Shaken Faith Syndrome

[_Danna]

Just to add my 2 cents.

Based on my reading of Mike Ash, my main issue with his work is that he appears to confine his research to faith-promoting pre-digested apologetic sources. Of course, this is the purpose of the book - to present apologetic material for lay members. The thing is that he does not test his apologetic sources but takes them as they are without checking the primary sources they have used in their analysis. Given the purpose of his book, and that it is a non-academic book, this is not really a reflection on Mike - certainly his level of research is comparable to non-academic books on non-Mormon issues. But it is something to bear in mind.

So, for example, on the issue of metallurgy in ancient America, he takes the work of Sorenson (a secondary source on this issue), paraphrases it and presents what appears to be a good case for iron-works at the time. But if you go back to Sorenson, then check out his primary sources, he has completely misrepresented the findings. Beastie has written some good stuff on this, and taken Sorenson to task for his misuse of archaeological findings. (Beastieś site) Hopefully Beastie will comment on this thread.

This is just one example. The thing to take away is that you should always check the sources - does the primary source actually support the apologetic analysis? The annoying thing is that this can be difficult if you don't have access to a university library - leaving most members taking the analysis on trust (backed up by prayer and warm fuzzies).

The posters here have access to a wide range of material - if you have issues with any specific arguments in the book, bring them here - someone will have addressed it somewhere! Likewise, I am sure you will get helpful commentary on this board´s evil twin, MAaD.

[_ttribe]

Whoa, there with the patronizing. I’m sure we have disagreed before, just a minor hiccup, right? :(

So what I’m hearing you say when you cite
“Adressing controversial aspects of Church history and doctrine.”
and “Rebuttal to criticisms.”
“Straightforwardly”
With “comprehensive references”
is that you liked the book for its apologetic aspects.

So then I was WAAAYYY of the mark, the book is about combating the “new information” with apologetics, rather then helping a questioning LDS to have a deeper understanding of their condition called “Shaken-faith Syndrome”. In other words, just make sure the “new information” is being explained by apologetics, and take that at face value.

Now why would that make it more appropriate to give to those questioning? Maybe on your side of the sea!

Two things - 1) I've never commented (at all) on the appropriateness of gifting this book; and 2) if you are talking about being "offended" by the very suggestion that there's such a thing as "Shaken Faith Syndrome", then you and I are talking about completely different aspects of this book and its purpose.

[_Apollyon]

Hi Apollyon,

Sounds like you and I are in somewhat the same situation. It is comforting to know there are other people out there like me :)

I didn't know until I found this place when I googled to get more information about the missionary lessons. I am glad there are people like me, but I don't get that feeling in church.

[_Rambo]

I didn't know until I found this place when I googled to get more information about the missionary lessons. I am glad there are people like me, but I don't get that feeling in church.

I'm am sure there are a lot of people at church feeling the same way we do except in a way we can not express ourselves. Most people at church believe I am a very strong TBM. I hold a leadership calling and I am at mostly all the activities. The reason I don't tell to many people is because I am not sure what to do yet and I am in a singles ward so I don't want to look unattractive with my weak testimony to the ladies :) I will let people know once I have made a decision.

[_MAsh]

The Spirit® is a physiological affirmation of a confirmation bias.

OR a self induced emotional epiphany.

While it's certainly possible that this is the case for some, I'm certain it's not the case for all.

I've had a couple of spiritual experiences (the sacredness of which prevents me from elaborating) that absolutely don't fit in any category that could be counted as "confirmation bias," "wishful thinking," or even self delusion.

I'll admit that in most instances my spiritual experiences do not fit into the caliber of the notable two I allude to above, but even in the "lesser" experiences I don't find that they fit into the same emotional category to which I'm accustomed for emotional responses in a all other areas of my life.

Mike Ash

[_Rambo]

While it's certainly possible that this is the case for some, I'm certain it's not the case for all.

I've had a couple of spiritual experiences (the sacredness of which prevents me from elaborating) that absolutely don't fit in any category that could be counted as "confirmation bias," "wishful thinking," or even self delusion.

I'll admit that in most instances my spiritual experiences do not fit into the caliber of the notable two I allude to above, but even in the "lesser" experiences I don't find that they fit into the same emotional category to which I'm accustomed for emotional responses in a all other areas of my life.

Mike Ash

Hi Mike,

I have posted a few more threads about your book on here. It would be nice to hear some comments from you too. Thanks!

[_MAsh]

Just to add my 2 cents.

Based on my reading of Mike Ash, my main issue with his work is that he appears to confine his research to faith-promoting pre-digested apologetic sources. Of course, this is the purpose of the book - to present apologetic material for lay members. The thing is that he does not test his apologetic sources but takes them as they are without checking the primary sources they have used in their analysis. Given the purpose of his book, and that it is a non-academic book, this is not really a reflection on Mike - certainly his level of research is comparable to non-academic books on non-Mormon issues. But it is something to bear in mind.

