Reader comments
Challenging issues and keeping the faith: Part 9
45 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. July 2, 2009
I don't know why I keep reading this series. The logic makes my head hurt
A Man's Perspective | 10:15 a.m. July 2, 2009
Another great article by Mr. Ash. I thoroughly agree with his thought here:
"The best prevention against an intellectually-damaged testimony is to understand the complexities and potential pitfalls in our ideology before we encounter them."
LDS doctrine teaches that we learn truth BOTH with the mind and the heart, not just the heart (see D&C 8:2).
We must have the Holy Ghost teach us truth, but we MUST study deeper the gospel and church history.
We cannot be afraid of church history. In fact, I love it and embrace it. A fantastic book is "Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman. You can find it at Deseret Book.
Please be prepared (and embrace) that church history is not as black and white and as simple as is normally thought by the average member. But that is the truth that is so wonderful - the fact that God is more flexible and mysterious than we realize, and that is just awesome to me.
"The best prevention against an intellectually-damaged testimony is to understand the complexities and potential pitfalls in our ideology before we encounter them."
LDS doctrine teaches that we learn truth BOTH with the mind and the heart, not just the heart (see D&C 8:2).
We must have the Holy Ghost teach us truth, but we MUST study deeper the gospel and church history.
We cannot be afraid of church history. In fact, I love it and embrace it. A fantastic book is "Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman. You can find it at Deseret Book.
Please be prepared (and embrace) that church history is not as black and white and as simple as is normally thought by the average member. But that is the truth that is so wonderful - the fact that God is more flexible and mysterious than we realize, and that is just awesome to me.
Miss Diana | 10:30 a.m. July 2, 2009
Comments that are unrepresentative are removed from this site, why aren't
articles? I'm sorry, but his explanation about why people leave Mormonism
is rather incorrect. I guess did leave because I had unrealistic expectations:
I expected not to be lied to.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 11:07 a.m. July 2, 2009
I guess your comments don't get posted if you don't believe the Church
is true.
To : A man's perspective - I have read and enjoyed rough stone rolling but I perceived it as a book that tried to give enough information to be considered accurate while at the same time withholding some of the more devastating facts. I don't find it any more credible than many of the anti-mormon publications (also very slanted) that are out there. It is tough to find credible info from either side of the argument
To : A man's perspective - I have read and enjoyed rough stone rolling but I perceived it as a book that tried to give enough information to be considered accurate while at the same time withholding some of the more devastating facts. I don't find it any more credible than many of the anti-mormon publications (also very slanted) that are out there. It is tough to find credible info from either side of the argument
Anonymous | 11:22 a.m. July 2, 2009
Mr. Ash makes his living as an apologist for the LDS Church. I don't think
his opinion can be trusted as Neutral.
OldSoul | 11:29 a.m. July 2, 2009
To Anonymous:
I agree with you completely. Both sides of the argument seem to have an agenda that includes leaving out the other side's strongest points and evidences.
I gave up on that route and took my studies to the source. The Book of Mormon, Volumes of the History of the church, the Journal of Discourses, the Ensign, The Millennial Star, The Evening and Morning Star, and other original church publications, writings and journals.
There's plenty there for anyone to draw their own conclusions.
I agree with you completely. Both sides of the argument seem to have an agenda that includes leaving out the other side's strongest points and evidences.
I gave up on that route and took my studies to the source. The Book of Mormon, Volumes of the History of the church, the Journal of Discourses, the Ensign, The Millennial Star, The Evening and Morning Star, and other original church publications, writings and journals.
There's plenty there for anyone to draw their own conclusions.
Anonymous | 11:30 a.m. July 2, 2009
Quoting from the article..."The best prevention against an
intellectually-damaged testimony is to understand the complexities and potential
pitfalls in our ideology before we encounter them."
Is that code for censor all comments???
Is that code for censor all comments???
kenny | 11:37 a.m. July 2, 2009
The manner in which my testimony came to me makes it perfect,without a one
percent room for doubt.It was one of those events that could not ever be denied
for to do so would be like saying the sun does not shine when I'm looking
up at it.I do not understand why I recieved such a testimony but I did.I find
its a personal gift and one that cannot be passed on to others as much as I
would desire that.
A Man's Perspective | 11:46 a.m. July 2, 2009
To Anonymous,
A book that includes "everything" - every nook and cranny is hardly credible either. I am not a historian, but I would think that many issues (especially the more-sensational and "devastating") would be more questionable as to their reliability as historical facts. Joseph Smith had many enemies, and it is reasonable to assume that many things were said about him that were not true or do not pass historical credibility.
