Michael Ash blames "naïve" church members for apostasy

[_Sethbag]

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.

A work colleague recently pointed me at Thomas Payne's "The Age of Reason", and I've started reading it (I'm not done yet - there's a House marathon going on on TV and my wife and I recently latched onto that show...). What I thought was actually quite humorous in its simplicity, and yet spot-on, is this simple fact: a teaching or claim or whatnot supposed to be coming from Deity to mankind through an individual can only be "revelation" to that particular individual. To all others, it is hearsay.

And when evaluating hearsay, the credibility of the teller is critical. So, was Joseph Smith credible? I think not, and in this determination, a look at what history we know of Joseph Smith is critical. One could claim I can't know enough history to make a fair judgment, and that may be true in some sense, but that just increases the unlikelihood of a real God's having acted through that person who claimed the revelation, otherwise we must suspect a God who is setting up a rational person for failure.

For there are many people who have claimed revelation, and if we must dispense with examinations of their apparent trustworthiness and motives for self-enrichment, and stick only to the "spiritual" criteria the prophets themselves claim, then we must be lost in a morass of feelings, emotions, euphorias, and other types of psychological phenomena which simply cannot serve as indicators of some independent, cosmic truth. For every LDS with a testimony from the Holy Ghost, there is a Catholic, or a Pentecostalist, or any number of other religionists, with a similar tale to tell, and there is no good, trustworthy, or reliable standard by which their experiences can be told apart, and the "real" ones, the ones that can be trusted, distinguished from the counterfeits.

Like I said, if a God truly exists, and used this particular method to instruct his creations, then he has set up the more rational part of his creations for failure for using the rational and skeptical faculties he himself gave them.

[_why me]

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.

You are wrong. It is not possible to claim that this truth claim is false or any truth claim that the LDS church holds to be true as false and still remain a Mormon in good standing. But I understand your problem. You claim that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet because of polygamy. But I can assure that since the LDS church does not claim him to be fallen, your claim could land you in hot water. In other words, if you claim that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet as your truth, and the LDS church claims otherwise, your truth claim is invalid.

Your own truth cannot Trump the LDS church's truth if your own truth contradicts the church's understanding of truth.

[_why me]

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.

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

I think Jason that you understood what I meant. The first vision is pivitol to its truth claim as is the Book of Mormon. But I would not classify those events as historical and up for interpretation. However, other minor events in LDS history is what I am referring to. For example, the Kirkland Safety Society and MMM. Or the Mormon War and its causes or the reason why Joseph Smith and others were in prison in Liberty Jail. These events are what people find frustrating and I could name more. This is LDS history. Or the history of polygamy and who Joseph Smith was sealed to. But not the first vision or the Book of Mormon. Now the interpretation of the book in terms of who wrote it is not historical but conjecture. And history can not be written on conjecture.

ALso, believe it or not, if the LDS church would use Bushman's book most critics would scorn that decision because they believe that Bushman whitewashed certain events and did not go far enough. It would not placate the average critic of the LDS church on this board or on other critic boards.

Let me anticipate a question that is bound to occur to some. Are there not some historical events that are essential to the restoration? How, in other words, can I be indifferent to the following claims?

Joseph Smith had a vision in the Sacred Grove.
Metal plates were found, kept in his possession for a period of time, shown to witnesses, and translated.
Heavenly beings restored keys and priesthood authority.
Many spiritual manifestations occurred at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.
The list could be lengthened, but let us stop with those. These are "historical" events, if you will, events that occurred in historical time. But not a single one of them is subject to proof or disproof by historians. If I have a testimony of these events, it is not because of my advanced historical training or many years of delving in the primary documents of Church history.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... hurch.html

My friend and colleague at the University of Utah who taught Utah history for many years was David E. Miller. He taught a course in Utah history that was popular among all kinds of students. After summarizing the First Vision, he said, "Now you can't prove things like this by historical evidence. You also can't disprove them." Bearing no testimony but also using no ridicule, Professor Miller quoted what Joseph Smith said and then moved on to follow the history of the people who accepted the Prophet's leadership.

[_harmony]

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.

You are wrong. It is not possible to claim that this truth claim is false or any truth claim that the LDS church holds to be true as false and still remain a Mormon in good standing. But I understand your problem. You claim that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet because of polygamy. But I can assure that since the LDS church does not claim him to be fallen, your claim could land you in hot water. In other words, if you claim that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet as your truth, and the LDS church claims otherwise, your truth claim is invalid.

Your own truth cannot Trump the LDS church's truth if your own truth contradicts the church's understanding of truth.

On the contrary, I am not only allowed my own inspiration about all things Christian and LDS, I am commanded by the prophets to find my own inspiration. You don't know the LDS religion very well, if you think that when the prophet speaks, that is the answer to whatever the question may be. On the contrary, when the prophet speaks, that is only the beginning for any member who is truly following the prophet.

Try your brand of wisdom on someone who doesn't have a testimony of God's hand in her life, why me. It may work for someone who trusts only men. My relationship is with God, not men. Prophets are useful only when what they say agrees with what God tells me.



.

[_why me]

On the contrary, I am not only allowed my own inspiration about all things Christian and LDS, I am commanded by the prophets to find my own inspiration. You don't know the LDS religion very well, if you think that when the prophet speaks, that is the answer to whatever the question may be. On the contrary, when the prophet speaks, that is only the beginning for any member who is truly following the prophet.

Try your brand of wisdom on someone who doesn't have a testimony of God's hand in her life, why me. It may work for someone who trusts only men. My relationship is with God, not men. Prophets are useful only when what they say agrees with what God tells me.

.

Here is a harmony test: The next time you are asked to sustain the GA's such Thomas S. Monson, raise your hand in opposition and claim you own inspiration. Repeat the exercise with the Apostles and the Seventy. Lets see what happens to your inspiration.