So, for example, on the issue of metallurgy in ancient America, he takes the work of Sorenson (a secondary source on this issue), paraphrases it and presents what appears to be a good case for iron-works at the time. But if you go back to Sorenson, then check out his primary sources, he has completely misrepresented the findings. Beastie has written some good stuff on this, and taken Sorenson to task for his misuse of archaeological findings. (Beastieś site) Hopefully Beastie will comment on this thread.

This is just one example. The thing to take away is that you should always check the sources - does the primary source actually support the apologetic analysis? The annoying thing is that this can be difficult if you don't have access to a university library - leaving most members taking the analysis on trust (backed up by prayer and warm fuzzies).

I'll admit that I haven't tracked down the accuracy of every single argument made by all of my sources. This is not unusal however, even in academic books that discuss a multitude of topics. If I had limited by entire book to the topic of metalllurgy in the Book of Mormon, things might have (should have) been different.


Quite frankly many academic works also cite authors without verifying every argument made by every source, or the arguments to which those sources refer to support their own arguments. While projects like this can certainly be done, at some point even academics typically reach a point where they put some trust into the research of their sources-- otherwise the paper would go on for ever.



And lastly, I don't claim infallibility. I wouldn't be surprised if my book contained a mistake or two (but no more than four <g>).

Mike Ash

[_Themis]

I've had a couple of spiritual experiences (the sacredness of which prevents me from elaborating) that absolutely don't fit in any category that could be counted as "confirmation bias," "wishful thinking," or even self delusion.

People usually don't think that they have deluded themselves. I don't doubt that you had the experience, but I do do wonder if it is possible for the body to create the experience on it's own, and whether any possible external circumstances are really evidence of some divine being.

I'll admit that in most instances my spiritual experiences do not fit into the caliber of the notable two I allude to above, but even in the "lesser" experiences I don't find that they fit into the same emotional category to which I'm accustomed for emotional responses in a all other areas of my life.

So are the emotions or feelings that you are accustomed to the only feelings and emotions we are capable of experiencing, so anything that doesn't fit must come from an external source? Can one not have internally generated experiences that they have never felt before? It seems logical that they could, and that they would interpret those experiences in light of the culture and beliefs that they have..

[_MAsh]

I've had a couple of spiritual experiences (the sacredness of which prevents me from elaborating) that absolutely don't fit in any category that could be counted as "confirmation bias," "wishful thinking," or even self delusion.

People usually don't think that they have deluded themselves. I don't doubt that you had the experience, but I do do wonder if it is possible for the body to create the experience on it's own, and whether any possible external circumstances are really evidence of some divine being.

I won't share the details I can certainly appreciate that you won't feel obligated to accept my personal experience but because of the particular nature of the experience(s), I'm unable to think of any rational explanation except a supernatural one.

I'll admit that in most instances my spiritual experiences do not fit into the caliber of the notable two I allude to above, but even in the "lesser" experiences I don't find that they fit into the same emotional category to which I'm accustomed for emotional responses in a all other areas of my life.

So are the emotions or feelings that you are accustomed to the only feelings and emotions we are capable of experiencing, so anything that doesn't fit must come from an external source? Can one not have internally generated experiences that they have never felt before? It seems logical that they could, and that they would interpret those experiences in light of the culture and beliefs that they have..

Agreed. Such things are non-transferable so I can only say how I personally interpret those experiences (excluding the one's to which I commented above). Logically, I can understand that there might be other explanations for those experiences. Logically, there are explainations that do away with God, Christ, the hereafter, etc. I understand this and I've explored these possibilities. In the end, they don't work for me and as already mentioned I've had some experiences that I can not explain away from a logical and secular viewpoint.

Mike Ash

[_Themis]

I won't share the details I can certainly appreciate that you won't feel obligated to accept my personal experience but because of the particular nature of the experience(s), I'm unable to think of any rational explanation except a supernatural one.

Agreed. Such things are non-transferable so I can only say how I personally interpret those experiences (excluding the one's to which I commented above). Logically, I can understand that there might be other explanations for those experiences. Logically, there are explainations that do away with God, Christ, the hereafter, etc. I understand this and I've explored these possibilities. In the end, they don't work for me and as already mentioned I've had some experiences that I can not explain away from a logical and secular viewpoint.

Mike Ash

I can appreciate that people may not want to go into details, nor am I asking that they do. I'm open to all possibilities, but my own experience suggests that your experiences as well as mine and others are probably not supernatural in origin. It's interesting when I look at others who also cannot find a rational explanations for their experience, not that there couldn't be one that we are not aware of, that they tend to give meaning to them that in many cases conflicts with the meaning others have for their own. I tend to think we attach certain types of meaning to them that the experience is not capable of showing is accurate, but we do because it may help us to believe things about the universe that we wanted to anyway.