Michael Ash blames "naïve" church members for apostasy

[_Mercury]

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".

Are you kidding? Apologetics is Cog-Dis on crack.

Its kind of a prerequisite to most apologists that they have a "i almost lost my testimony" story in which they discover nasty truths and then swallow the b***s*** and start pitching it themselves in order to stay within the limiting cultural prison that is their life.

The only difference between an apostate and an apologist is that the apostate had an opportunity to leave while the apologist has to stick around mormonland and justify why he has to ignore the 800 pound gorilla wearing magic underwear.

[_Ray A]

Are you kidding? Apologetics is Cog-Dis on crack.

Its kind of a prerequisite to most apologists that they have a "i almost lost my testimony" story in which they discover nasty truths and then swallow the b***s*** and start pitching it themselves in order to stay within the limiting cultural prison that is their life.

The only difference between an apostate and an apologist is that the apostate had an opportunity to leave while the apologist has to stick around mormonland and justify why he has to ignore the 800 pound gorilla wearing magic underwear.

LOL. That's a good way of putting it.

[_Inconceivable]

The only difference between an apostate and an apologist is that the apostate had an opportunity to leave while the apologist has to stick around mormonland and justify why he has to ignore the 800 pound gorilla wearing magic underwear.

As per commandment of Shades, those things in the Telestial must stay in the Telestial, but you can visit if you're interested in my comment:

viewtopic.php?p=242694#p242694

[_why me]

First, no one should have a testimony of LDS history.

But this is exactly what the LDS church and its members testify to when the mantra of "I know the church is true" is recited. And ironically it is a testimony of "history" that never existed in testifying that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Some should think before they post!!!

No one to my knowledge gets up to the podium and testifies that church history is perfect and full of truth. But what they do testify is to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Now that has very little to do with MMM or any other event that may not sound wonderful. There is a difference.

[_why me]

why me, I have to be honest with you. I think you know better than what you write a significant part of the time. This ridiculous "just write a letter" argument is, well, ridiculous. Many people, including LOaP have written asking the Church to add--or asking why it has not added--information to the official Joseph Smith website about his 32 other wives or even one of them. Response? Well, of course, nothing! You know people can write all the letters they want to write and the result will be the same--"not all truth is useful."

Moreover, your argument that "some will want this and some will want that" is disengenuous. In most instances, it is completely obvious what should be added--the stuff was that overtly deleted when putting together the correlated materials. For example, in the Joseph Smith manual, they could put that single paragraph back in the Wentworth Letter; on the website, they could add information about when plural marriage started and who knew about it and why "lying for the lord" was, apparently, the right thing to do. Seriously, I do not think you actually believe what you write some of the time.

Actually I do believe what I write. If more members would write in to the Curriculum Department with their concerns and wishes I think that it would be a good thing and get some results. I see nothing wrong with that idea. Now whether anything happens to another thing but it may be considered at some time in the future if enough people write in.

I also think that the manuals have a purpose. They are to teach what is useful for the here and now. And not about what was taught over a century ago, if that serves no use for today.

What most critics like yourself are looking for is something different and it would require a different kind of class. Now I do believe that the LDS church cannot win this argument because a critic will always have a beef with one thing or another. Not all critics would be satisfied. Just look at the Bushman book. Not many critics appreciated the work he did and most had differing opinions on just what could have been included and how.

The Wentworth letter was abridged but if you wish, during the priesthood lesson you can mention it. I think that the lesson about the letter will be coming soon. I see nothing wrong with mentioning what was left out and why. It may create a good discussion.

Plural marriage would be great for a history class but not for a current doctrine discussion class. It has no relevance for today. But if you wish you can mention it if you think that it should be mentioned. I have often brought in history into the class as a member to give context to what was in the manual from my seat.

[_why me]

Are you kidding? Apologetics is Cog-Dis on crack.

Its kind of a prerequisite to most apologists that they have a "i almost lost my testimony" story in which they discover nasty truths and then swallow the b***s*** and start pitching it themselves in order to stay within the limiting cultural prison that is their life.

The only difference between an apostate and an apologist is that the apostate had an opportunity to leave while the apologist has to stick around mormonland and justify why he has to ignore the 800 pound gorilla wearing magic underwear.

Let me put it this way: An apologist has a belief in the Book of Mormon and in the restoration of Christ's church on this earth. If one still has a testimony of that, it is not difficult to be an apologist. What is difficult is being constantly on the defensive and that is what apologists are: on the defensive because they are defending the LDS church. In other words, they play with the black pieces and not the white. And it is always more difficult to be playing with the black pieces, if you know chess.

In today's world, we are all suffering from Cog-dis. How many Americans support the capitalism system even though it has brought untold suffering to the American people right now? Such is cog-dis.

[_Sethbag]

Let me put it this way: An apologist has a belief in the Book of Mormon and in the restoration of Christ's church on this earth. If one still has a testimony of that, it is not difficult to be an apologist. What is difficult is being constantly on the defensive and that is what apologists are: on the defensive because they are defending the LDS church.