[_harmony]

Here is a harmony test: The next time you are asked to sustain the GA's such Thomas S. Monson, raise your hand in opposition and claim you own inspiration. Repeat the exercise with the Apostles and the Seventy. Lets see what happens to your inspiration.

Why would I do that? I sustain Pres Monson and the rest of the GAs too. Do you think to sustain a leader, a member has to abdicate their own inspiration and salvation to them? You are sorely mistaken, if that is what you think. And the member who is foolish enough to do that is not following either the prophet or Christ's gospel.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think Jason that you understood what I meant.

Yes I did and I believe you are in egregious error.

The first vision is pivitol to its truth claim as is the Book of Mormon.

Yep.

But I would not classify those events as historical and up for interpretation.

You would be wrong. They are event Joseph Smith related and they are now historical accounts. For the FV alone there are a number of varying versions, all historical in nature.

However, other minor events in LDS history is what I am referring to. For example, the Kirkland Safety Society and MMM. Or the Mormon War and its causes or the reason why Joseph Smith and others were in prison in Liberty Jail. These events are what people find frustrating and I could name more. This is LDS history. Or the history of polygamy and who Joseph Smith was sealed to.

Since Joseph Smith is the only one who saw God and Jesus and Moroni numerous time over many years we have to be able to trust him and to trust him we need as accurate an account as well as complete and honest as we can have. All the things you listed contribute to this save the MMM.

But not the first vision or the Book of Mormon. Now the interpretation of the book in terms of who wrote it is not historical but conjecture. And history can not be written on conjecture.

Do you equally trust Muhammad's accounts of his visions, or the various claims of visions by others? Do you simply accept them on face value or do you need to dig deeper?

ALso, believe it or not, if the LDS church would use Bushman's book most critics would scorn that decision because they believe that Bushman whitewashed certain events and did not go far enough. It would not placate the average critic of the LDS church on this board or on other critic boards.

I could care less what the critics say. Seven does not like Bushman's book as a neutral text and would not use it. While it may not be totally neutral (what is) I disagree with her and believe it would be a good start. I have no problem with the Church putting the history in it best light. I do have a problem with not disclosing things and letting members find them on their own from other sources which often are hostile.

If many members are naïve as Ash says the Church bears some responsibility for that.

Let me anticipate a question that is bound to occur to some. Are there not some historical events that are essential to the restoration? How, in other words, can I be indifferent to the following claims?

Joseph Smith had a vision in the Sacred Grove.
Metal plates were found, kept in his possession for a period of time, shown to witnesses, and translated.
Heavenly beings restored keys and priesthood authority.
Many spiritual manifestations occurred at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.
The list could be lengthened, but let us stop with those. These are "historical" events, if you will, events that occurred in historical time. But not a single one of them is subject to proof or disproof by historians. If I have a testimony of these events, it is not because of my advanced historical training or many years of delving in the primary documents of Church history.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... hurch.html

My friend and colleague at the University of Utah who taught Utah history for many years was David E. Miller. He taught a course in Utah history that was popular among all kinds of students. After summarizing the First Vision, he said, "Now you can't prove things like this by historical evidence. You also can't disprove them." Bearing no testimony but also using no ridicule, Professor Miller quoted what Joseph Smith said and then moved on to follow the history of the people who accepted the Prophet's leadership.

I totally disagree with the premise other than this. Of course I canont prove whether or not Joseph Smith saw God. But I can look at his life and decide before I pray about it whether he should be trusted or not.

[_Sethbag]

To paraphrase Thomas Payne, what Joseph Smith was told by God was revelation. What we were told by Joseph Smith was hearsay. Consider this hearsay as you would consider any other hearsay.

If Emma Smith couldn't trust Joseph to keep his pants on while she was out of town on a shopping trip, couldn't trust him not to "marry" and boink the hired help, or her best friends, or the wives of some of his most prominent followers, then why should we trust him when he said he saw God?

[_beastie]

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.

I agree that Mormonism is not consistent with post-modernism. The apologists who claim otherwise are normally ignoring the main point of post-modernism, which is, as you point out, the inability of human beings to access absolute truth. Mormonism, as it is traditionally understood, is all about accessing absolute truth. Apologists are ignoring that poor fit in order to try to capitalize on the “respect for small truths” for each peculiar community.

Aside from that issue, I actually think there’s an element of truth to the idea that it’s really not possible for human beings to access absolute truth. Our brains are not designed to access and process information that reliably. We are victims of our own flawed thinking, and the only reason we made it out of the dark ages is because a few bright minds came up with some external rules that can be followed in order to test information for reliability. However, I think it is possible to evaluate input and information reliably enough to determine which claims are more or less likely to be true.

In regards to “all or nothing”, that is certainly what LDS leaders have presented to be the case, and is certainly the interpretation of traditional Mormonism. However, I can envision scenarios that wouldn’t necessarily be “all or nothing”. Perhaps, if a God exists, that God grasps the limitations of human understanding, and realizes that “absolute truth” is beyond our ken, so is satisfied with the little t truths. Perhaps all “God” wants is for human beings to reach out to him/her/it, and is happy with any paradigm that encourages that. So, in that way, Mormonism could simultaneously not be “true” in the way that traditional Mormonism defines it, and yet be as “true” as any other religion.

Personally, I don’t believe in any sort of God, but that is one avenue I explored shortly after leaving the LDS church. If I ever returned to theism, it would probably be within that paradigm.

[_Paracelsus]

Many spiritual manifestations occurred at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.

For example Elijah and Elias.
One of them (take your pick) a prophet, the other is one of the many translation error of the KJV.
And you present this "event" as history.

by the way this "pair" in not unique in the D&C.