DiscussMormonism.com

I was perusing the relevant thread at MA&D, and some items were transcribed from the new book Shaken Faith Syndrome and brought to Mike Ash's (the author's) attention:

"From page 29 - 'This makes it unavoidable that much of the translator himself remains in his translation ... It's likely that Joseph used familiar language and terminology to dictate the intent of what was on the plates.'"

MY COMMENTS: This is a fatal apologetic flaw, and makes me seriously wonder just how rigorous his research and conclusions were, to whit: Anyone even remotely familiar with this issue knows full well that Joseph didn't do any literal "translating;" he merely read aloud the words that were written on the seer stone. Therefore, any words written on the stone were God's words, not Joseph's.

Also in Mike's book:

"It is also worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World Archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon" (page 67). "As things stand at the moment, current New World Archaeology evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon."

MY COMMENTS: As pretty much all of us know, that is an utterly, blatantly false statement. It might be able to fool rank-and-file members who are in no way familiar with the issues, but it can't fool the rest of us who know a little bit about Mormon studies.

If Mike's statements are this lowbrow, then I see no need to order a copy of his book.

My good Doctor, this book is NOT aimed at seasoned internet Mormons.

You know it is aimed at chapel Mormons who have only wandered a little ways out of the chapel doors, perhaps as far as the next door quickiemart or 7-11 for a slushie during a portion of the three hour block on sunday.

Mike knows full well that he can speak in a similar manner that is found in most gospel doctrine classes, which includes so-called FPS, wife's tales, half truths, and even outright lies, all in the name of testimony building and in his case member retention.

I am surprised his book does not claim there are mounds of evidence AT the NY Hill Cumorah which support the Book of Mormon historicity.

"It is also worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World Archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon" (page 67). "As things stand at the moment, current New World Archaeology evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon."

This goes beyond sloppy scholarship. This is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to deceive. Ash knows there is no credible evidence, so he lies. Its really sad when you have to lie to make your beliefs palatable to others,

Wow. I was just telling someone today how the church publishes SOOO many more half truths than the critics. (Which, of course, I am blinded and I need to use the spirit to discern what is right...and only the church can be right.)

Yeah, the good old Tight vs Loose translation. Each has MASSIVE problems. The only way the Book of Mormon could be true is if both were used. And, conveniently, the apologists have taken it upon themselves (with no authority to do so) to decide which sections were tight and which were loose. I'm sooo glad we have them to clarify what the prophets can't.

I'm always harping on critics who say there is NO evidence for the Book of Mormon.

But, as of yet, all of the evidences brought forth are old world, such as NHM, Bountiful, some Hebrew word similarities, etc. I have yet to see ANYTHING in Mesoamerica that confirms the Book of Mormon. And there is quite a bit against it. Does anyone know if he details what these New World evidences are? Or is it good enough that he claims they exist?

I remember sitting next to a lady on a plane ride from Vegas to SLC, and she said how they are finding evidences by the boatload in South America that PROVES the Book of Mormon true!! I think that this is the general consensus of the rank and file.

Dr. Shades wrote:Also in Mike's book:

"It is also worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World Archaeology that supports the Book of Mormon" (page 67). "As things stand at the moment, current New World Archaeology evidence tends to verify the claims made by the Book of Mormon."

MY COMMENTS: As pretty much all of us know, that is an utterly, blatantly false statement. It might be able to fool rank-and-file members who are in no way familiar with the issues, but it can't fool the rest of us who know a little bit about Mormon studies.

If Mike's statements are this lowbrow, then I see no need to order a copy of his book.

Mike posted an explanation:

MAsh wrote:Well, perhaps I could have phrased that sentence a little differently. The point was that-- according to Dr. John Clark's list-- most of those things mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not known to exist in the Americans in 1830. Today, most of those things listed are known to have existed in ancient America. Therefore, the things listed in the Book of Mormon have been verified by archaeology.

The list referred to such elements of low specificty as "thrones of stone" and "writing on metal plates" * which supposedly a 19th century author could never have imagined on his own. LOL

*Not particular thrones and plates mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but just the general concept that some people on a subcontinent would try and make a chair out of rock. Apparently Joseph Smith patented the idea back in 1830 and now his church collects "verification" as a form of royalty.

This syndrome is nothing more than good people suffering from cognitive dissonance and even denial. They were sold damaged goods, and they don't want to come to grips with it. How would you feel if you found out that your wife was a robot?

It is a sad position that the Church has put them in.

Yes, I said the Church.

If the Church were upfront about its teachings and history, there would be no need for so many people to suffer Mike's so-called "syndrome."

Today people are more skeptical and want to know the pros and cons, the positives and negatives, of whatever it is they are getting into. You see this everywhere, from Clark Howard to Consumer Reports. But the Church is not at all interested in providing both the full story. Instead, it calls all the positive stuff "truth" and the rest "anti-Mormon." That is how it deals with the problems, and the ones who suffer are the LDS members who choose not to follow blinldy anymore. They decide to use their brains and they are attacked for it. They're the "apostates" nobody is supposed to be around anymore, or else the anti-spiritual virus might infect them too.

The only people who convert to Mormonism are those who 1) want to believe before they know even the basics, or 2) those who do so with their eyes shut. We knew it as missionaries too. If we didn't have a giddy member referral who was anxious to get plugged into that social pipeline for acceptance purposes, we knew that if any investigator had come across any form of anti-Mormon literature, then it was just best for us to part ways. Everyone we came across who had the slightest clue about any negative LDS history, never joined.

There might be the occassional exception, but this was generally the rule.

How would you feel if you found out that your wife was a robot?

Ala the Stepford Wives? Cool. Poorly done movie though.

lol

Seriously though.

I mean you could easily ignore the fact. You could remain "happy" with her. You can keep using her as you always have.

But ultimately the knowledge that she isn't real, will continue to gnaw at your conscience.

This is what many people go through in Mike's "syndrome."

Seriously though.

I mean you could easily ignore the fact. You could remain "happy" with her. You can keep using her as you always have.

But ultimately the knowledge that she isn't real, will continue to gnaw at your conscience.

This is what many people go through in Mike's "syndrome."

I know what you mean. However I have not experienced this nor do I find it likely that I ever will. To me, the LDS Church is the only true and God authorized Church on the face of the earth and if that is not so, then God does not exist or He has not yet revealed Himself to man.

Sure I have experience doubts from time to time, but they have nothing to do with LDS doctrine, it's claims, or it's history. There are too many flaws in antiMormon/counterMormon arguments for that.

If you haven't already, check out the online sample chapter from SFS: Chapter 4: Confusing Doctrine With Tradition