Michael Ash blames "naïve" church members for apostasy

[Guest]

In his just posted article at Mormon Times, here: http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/gu ... g/?id=7988 ... Michael Ash states:

When we examine the narratives of those who left the church, we discover common threads in many of their religious world views. Typically, they have fundamentalist religious ideals and are often naïve about certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events. That doesn't mean that such members will apostatize, but such worldviews potentially set them up for disaster.

(Emphasiss supplied.)

Considering that the reason members are "naïve" (interesting choice of words) about "certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events" is that the Church whitewashes curriculum materials, websites, etc. to ensure that members remain "naïve," Ash really is blaming the Church, but he won't say it and attempts to sidestep it hoping his "naïve" readers will not catch that point. Seriously, how can Ash say what he has said without noting that the Church, as Dallin Oaks has stated, has presented only a "favorable" view of its history? In fact, Ash knows full well that if he were not acting as an apologist with hopes of convincing people that only naïve idiots lose their testimonies over newly learned history, he would have stated the more obvious point--that "disaster" ofen results from the fact that the church has failed to provide any of the negative parts of its history to its members, intentionally hiding it from them. Indeed, he might even link to the CURRENT official Joseph Smith website at http://www.josephsmith.net as an example of how the church continues to feed the "naïve" view of many members that Joseph Smith only had one wife, failing to mention any of the other thirty-plus wives or even that he was married to more than one woman.

Why can't people just be up front and admit the obvious? Moreover, last time I checked, the prophets of the Church encouraged "inflexible" "rigid" "black and white" views. Might this explain why some members exhibit this kind of thinking when dealing with newly learned history...simply "follow[ing] the prophets"?

///
///

[_Ray A]

I'm almost convinced that Mike and others have lost their testimony. Perhaps they enter apologia for "feelgood" reasons. What Mike calls "fundamentalist" is what 19th century Mormonism would call "doctrine".

[Guest]

Precisely, Ray. It's like he is saying..."you idiots who actually believed those stupid sunday school and seminary manuals and what those moronic prophets said and wrote and what your mission presidents taught you...what a bunch of gullible fools you are."

I am betting, if I looked, I could find several references in conference talks to how it is good to be "rigid" and "inflexible" in our beliefs and in what we are taught by the prophets, including the approved church curriculum. I am betting I would have trouble, however, finding conference talks suggesting that being rigid and inflexible in believing there was actually a flood as described in the Bible could lead to apostacy. So who should we listen to? The GA's or Michael Ash?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
only naïve idiots lose their testimonies over newly learned history
...

I've heard such notions expressed before -- but would think that Ash would be more
careful in his articulating them. But -- perhaps he has his own inner conflicts to deal with.

Probably most Mormons who "lose their testimonies over newly learned history," never
had valid experiences of epiphany, theophany, personal revelation, transcendental
experience, ministry of angels, continuing presence of the Holy Ghost, etc., to begin with.

When such members realize that their leaders and educators have been dishonest with
them, they naturally extend that unhappy realization all the way back (and up) to
Joseph Smith, Jr, himself --- and the entire "testimony" of immaculate, divine LDS origins
collapses like a house of cards.

I suspect that those members with valid spiritual experiences already know that their
leaders and educators are prone to whitewash past events -- their testimonies will abide
upon a more subtle level of profession than "I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet!"

If what I've said is generally true -- then this phenomenon leaves some genuine "saints"
voiceless in a church which only encourages uncomplicated testimonies -- ones that
brush quickly past the more controversial issues of latter day saintism.

Too bad about that.

Maybe the time has come to publish honest history -- beginning with the fact that
Nephites were a fiction.

UD

[_mms]

When such members realize that their leaders and educators have been dishonest with
them, they naturally extend that unhappy realization all the way back (and up) to
Joseph Smith, Jr, himself --- and the entire "testimony" of immaculate, divine LDS origins
collapses like a house of cards.

Or the dishonesty makes the history look worse than it may actually be. The member asks, "If this information 'really isn't that damaging,' then why hide it? Why tell members who are struggling with it not to talk to other members about their struggle?"

[_Paul Osborne]

I’m not happy with my last conversation with Ash. I’m worried about him.

Paul O

[_Ray A]

I’m not happy with my last conversation with Ash. I’m worried about him.

Paul O

You should be, Paul. He's growing a beard.

.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Or the dishonesty makes the history look worse than it may actually be.
...

I continue to see a firm foundation and a promising future for the Saints,
so I am not especially upset by "the history." It is a mixture of good and bad,
entangled in a great deal of secrecy, misdirection and dishonesty. But then again,
many examples of human endeavor have that failing -- it just stings us a bit
harder when we detect it in religion.

I fear that if Muslims could inspect their long-past history, many of them would
be horrified -- same goes for many Christians. But the passage of time knocks
the hard edges off the truth, leaving behind a comfortable set of lies or, at
best, misunderstood half-truths.

Had Mormonism been given its start a few decades earlier, we might today have
only the sanitized official version to consult -- along with disarticulated suspicions
and bits of inconsistency. Great masses of people might actually believe that Smith
was some sort of spotless messiah who died an innocent death, etc. etc.

Maybe we are lucky to have all the piles of counter-testimony. For once in our
history as social/religious beings, we have the opportunity to dissect the genesis
events of what is becoming a world class religion.

Scalpel, please.....

UD

[_Dr. Shades]

When we examine the narratives of those who left the church, we discover common threads in many of their religious world views. Typically, they have fundamentalist religious ideals and are often naïve about certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events. That doesn't mean that such members will apostatize, but such worldviews potentially set them up for disaster.

Those aren't just the narratives of those who left the church. Let's take a look at the average member sitting in the chapel, and the average General Authority: When we examine the narratives of those who remain in the church, we discover common threads in many of their religious world views. Typically, they have fundamentalist religious ideals and are often naïve about certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events.

[_why me]

In his just posted article at Mormon Times, here: http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/gu ... g/?id=7988 ...
Considering that the reason members are "naïve" (interesting choice of words) about "certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events" is that the Church whitewashes curriculum materials, websites, etc. to ensure that members remain "naïve," Ash really is blaming the Church, but he won't say it and attempts to sidestep it hoping his "naïve" readers will not catch that point. Seriously, how can Ash say what he has said without noting that the Church, as Dallin Oaks has stated, has presented only a "favorable" view of its history?

I understand Mike's point very well. I think mms you will need to do a rethink. First, no one should have a testimony of LDS history. I have said it many times that history is human made and as such it is filled with imperfections done by real people. Nothing new in that.

And now here is my suggestion to you: submit a proposal about church curriculum materials and see where it leads you. What information would please you? What facts would you include that would be to your liking? All you need to do is to write a letter.

But I will also say this: you may want this included or that included. Uncle Dale may want his own this and that, likewise for Shades and Kevin Graham. Maybe the church needs to have a powwow with the critics and plan the material around them.

Now I do think that the LDS church should have a history class during sunday school and the manual can be taken from Bushman's book and a host of others. I think that it is important to read the history of the LDS church but then again, we have a problem because the critics are not all in line with one another. And because they suffer from criticitis, they will not be happy regardless and neither would you... right??