Michael Ash blames "naïve" church members for apostasy

[_Kishkumen]

What astonishes me most about the new pomo apologetic is that the Mopologists have brought a philosophy that relies on the assumption of a cosmos without a fixed center of any kind into the service of a religion that declares itself to be that very center! Seems to me to be a glaring contradiction and not something that would really work.

[_why me]

.

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".

Probably not. Postmodernism is against meta-narratives or absolute truth. The LDS philosophy is rooted deeply in modernity since it claims absolute truth as a narrative. Mormonism came to be in the age of modernity. In 1844 when Joseph Smith was murdered Karl Marx and Engels were looking at their world and attempting to understand it and came up with the Communist Manifesto in 1848 as an attempt to deconstruct the capitalist truth and replace it with a socialist truth. Modernity is all about meta-narratives as absolute truth. Postmodernity is about small little identity truths were each small truth needs to be respected and valued. But no meta-narratives. In other words, there is no absolute truth. If anything postmodernity is against Mormonism as it attempts to negate or demonize it. For example, the supporters of same sex marriage are doing exactly that. Mormonism is steping on their little identity truth.

There is no way to deconstruct pieces of Mormon truth and still claim the LDS church is true. It is all or nothing.

[_Nevo]

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".

It's not really that new. Had this board been around 25 years ago, this thread could have been titled, "Lawrence Foster blames 'naïve' church members for apostacy [sic]."

Why was the Tanners' disillusionment with Mormonism so deep and their hostility toward it so sustained? A key factor was Jerald Tanner's reaction to his initial naïve and unrealistic understanding of Mormonism.

As a youth, he appears to have believed that Joseph Smith was perfect and that the Latter-day Saint Church had all the answers and could do no wrong. When his research increasingly showed him that Joseph Smith had flaws, that the eternally true (and some assert, changeless) Church had in fact changed, and that Mormon leaders had sometimes made mistakes, even very serious ones, he was furious. He felt that he had been cheated—sold a bill of goods—that the Church had willfully lied to him about matters of the highest importance. Not only did the emperor have no clothes, but the Mormon Church had sold them to him!

The anger, even fury, that emerges from much of the Tanners' writing, with its frequent obtrusive underlining, LARGE CAPITALS, and LARGE CAPITALS WITH UNDERLINING, along with sharp attacks on the personal motives of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders, seems to be crying out for the Mormon Church either to prove that it is perfect or else cease making its exclusivistic truth claims.

— Lawrence Foster, "Career Apostates: Reflections on the Works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17, no. 2 (1984): 41.

[_Trevor]

It's not really that new. Had this board been around 25 years ago, this thread could have been titled, "Lawrence Foster blames 'naïve' church members for apostacy [sic]."

You're not a bad guy, Nevo, and you are pretty smart. I misjudged you.

why me, I have to say that I am similarly impressed by your brief synopsis of the postmodernism problem in LDS apologetics.

[_harmony]

There is no way to deconstruct pieces of Mormon truth and still claim the LDS church is true. It is all or nothing.

This is patently incorrect. It's entirely possible to deconstruct the truth claims of the LDS church and not only remain Christian, but remain Mormon. Such all or nothing thinking is contrary to what the prophets have told us about pondering and seeking the truth in their words via prayer and fasting. Were there not many paths to God, both within and without the LDS church, our prophets would simply tell us that once they have made a pronouncement, there is no need for further thinking.

[_Nevo]

You're not a bad guy, Nevo, and you are pretty smart. I misjudged you.

Thanks, Trevor. The praise seems a bit on the faint side, but I'll take what I can get!

Anything this side of "complete moron" suits me fine ;)

[_Trevor]

Thanks, Trevor. The praise seems a bit on the faint side, but I'll take what I can get!

Anything this side of "complete moron" suits me fine ;)

Well, it wasn't meant to be faint. I just admit that I must not know you that well, but I have reason to think my negative impressions were not totally fair. It turns out that you know much more than I thought you did, and that you appear to be relatively fair-minded. When I know you better, the praise may grow.

Not that I think you are dependent on praise in any way. I just thought I would let you know that others notice your good qualities. It is something that could happen more often around here.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

This comment really seems a bit grade school to me. Nobody should have a testimony of history? Nonsense. The Mormon Church is founded on its claims of restoration. The First Vision is the pivotal event of that claim. The Book of Mormon second to that. The story behind these two items are historical. Too trust those making the claims we need to know about them. Again, history. Sure history is written by humans. So are the books you claim to have a testimony of.

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.

Use Bushman's book RSR for a curriculum on Joseph Smith and Church History.

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.

Are you really this simple? Don't you think the Church picks and chooses now? Sure nobody will ever be able to satisfy everyone. But that does not mean you do no try. The Church now tries to present a totally faith promoting history and touches only on things that make the history look good.

[_beastie]

Those of us who knew Nevo from ZLMB already knew that he's well informed, and fair. He just hasn't posted here enough to fully show his character. I may not agree with the end result of his faith/journey in terms of the truthfulness of basic LDS truth claims, but I have always respected him and likely always will, unless he turns into droopy-lite or something.

[_truth dancer]

You're not a bad guy, Nevo, and you are pretty smart. I misjudged you.

Actually Nevo is EXTREMELY smart, knowledgeable, and very well informed; one of the "experts" on Joseph Smith and pretty much anything LDS related! He knows LDS church history as well as anyone!

And, on top of that he is a great guy!



~td~