hearty congratulations.