Michael Ash blames "naïve" church members for apostasy

[_why me]

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.

Not exactly. I see no ample evidence that Joseph Smith created a manmade religious movement. If you have that evidence, then you should take that show on the road throughout Utah. Good ample evidence would be a manuscript of the Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith's or Sidney's hand complete with a rough draft look. Do you have one? If not, good luck.

Actually, but there is the Book of Mormon which is claimed to be divinely inspired complete with the first vision and an angel visitation. Plus, 11 witnesses. That is quite an achievement to be sure.

[_Ray A]

Not exactly. I see no ample evidence that Joseph Smith created a manmade religious movement.

Do you see any evidence that Muhammad created a man-made religion? There are more than 1 billion Muslims. Is that a persuasive reason to believe that Islam is "true"? Can you explain why Muslims, when reading the Qur'an feel exactly as you do, or a TBM does, when reading the Book of Mormon? (I presume you have read the entire Book of Mormon?)

Several years ago I had a Muslim workmate who read the Qur'an at work everyday. Curious, I asked him what he felt or got out of reading the Qur'an with such intensity. Paraphrasing his reply as closely as I can remember, "every word is inspired, and they open my spiritual eyes". He of course read the Qur'an in Arabic, and it is said to have more "spiritual power" in Arabic. Karen Armstrong, in her study of Muslims, also noted this, the power of the Qur'an upon the minds of true believers.

Is there anyway to falsify such personal experiences? The Qur'an was not produced in the same way as the Book of Mormon, and there were no witnesses, but the "power" of the book is not disputed by Muslims. So if, theoretically, it is a man-made book, can you explain the "spiritual impact"?

[_why me]

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.

Actually this is wide known in the LDS church and I have seen it happen. No one thinks the worse for it. And it creates no problems. What is not relevant is a discussion on the doctrine of plural marriage as practiced during the time when polygamy was practiced. That has no relevance for today.

Here is what the FAIRwiki says about that verse:

It is curious that all of the possible children (barring the dubious stories of miscarriage) are from polyandrous relationships. That is, there is no potential child born to a plural wife who did not also have a husband who could be the father of these children.

As discussed above (see Polyandry chapter here), it may be that sexual access was the exception, rather than the rule, in polyandrous relationships. Sylvia Sessions Lyon's reported remark about Josephine's conception while her husband was excommunicated suggests the rule, and also hints at the potential exception. Doctrine and Covenants 132 contains verses which may also describe this type of relationship, though they are seldom remarked:

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery…if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.
42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery. (D&C 132:41–42, emphasis added)
These verses seem to anticipate that married women may be "appointed unto" another man under specific circumstances, within the bond of the new and everlasting covenant. No other exceptions are permitted (see verse 42).[83]

Alternatively, perhaps these verses allude to the fate of those who are not yet "sealed" by the Holy Spirit of promise, for whom only murder—not adultery—can ultimately derail their eventual exaltation (D&C 132:26). If this reading is correct, then the "holy anointing" is perhaps the second anointing which sealed blessings upon the faithful.

The alternative reading, however, does not explain the distinction drawn between those who are married under the new and everlasting covenant and those who are not, nor does it explain the curious choice of wording. Given that this section was written in an attempt to assuage Emma's concerns over plural marriage (see chapter not on-line), the first reading strikes me as more likely.

Sounds good to me.

[_why me]

Not exactly. I see no ample evidence that Joseph Smith created a manmade religious movement.

Do you see any evidence that Muhammad created a man-made religion? There are more than 1 billion Muslims. Is that a persuasive reason to believe that Islam is "true"? Can you explain why Muslims, when reading the Qur'an feel exactly as you do, or a TBM does, when reading the Book of Mormon? (I presume you have read the entire Book of Mormon?)

Several years ago I had a Muslim workmate who read the Qur'an at work everyday. Curious, I asked him what he felt or got out of reading the Qur'an with such intensity. Paraphrasing his reply as closely as I can remember, "every word is inspired, and they open my spiritual eyes". He of course read the Qur'an in Arabic, and it is said to have more "spiritual power" in Arabic. Karen Armstrong, in her study of Muslims, also noted this, the power of the Qur'an upon the minds of true believers.

Is there anyway to falsify such personal experiences? The Qur'an was not produced in the same way as the Book of Mormon, and there were no witnesses, but the "power" of the book is not disputed by Muslims. So if, theoretically, it is a man-made book, can you explain the "spiritual impact"?

I have no idea about the koran. DCP is the expert when it comes to the Koran and all things Muslim. I can only comment on the Book of Mormon and how it came to be. For example: If sidney wrote the book as some Daleites on this forum testify to, why did sidney have Joseph Smith stick his head in a hat to 'translate' his book? It sounds crazy to me. And if Joseph Smith had a manuscript for his own book, where is that manucript and why didn't anyone see him with a manuscript? Not to mention the amount of ink that would be on his fingers using a feathered pen. And why would he stick his head in a hat? He must have had a mighty fine memory.