That said, Rough Stone Rolling does indeed include many things that people have left the church over. I have a hard time not accepting Rough Stone Rolling as credible. Bushman has a Harvard Ph.D and taught there also - while that doesn't make him the final authority on historical facts, it is plenty good enough for me to accept his writings as credible.
But this is slightly off topic, so I won't say more.
A book that includes "everything" - every nook and cranny is hardly credible either. I am not a historian, but I would think that many issues (especially the more-sensational and "devastating") would be more questionable as to their reliability as historical facts. Joseph Smith had many enemies, and it is reasonable to assume that many things were said about him that were not true or do not pass historical credibility.
That said, Rough Stone Rolling does indeed include many things that people have left the church over. I have a hard time not accepting Rough Stone Rolling as credible. Bushman has a Harvard Ph.D and taught there also - while that doesn't make him the final authority on historical facts, it is plenty good enough for me to accept his writings as credible.
But this is slightly off topic, so I won't say more.
Who's on the Lord's side? | 12:03 p.m. July 2, 2009
Thanks for your comments (anonymous 11:07),
Apparently comments do get posted irrespective of whether you believe in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or not.
Yes, it is tough to find credible info about historical matters and details. People naturally have different perceptions and recollections about everything. Man doesn't even understand man, and yet he tries to rationalize who God is by consulting man.
I don't think God can be understood by logic alone. No wonder the first poster's head hurts. But the article is simply directing people to ask God in faith.
Don't rely on my post, on this article, on other Church affiliated persons, OR on persons who argue the opposite. If your belief is based on what someone else said or did, than it is more a replica of someone else's belief than it is your own.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)
The article concludes that a person is less likely to deny their own spiritual experience; it only advocates one side--God's.
Apparently comments do get posted irrespective of whether you believe in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or not.
Yes, it is tough to find credible info about historical matters and details. People naturally have different perceptions and recollections about everything. Man doesn't even understand man, and yet he tries to rationalize who God is by consulting man.
I don't think God can be understood by logic alone. No wonder the first poster's head hurts. But the article is simply directing people to ask God in faith.
Don't rely on my post, on this article, on other Church affiliated persons, OR on persons who argue the opposite. If your belief is based on what someone else said or did, than it is more a replica of someone else's belief than it is your own.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." (James 1:5)
The article concludes that a person is less likely to deny their own spiritual experience; it only advocates one side--God's.
bent twig | 12:16 p.m. July 2, 2009
Re: kenny and his testimony. Why does the person in charge of these things make
apparent random selections to endow 'iron clad' testimonies to some
people, (who always say they are unworthy) while others struggle and try with
all their heart to even get so much as a whisper from their god?
Anonymous | 12:21 p.m. July 2, 2009
To: Who's on the Lord's side
What if my spiritual experience does not lead me to Mormonism? Does that make it less valid? I think Mr. Ash would say that it does. My problem with religion in general (and Mormonism in particular) is that it advocates individual spirituality only if it leads you to agree with the ideals of the group.
What if my personal revelation told me that Mormonism was not true? Would I be told I was answered by a false spirit?
What if my spiritual experience does not lead me to Mormonism? Does that make it less valid? I think Mr. Ash would say that it does. My problem with religion in general (and Mormonism in particular) is that it advocates individual spirituality only if it leads you to agree with the ideals of the group.
What if my personal revelation told me that Mormonism was not true? Would I be told I was answered by a false spirit?
JohnB | 12:22 p.m. July 2, 2009
The problem with the LDS doctrine/history is that they are constantly trying to
fit a round peg in a square hole. If everything was true with regards to the
BOM then everything should just flow. They would know where the history
actually took place. Such as knowing exactly where the hill cumorah actually
was. Artifacts would be found to support their claims. DNA evidence would be
found to support the claims of Joseph Smith with regards to the Lamenites.
Instead, excuses and plenty of them, are used to try and explain why things just
don't add up.
Keep trying... | 12:36 p.m. July 2, 2009
Mormons are answered by false spirits all the time. Mormons also believe that
there are many opportunities given to all of us to embrace as much truth as we
can. Just do your best with what spiritual gifts you've been given and stop
worry about if the mormons will approve of your choice... and if you're
honest and do feel impressed by mormons, then join with them, and good for you.
That's mormon doctrine, that every man honestly pursue a spiritual relationship with God first, then enter into sacred covenants with God, and try your best to stay true to them.
If you can't bring yourself to enter covenants, then do the best you can. God will look upon all men by the faith they exhibit and the truth they embrace.
