Mike Ash Has A New Book.

[_solomarineris]

Some other things do that, too.

It's logically fallacious to conclude from If P, then Q that If Q, then P.

Truth is sometimes hard to bear.

Ignoring it (truth) bears better fruit, as Mike's books aptly demonstrates.

[_harmony]

Ignoring it (truth) bears better fruit, as Mike's books aptly demonstrates.

I'm not sure that's "better" in the long run.

[_Mad Viking]

A sample excerpt provided by Mike, and I presume usable under "fair use":

Fortunately, we live in a day
of advanced LDS scholarship and rapidly accumulating evidences that
support LDS faith claims. Dozens of scholars have contributed to the
study of Joseph Smith and the unique scriptures he was instrumental in
restoring.
Do these evidences translate into proof? To answer, we might ask
another question—is there secular “proof” for the existence of God, the
Resurrection, or the Atonement? The answer, of course, is no.
Why not? Why is there no proof for the existence of God? Why
didn’t God leave the golden plates for everyone to see so we would know
that the Book of Mormon is true? Free will requires alternative choices.
Each choice must offer some attraction. If, for example, there were overwhelming,
intellectually decisive evidence for the existence of God, most
rational people would be compelled to accept Him. This would frustrate
the principle of faith by not allowing us to freely follow our hearts and
true desires. We would, in effect, be subject to the plan proposed by
Satan in the premortal existence—we would be coerced to comply with
God’s laws and return to Him. Likewise, if there were massive archaeological
support for the Book of Mormon, faith would be unnecessary
in accepting Joseph Smith or Mormonism, and God’s plan would be
frustrated.

Wait... what?

We don't KNOW god exists, but we KNOW he wants us to have faith that he does? Am I reading that correctly?

[_krose]

Ash:

Why is there no proof for the existence of God?
Why didn’t God leave the golden plates for everyone to see so we would know
that the Book of Mormon is true?

I would say that those two questions have the same, easy answer.

[_Analytics]

A sample excerpt provided by Mike, and I presume usable under "fair use":

...If, for example, there were overwhelming,
intellectually decisive evidence for the existence of God, most
rational people would be compelled to accept Him. This would frustrate
the principle of faith by not allowing us to freely follow our hearts and
true desires. We would, in effect, be subject to the plan proposed by
Satan in the premortal existence—we would be coerced to comply with
God’s laws and return to Him. Likewise, if there were massive archaeological
support for the Book of Mormon, faith would be unnecessary
in accepting Joseph Smith or Mormonism, and God’s plan would be
frustrated.

This idea of knowledge thwarting free-agency is common, but personally I don’t get it. If God were proven to exist that wouldn’t compel me to worship God—I’m personally just not inclined to worship anybody or anything. In fact, if God were proven to exist and have some of the attributes that some people think they have, I’d happily protest against God. Heck, pre-war-in-heaven Lucifer had pretty good knowledge about things, and that didn’t thwart his free agency, did it?

If the Book of Mormon were proven to be an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript, I would happily acknowledge it as such. But there is no way that would make me feel compelled to send 10% of my income to a church headquartered in Salt Lake City.

[_Ray A]

For those who'd like to read the full sample, it's available in PDF Here.

[_Analytics]

Ash’s two books dovetail together quite nicely. The first is defensive, deflating the claims of critics, and the second is offensive, giving nearly a hundred positive reasons to believe. What is the objective of this?

What has emerged from [Nibley, FARMS, et. al.] is a growing corpus of evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are based on authentic ancient texts. It’s now demonstrable that Joseph made numerous bulls-eye “hits” that he couldn’t have likely known in the early 1800s. Such evidential support allows the option of belief versus disbelief to hang in a balance—thereby making a true choice possible.

Approaching from the other angle the silliness of true choices requiring the evidence to hang in a balance, a robust finding of science is that things can’t travel faster than the speed of light. Does this fact remove from Mormons the free agency to believe that God can travel faster than the speed of light? No it doesn’t.

If the goal is really to stack up the cards so that the evidence hangs in a balance, then what Ash should do is write a books that demonstrate that balance. For example, have section one show the 40 evidences that support Joseph Smith’s claims, and have section two show 40 evidences that challenge his claims.

[_Ray A]

For example, have section one show the 40 evidences that support Joseph Smith’s claims, and have section two show 40 evidences that challenge his claims.

I agree with this point, but I don't know exactly what Mike's book contains, yet, nor whether he does offer the critics' counter-arguments. Even if he does, I doubt it would be as thorough as a critic presenting it, so the ideal, to achieve balance, would be to outline and fully reference critical arguments so the reader can accurately gauge both sides.

[_Sethbag]

I'm just flabbergasted at this kind of "evidence is mounting that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the Book of Mormon was an authentic ancient text" talk. Evidence of these "truths" is only mounting if one is delusional and predisposed to make mountains out of mole hills, and mole hills out of mountains.

If anything, I think evidence is mounting that Joseph Smith was a womanizing, philandering, imaginative conman who invented scriptures he claimed were based on ancient documents that either didn't exist (the John parchment, the Golden Plates), or did exist but weren't what he said they were (the Egyptian funeral documents). I mean seriously, FARMS was stuck arguing that it wasn't really 40something extralegal "wives" Joseph had, but only 30something that could be adequately documented, and it wasn't 12 married women Joseph "married" behind Emma's back, but only perhaps 8 or so could really be documented, and it cannot be definitively proven that Joseph actually had sex with more than 1 of these. As if shaving a few names off the list actually helps.

As for the "bullseyes", I just have to say that as a shooter, it's not whether I happened to hit the center of the target that matters, but whether or not the group I shoot is tight. You can hit the center of the target by accident, but a tight group requires an accurate gun, and a good shooter.

[_harmony]

I'm just flabbergasted at this kind of "evidence is mounting that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the Book of Mormon was an authentic ancient text" talk.

I, for one, would welcome such evidences. Bring 'em on! Spotlight 'em so the whole freakin' world has to look at them. I'm tired of people looking at me like I'm a nut because I'm a Mormon. Show the evidence, so the world can start making fun of the Scientologists and Moonies. Oh wait... they already do.

If anything, I think evidence is mounting that Joseph Smith was a womanizing, philandering, imaginative conman who invented scriptures he claimed were based on ancient documents that either didn't exist (the John parchment, the Golden Plates), or did exist but weren't what he said they were (the Egyptian funeral documents).

I hate it when you're so succinct, Seth. And that was all before Fanny.

I mean seriously, FARMS was stuck arguing that it wasn't really 40something extralegal "wives" Joseph had, but only 30something that could be adequately documented, and it wasn't 12 married women Joseph "married" behind Emma's back, but only perhaps 8 or so could really be documented, and it cannot be definitively proven that Joseph actually had sex with more than 1 of these. As if shaving a few names off the list actually helps.

Ah. Here's Fanny et al.

As for the "bullseyes", I just have to say that as a shooter, it's not whether I happened to hit the center of the target that matters, but whether or not the group I shoot is tight. You can hit the center of the target by accident, but a tight group requires an accurate gun, and a good shooter.

Actually, as the mother of several shooters who shoot skeet in my pasture, it matters where you set up the target. If it's a foot away, even I could hit the bullseye.