[_Ray A]

I have no idea about the koran. DCP is the expert when it comes to the Koran and all things Muslim.

I already know what DCP thinks of the Qur'an, at least from what he's written in various commentary over the years. I'm asking you for an opinion why you think Muslims have a similar reaction to reading the Qur'an as Mormons do when reading the Book of Mormon, and whether this can constitute evidence of it's truthfulness. I gave one example of the reaction of a Muslim I knew. (I have read the Qur'an in English, and it had no such impact upon me.)

I can only comment on the Book of Mormon and how it came to be. For example: If sidney wrote the book as some Daleites on this forum testify to, why did sidney have Joseph Smith stick his head in a hat to 'translate' his book? It sounds crazy to me. And if Joseph Smith had a manuscript for his own book, where is that manucript and why didn't anyone see him with a manuscript? Not to mention the amount of ink that would be on his fingers using a feathered pen. And why would he stick his head in a hat? He must have had a mighty fine memory.

That's a non-reply, because I don't disagree with anything you've written there.

[_why me]

I already know what DCP thinks of the Qur'an, at least from what he's written in various commentary over the years. I'm asking you for an opinion why you think Muslims have a similar reaction to reading the Qur'an as Mormons do when reading the Book of Mormon, and whether this can constitute evidence of it's truthfulness. I gave one example of the reaction of a Muslim I knew. (I have read the Qur'an in English, and it had no such impact upon me.)

I have no idea what kind of reactions muslims have and so, I cannot comment on it. I only know about my own witness to the Book of Mormon. But I will say that it seems to me that the koran creates a lot of evil in this world done through interpretation of its verses. And that is a telling sign.

[_Ray A]

But I will say that it seems to me that the koran creates a lot of evil in this world done through interpretation of its verses. And that is a telling sign.

And the Bible has done no such thing.

[_Sethbag]

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.

I've been coming around to a different conclusion. I believe that at least some, if not most apologists actually believe the church to be true.

It's very easy for them to feel like they're on the winning side when confronting those with religious attacks against Mormonism, ie: evangelicals arguing against Mormonism based on their reading of the Bible. It's very easy to deal with those attacks, so they get to feel good, and confident.

I think the good feeling, and the confidence, go out the door when dealing with critics who have not a religious-based exception to Mormonism, but rather claim that Mormonism is purely manmade on the basis of historical evidence and doctrinal contradiction with science and whatnot. Some of this evidence is so egregious, and so damning, that it must be exceedingly frustrating for an apologist, because it's not immediately apparent how those inconvenient truths mesh with the truth claims of the church. Yet they still accept the truth claims, so there has to be some way that it all works out.

This is where all the "scribes did it", and "that's not official", and "presentism!" defenses come from. And yes, they are lame, and intellectually unsatisfying. And yet they believe, or wish to believe, and so the rationales and excuses must be found.

Sadly, every single critic of the church is, like Joseph Smith, just a human being, and we all have our weaknesses and our foibles, and this too often gives the apologists an avenue for defense, by turning the tables and attacking the critics.

[_truth dancer]

Mike wrote,

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.

People who stop believing in the LDS church do so for the exact same reasons people leave Scientology, Catholicism, JW, FLDS, the People's Temple, the Raelians, or any other religion or cult.

Yeah, if people truly believe something and find out it is not true, they may leave.

OTOH, if people go to a church because it is a nice place to go, because their family attends, because it might be true, because there are nice sermons, or some good teachings, or nice people, or it is their culture, etc., and they discover some doctrine is not true it just doesn't matter.

~td~

[Tator]

This old ZLMB thread illustrates the road of post-modernism, which, in my opinion, is what Ash is likely using to salvage his faith, while he decries those who actually believe what the church teachers as naïve (or, in the popular apologist jargon, "fundamentalist").

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/8935

It's a long thread, so you may want to cut to the chase at the end. Ben is actually one apologist who understands what post-modernism would really mean to LDS truth claims, and admits that all truth claims are subject to change. He probably would still not agree to my summary, but I still think it's fair: post-modernism in Mormonism means that the content of the revelatory experience is not what matters in the end, but rather that revelation continues. So if prophets contradict one another, it doesn't matter. I tested Ben to see how true he was to this philosophy, and asked him if, under the post-modern Mormonism he envisions, it would be possible for a future prophet to even alter the teachings about the divine nature of JC. While protesting that I had chosen a polemic example, he did admit that it would be possible under his paradigm.

People like Ash and Juliann are just skirting on the edges of this philosophy, because, unlike Ben, aren't really schooled in post-modernism, so don't understand what it fully entails. They're just using a washed-out version of it in their attempts to find yet one more way to claim that people apostasize due to personal flaws and weaknesses. The new version is that they're "naïve" and "fundamentalist".