That's mormon doctrine, that every man honestly pursue a spiritual relationship with God first, then enter into sacred covenants with God, and try your best to stay true to them.
If you can't bring yourself to enter covenants, then do the best you can. God will look upon all men by the faith they exhibit and the truth they embrace.
RE; Kenny | 12:39 p.m. July 2, 2009
The are several basic tenets that lead to a true testimony,rather than
affecttion of Godly things vs infection(Holy Ghost) of Godly things. 1.
Regeneration of ones soul should lead to the exaltation of Christ,(The triune
God). 2. I am a sinner(without hope) and need a Savior,the devil would not teach
that,and the only thing I add to my salvation is sin.
Zelph, the White Lamanite | 12:50 p.m. July 2, 2009
I agree and applaud the efforts of those individuals who favor a frank and
honest study of the history of our Church. We need to have frank discussions
with our youth about Joseph Smith and polygamny, how the Book of Mormon was
really translated, Kinder Hook Plates, the Book of Abraham, Blacks and the
Priesthood, etc., etc. Let's not white-wash our history.
Only good can come from the truth. Truth is light and knowledge.
Only good can come from the truth. Truth is light and knowledge.
Anonymous | 1:22 p.m. July 2, 2009
I completely agree. My question is, what happens when after a frank discussion
of some of these issues, the youth in question are left not just intellectually
but spiritually dissatisfied with the answers that they receive?
It's been a source of pain to me over the years that when I was struggling with some of these issues, and asking these questions with faith and prayer, the answers I got get me called an apostate.
I may be asking for the impossible here, but it would be nice to have it considered that, just as many of you can best pursue your spiritual growth within the church, and received spiritual confirmation of this truth, I can best pursue my spiritual growth outside of the church, and that the spiritual confirmation I received was just as valid. Insisting that I have been misled by a false spirit seems to me to be a pretty glib way of dismissing anyone whose spiritual experiences don't fit a mold with which you are comfortable (apart from being somewhat personally insulting.)
It's been a source of pain to me over the years that when I was struggling with some of these issues, and asking these questions with faith and prayer, the answers I got get me called an apostate.
I may be asking for the impossible here, but it would be nice to have it considered that, just as many of you can best pursue your spiritual growth within the church, and received spiritual confirmation of this truth, I can best pursue my spiritual growth outside of the church, and that the spiritual confirmation I received was just as valid. Insisting that I have been misled by a false spirit seems to me to be a pretty glib way of dismissing anyone whose spiritual experiences don't fit a mold with which you are comfortable (apart from being somewhat personally insulting.)
Anonymous | 1:37 p.m. July 2, 2009
The LDS Church doesn't NEED to whitewash history! OK, so Joseph Smith did
something bad in 1840 and Brigham Young said something strange and horrible in
1860. So these things are supposed to make me somehow believe the covenant of
baptism to serve Christ and keep his commandments are wrong?
If I were somehow convinced Mormonism were false, I'd have to be an agnostic. No other religion teaches a God who metes out perfect justice and mercy. That triune god isn't very fair.
If I were somehow convinced Mormonism were false, I'd have to be an agnostic. No other religion teaches a God who metes out perfect justice and mercy. That triune god isn't very fair.
Fred | 1:58 p.m. July 2, 2009
Kenny-Are you saying you received a sign? Because as I understand it
that's the test, read the book of mormon and sincerely pray and the holy
spirit will give you sign (burning in the bossom). How is this different from
asking for a sign?
Who's on the Lord's side | 2:09 p.m. July 2, 2009
To Anonymous 12:21,
If you pray and ask God, with sincerity and real intent, having studied it out in your mind and in your heart, you would not recieve revelation from God that Jesus of the Bible is not true and that Jesus is not the Christ, your Lord and your Savior. But If you did receive personal revelation that the Bible is not true, then who am I to say that your personal revelation is less valid or of a false spirit. The same goes for the Book of Mormon. Put it to the test.
If God reveals to you that Mormonism is not true, so be it. Your experience is for you to figure out, not for me to question.
But if God reveals to you, like he has to me, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be true then you have found His Church. Whereas, those who only find the Bible to be true, still have some narrowing down of truths to do (many churches believe in the Bible). But just as you may not believe my experience I reserve the right to not have to base my beliefs on whatever your experience.
If you pray and ask God, with sincerity and real intent, having studied it out in your mind and in your heart, you would not recieve revelation from God that Jesus of the Bible is not true and that Jesus is not the Christ, your Lord and your Savior. But If you did receive personal revelation that the Bible is not true, then who am I to say that your personal revelation is less valid or of a false spirit. The same goes for the Book of Mormon. Put it to the test.
