Mike Ash radio interview today re Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_Dr. Shades]

It might be helpful, for those who want to critique Mike Ash's position, to read Mike Ash's book -- in which, presumably, he's taken the most care to lay that position out.

There's a paragraph in the book wherein he states that continuing discoveries in Mesoamerican archaeology are bolstering the validity of Mormon claims all the time.

Isn't such a blatant lack of rigor indicative of the problematic nature of the book as a whole?

[_Jason Bourne]

I think people may be talking past one another on this topic.

Perhaps but Hale and Ash seemed pretty loose on this if Shades transcription is correct.

I believe that the Church is run by prophets, seers, and revelators who receive revelation. (I've received revelation myself, so I don't doubt that they do.)

Ok. So what is and is not revelation to be relied on by members and how is this determined?

But I don't think their every move or utterance is led directly by God, and I don't see them claiming anything of the sort.

Some are more outspoken then others on this. ETBs 14 points of Prophet speech seems to indicate that prophets have a lot of revelation and that they best be heeded. Was his speech just opinion? If yes White House decides that? He as president of the 12 at the time.

And I believe that there are fixed and established doctrines in the Church, but I also believe that there is much, very much, that we don't know.

So is there a lot of doctrine or not much like some apologists seem to think?

What we may have here is an argument between people declaring that the glass is half full and those who counter that it's half empty.

I don't think so. I think there is a major chasm between what I see Hale and Ash saying, and they are not unique, and what main line members believe and here from the leaders. I don't think the leaders are all that loose in their view of what they say as being from God as apologists are either.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

It might be helpful, for those who want to critique Mike Ash's position, to read Mike Ash's book -- in which, presumably, he's taken the most care to lay that position out.

There's a paragraph in the book wherein he states that continuing discoveries in Mesoamerican archaeology are bolstering the validity of Mormon claims all the time.

Isn't such a blatant lack of rigor indicative of the problematic nature of the book as a whole?

One who reads the paragraph in context of the chapter (and even book) will quickly realize that your representation is largely flawed.

[_John Larsen]

There's a paragraph in the book wherein he states that continuing discoveries in Mesoamerican archaeology are bolstering the validity of Mormon claims all the time.

Isn't such a blatant lack of rigor indicative of the problematic nature of the book as a whole?

One who reads the paragraph in context of the chapter (and even book) will quickly realize that your representation is largely flawed.

Rather that just throw around such critiques, why don't you point out exactly how Shades reasoning is flawed and what is the correct context that makes this all come together?

[_Roger Morrison]

Dan Peterson said:

What we may have here is an argument between people declaring that the glass is half full and those who counter that it's half empty.

Could be, popular meme that it is. However, a glass that is never topped-up, is always half-empty no matter how one tries to deny that reality.

Dan, you are no exception in receiving "revelation". Most folks do. It's our link to the divine creator that sustains our Universe. So I have concluded by "my" study of Jesus', and other sages' teachings.

The ability to enjoy that innately human distinction does not come with a degree; although an open mind is more of a receptor than a closed mind. Education generally facilitates that state of mind. Nor is it given exlusively to one gender, sect, race, creed or proclaimer of "God's" favour.

In religious terms, I guess we might refer to "revelation" (inspiration) as a gift of the Spirit. So it would be surprising if LDS heiarchy were not moved occasionally to some manner of correctness. As are all/most/many/some other religious and corporate boards, as well as individuals. You also said, into which I'll inject in bold:

But I don't think their every move or utterance is led directly by God, Agree and I don't see them claiming anything of the sort. That could be a personal perception. However, I'd be surprised if you have not encountered others who are less liberal? And I believe that there are fixed and established doctrines in the Church, Absolutely, as there are in all sects and denominations but I also believe that there is much, very much, that we don't know. Agree (UL added by RM)

Dan, I do respect your testimony, as you stated it above. But, are you firm in your belief that the Mormon Church has the absolute, exclusive divine authority to seal blessings, and personal eternal destinies to Mormons? While, OTOH non-Mormons, who may be in all intents, purposes and ways equal to, or surpass, Mormons in the Christian qualities of their lives, are relagated to a lessor Heavenly residence? They do claim that sort of thing, do they not? As I recall...

[_Nightingale]

Duh. I figured out finally that I can order it through FAIR as Des Books is out of stock. Too, it only has to come from California that way. That should speed things up. (We have a dearth of LDS book shops in my location. It requires a cross-border trip to get to the nearest one, a bit of a deterrent to purchasing items in person).

I agree that the scope of a discussion about the book by people who have not read it would be somewhat limited. However, there is enough of a sample online and previous information and various threads about the topic and, most recently and specifically, the Van Hale radio discussion with the author himself, for us to have a meaningful discussion about Mr. Ash's approach and ideas. I appreciate the summary by Dr. Shades. I was only able to catch 10 minutes in the last half hour of the two hour program. I realize that it is a third hand account but still I feel comfortable discussing at least the points I heard myself (another time though, when I'm not at work).

My general approach, though, is to refrain from roundly condemning something at least until I have read it myself. I might completely disagree with Mr. Ash on every point but I do, in theory at least, understand where he is coming from. During my time in the church I would have found it refreshing to come across someone who acknowledged that there are questions rather than giving me the usual response to any and every question: It is not essential to your salvation. Newsflash: Converts are gonna have questions! What is the point of trying to stifle them?