They are on the defensive because there is ample evidence that Joseph Smith created a manmade religious movement, in the same way that thousands of other such manmade religious movements have been created before, and since. They are on the defensive because there is little if any evidence to distinguish the LDS Church from all of the other manmade churches out there, and because its truth claims ring so hollow.

In other words, they play with the black pieces and not the white. And it is always more difficult to be playing with the black pieces, if you know chess.

Black Pieces = secret polygamy behind his wife's back, lying and deception, disappearing plates, self-serving revelations, Egyptian funeral documents claimed to be from ancient Israelite prophets, no evidence that entire civilizations described in its scripture ever existed at all, "Prophets" who for decades taught things science has now thoroughly disproven, etc.

White Pieces = the fact that Joseph Smith's church was created close enough to us in time that a lot of the evidence of its manmade origins did not yet disappear into the mists of time before cheap printing, and then the Internet, made it accessible to all

[_Gadianton Plumber]

(Wasn't it DCP who said that he had never encountered a single person who left the Church due to purely intellectual reasons?)

Not really relevant, but Seth Payne certainly left the church for purely intellectual reasons. He stayed for reasons of the heart. You should read his site, DCP. I am not sure if he posts here, I saw him on Planet Mad. Well, well, well worth the time, in my opinion.

[_Sethbag]

Plural marriage would be great for a history class but not for a current doctrine discussion class. It has no relevance for today.

In a church where men, including Apostles, marry for time and all eternity 2nd and 3rd wives after the death(s) of their previous one(s), with the full expectation of being the husband of them all in eternity, your statement is patently false. The doctrine of plural marriage in Mormonism is every single bit as relevant today as it ever was. Only the practice of simultaneous living polygamy, a higher priesthood holder taking over another man's wife without a writ of divorcement, and leaders in the church secretly marrying other (yet living) men's wives, are not currently practiced.

Why Me, I think it would be very interesting to hear your interpretation of D&C 132:41.

[_Mercury]

Let me put it this way: An apologist has a belief in the Book of Mormon and in the restoration of Christ's church on this earth.

Let me put it to you so you might be able to understand better: Apologists HAD a belief in the Book of Mormon at one time. My point is that they are locked in a syssyphian endeavor to choke down what is wrong with the Book of Mormon and explain away the incongruities, therefore keeping a tenuous grip on something their subconscious realizes they need to let go of.

If one still has a testimony of that, it is not difficult to be an apologist.

You are confusing chapel Mormonism with internet Mormonism. Apologetics does not operate on a testimony.

What is difficult is being constantly on the defensive and that is what apologists are: on the defensive because they are defending the LDS church.

It IS difficult, true. But this does not make the cause just. White supremacists groups and holocaust deniers have a difficult time defending their position. Does this make their cause just?

In other words, they play with the black pieces and not the white. And it is always more difficult to be playing with the black pieces, if you know chess.

I see your point and I agree. My view differs in that it is not a noble cause to defend Mormonism. Its a losing battle because they have chosen a position that is indefensible. No matter what they say they still can't help the fact that reality is what it is.

In today's world, we are all suffering from Cog-dis. How many Americans support the capitalism system even though it has brought untold suffering to the American people right now? Such is cog-dis.

As an aside I think you are confusing corporatism with capitalism.

Speaking to the cog-dis portion of your response, this is an attempt at explaining away cognitive dissonance while not confronting the issues raised. Yes, we all have cognitive dissonance. Someone buys a car at a higher price than they found after the purchase and then cites some irrelevant benefit gained by paying more, justifying the higher cost in their head. The problem with cognitive dissonance engaged in defense of lies and falsehoods inherent in Mormonism is that ones life is drastically changed by believing silly things.

Your point does not scale is what I am saying. Mormonism inspired cog-dis is powers of ten more dammaging than when I buy a Macbook at a premium even though I can buy a PC Laptop for half the cost. I justify it by the typical cult-of-mac reasoning :)

My central point is that deep down most apologists see the problems with Mormonism. They react illogically and sometimes with bile and hate usually reserved for battered women defending their abusive spouse, which in essence is a good analog for the apologists situation.

Instead of acting on the knowledge of glaring problems with the Book of Mormon they attempt to explain away the problems with mealy mouthed language. They do not realise their counters to critics are innefective but instead grasp them as if the thinking has been done and all is alligned to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc. This is a very dangerous way to live in an attempt to satiate the ego.

No one likes being lied to. If someone you love lies to you one has an easier time justifying the lie by shrugging it off. Apologetics is a game the defenders play in order to keep everything in their lives the same, especially the ego pumping "specialness" of being Mormon. If one gives Mormonism an apologetic pass it lets one keep that arrogance and disregard for evidence. Why do I see apologists this way? Because I used to be one until I had the opportunity to break free. I suggest you try to find the same opportunity.