Michael Ash blames "naïve" church members for apostasy

[_Seven]

Aren't the leaders of the Church at all responsible for creating this "fundamentalist mindset" to which Mike refers. I distinctly recall statements to the effect that Mormonism is either everything Joseph Smith claimed it to be or it is a fraud. Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and others were also wonderful examples of the black and white thinking Mike associates with this "fundamentalism." Is it at all unpredictable that many LDS people should share this perspective?

Here are a few quotes:

“THE CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who wilfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.”—Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1954, vol. 1, p. 188 6.

Here is aquote from Gordon B. Hinckley's "loyalty" talk in the April 2003 conference:

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

During an interview with PBS, Hinckley stated:

"...it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith. 4

"This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God... If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it... If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason..."

"But on the other hand, if investigation should prove the Book of Mormon true ... the American and English nations ... should utterly reject both the Popish and Protestant ministry, together with all the churches which have been built up by them or that have sprung from them, as being entirely destitute of authority."
- Apostle Orson Pratt

"Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived. As we know, there are many so-called Christian teachers who espouse the teachings and deny the teacher. Beyond that, there are those who even deny the existence or the knowability of God. Their counterparts in Mormondom embrace some of the teachings of the Book of Mormon but deny its historicity."

"Brothers and Sister, how grateful we are--all of us who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation--for what you are doing. God bless the founders and the supporters and the workers of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The work that you do is important, it is well-known, and it is appreciated."

- Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, The Historicity of the Book of Mormon, FARMS annual dinner on October 29th, 1993

[_bcspace]

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 think the Church would present any information, even information you think it doesn't present but should, in a favorable light and I see nothing wrong with that. One big facet that you are missing is that when said person goes looking, he/she often encounters the material presented in a false or negative light. In other words, the fault must be equally shared by those engaged in such yellow journalism. I believe those people would gladly take the credit.......dishonesty being the hallmark of antiMormonism.

[_Gadianton]

Mike Ash is an Internet Mormon. Internet Mormons blame Chapel Mormons for anything that might seem wrong with the church.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Apologists of Ash's stripe need for the departing members to be "naïve." I'm sure you recall Stan Barker's soft-headed assertion that the only reason well-educated people reject the Church is because they "don't listen." Something similar is occurring with Ash. If a person were well-educated, all caught up on Church history and doctrine, and yet that person still left the Church, Ash would be forced to admit that, yes, in fact, there are perfectly sound, reasonable, and logical reasons why people reject the Church. But no apologist that I am aware of is willing to concede this point. (Wasn't it DCP who said that he had never encountered a single person who left the Church due to purely intellectual reasons?)

[_Ray A]

I think the Church would present any information, even information you think it doesn't present but should, in a favorable light and I see nothing wrong with that. One big facet that you are missing is that when said person goes looking, he/she often encounters the material presented in a false or negative light. In other words, the fault must be equally shared by those engaged in such yellow journalism. I believe those people would gladly take the credit.......dishonesty being the hallmark of antiMormonism.

It was the seven volume History of the Church which inspired my quest for more information. That led me to Dialogue, Suntone, the Journal of Mormon History, and BYU Studies. There is nothing "negative" about those publications, though an average TBM might think otherwise.

Propaganda is the hallmark of dishonesty, and hagiography is one of its tenacles. You need go no further than Francis Gibbons' hagiography of several prophets to see what I mean.

[_Dr. Shades]

One big facet that you are missing is that when said person goes looking, he/she often encounters the material presented in a false or negative light. . . I believe those people would gladly take the credit.......dishonesty being the hallmark of antiMormonism.

Can you give us an example, please?

[_Trevor]

Apologists of Ash's stripe need for the departing members to be "naïve." I'm sure you recall Stan Barker's soft-headed assertion that the only reason well-educated people reject the Church is because they "don't listen." Something similar is occurring with Ash. If a person were well-educated, all caught up on Church history and doctrine, and yet that person still left the Church, Ash would be forced to admit that, yes, in fact, there are perfectly sound, reasonable, and logical reasons why people reject the Church. But no apologist that I am aware of is willing to concede this point. (Wasn't it DCP who said that he had never encountered a single person who left the Church due to purely intellectual reasons?)

I agree with what Scratch is saying here, to a point. I do believe that many believers have a need to stereotype negatively those who leave the faith in order to protect their rightness for believing and to create and maintain clear boundaries between believers and non-believers. Thus it is not mysterious in the least why characterizations of those who leave can often, even in the writings of thoughtful people like Mike Ash, acquire negative characteristics. The stereotype of the "apostate" is very important for those who desire to maintain faith.

I would also add that self-identifying ex-Mormons are equally prone to applying negative stereotypes to believers (Morgbots, drones, brainwashed, devious, etc.).

But I am just an apostate, so what do I know? ;-)

[_Runtu]

As far as I can tell, this "exmos as fundamentalists" has its origins in Juliann Reynolds's appropriation of postmodern terminology to counter obvious problems in Mormon claims. It's funny to see her (and now Mike Ash) trying to convince people that a religion that bills itself as possessor of Truth (with a capital T) shouldn't really be thought of in terms of "true" or "false." This is a tacit admission that the church's claims don't really hold up to scrutiny, so you have to rethink what it means to be "true."

I don't know too many people who will fall for such nonsense.

[_Inconceivable]

Seven,

Your quotes crystalize our understanding of what is expected of a valiant member of the Mormon church.

I had no reason to disbelieve a prophet. Ever. Prophets did no wrong. They were not permitted to do so (as you aptly point out). They were the best of God's best.

For example:

Smith never drank alcohol. Never. I knew this because he refused it out of principle at the young age 10. I would never drink alcohol (and unfortunately, to this day, I have yet to try it). I taught the young men this story for years to impress upon them the character of a prophet of God - a character they could emulate.

Yes, black and white thinking. There have never been shades of grey taught from the pulpit.

[_Inconceivable]

Mormon prophets are entitled to at least a portion of deification for those that know the doctrine. Prophets are not just as human as the next man. You might say that they are much like Jesus minus the immortal blood of God that made Jesus slightly different:

3 Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 135:3)[/b]

1 ..and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.
2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.
3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren...
10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;
11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.
12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.
13 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 13:1 - 13)

As a truly converted Mormon, you are required to accept the baby belongs to the bathwater doctrine - no matter where the bathwater ends up.

Yes, the fence that apologists imagine themselves sitting upon, really does not exist at all.

Gray has always been black.

And that black is Joseph Smith's tarbaby.