If God reveals to you that Mormonism is not true, so be it. Your experience is for you to figure out, not for me to question.
But if God reveals to you, like he has to me, both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be true then you have found His Church. Whereas, those who only find the Bible to be true, still have some narrowing down of truths to do (many churches believe in the Bible). But just as you may not believe my experience I reserve the right to not have to base my beliefs on whatever your experience.
The Truth Shall Set You Free | 2:22 p.m. July 2, 2009
To Anonymous | 1:37 p.m. July 2, 2009,
Two words: "Cognitive Dissonance"
Two words: "Cognitive Dissonance"
Re ; Anonymous | 2:39 p.m. July 2, 2009
I married into the church,but I had knowledge of Bible Translation due to I took
Greek in College. I suggest you google some verses in the KJV in modern
translations,or Greek and or Hebrew Old Testaments. Isaiah(Greek Esaias)
29:4,14. "Marvelous work and wonder" and " Familiar spirit".
FYI. Elijah in Greek is Elias.They are the same person.
Amos 3:7 (Secrets) better translation=plan
I was suspicious when I was told KJV only,not a comple list,and if I use Greek I could be censored.
Amos 3:7 (Secrets) better translation=plan
I was suspicious when I was told KJV only,not a comple list,and if I use Greek I could be censored.
CWP | 2:44 p.m. July 2, 2009
Kenny, well said. I can relate totally. Once the Holy Ghost bares witness of
the truthfullnes of the Restored Gospel no matter what curves balls are thrown
the fact remains; it's true.
Who's on the Lord's side? | 2:55 p.m. July 2, 2009
To Anonymous 1:22pm,
In response to your latest:
Considering your clarification, maybe I didn't answer that which you are wondering. I don't know that I have the answer, either, b/c I don't presume to know what answers God gives to your prayers, and how he directs your path.
However, I do know, if you seek after righteousness and live accordingly, God will guide that path to one place--His presence in His Heavenly home. Whatever God directs you to do in this life, is for your happiness, but ultimately it is in hopes of leading you eventually to become one with His plan and Him.
Still, if God has established His church on the Earth, then it would be hard for anyone to understand how God would better lead your life away from His church, rather than within.
Sure, if Christ's ways, teachings, and church were not readily available, it makes sense, but where in scripture has anyone known of God's church, his Earthly home, but been led not to be a part of it?
Maybe your path is different, but ultimately God has one church to be a part of in Heaven.
In response to your latest:
Considering your clarification, maybe I didn't answer that which you are wondering. I don't know that I have the answer, either, b/c I don't presume to know what answers God gives to your prayers, and how he directs your path.
However, I do know, if you seek after righteousness and live accordingly, God will guide that path to one place--His presence in His Heavenly home. Whatever God directs you to do in this life, is for your happiness, but ultimately it is in hopes of leading you eventually to become one with His plan and Him.
Still, if God has established His church on the Earth, then it would be hard for anyone to understand how God would better lead your life away from His church, rather than within.
Sure, if Christ's ways, teachings, and church were not readily available, it makes sense, but where in scripture has anyone known of God's church, his Earthly home, but been led not to be a part of it?
Maybe your path is different, but ultimately God has one church to be a part of in Heaven.
Tom | 3:09 p.m. July 2, 2009
Very instructive discussion. I've been an active LDS member my whole life,
but lately I've asked the very questions that many have expressed here.
"what if I received spiritual confirmation that points in a different path
than traditional Mormonism?" Can you call my experience false and yours
true?
I think that we all engage in cognitive dissonance in matters of marriage, religion, career, etc. Does that make us phoney or just human.
I think that we all engage in cognitive dissonance in matters of marriage, religion, career, etc. Does that make us phoney or just human.
re: The Truth Shall Set You Free | 3:19 p.m. July 2, 2009
I don't think so. I have no trouble acknowledging misdeeds of LDS Church
leaders past and present. It's just the fact that those misdeeds don't
have any bearing on my belief in the gospel. There is no connection between the
two. It's unfortunate some of the things Church leaders have said and done.
But faith in Christ, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost are not
affected by anything any leader or member has done wrong. I say the Church
should let it all hang out and see where people's priorities are.
If I do leave the Church over historical misdeeds, then I hope people accuse me of not thinking logically.
But I didn't leave the faith I was raised in over its historical misdeeds (of which there were plenty), and I won't leave the LDS Church for that reason either.
If I do leave the Church over historical misdeeds, then I hope people accuse me of not thinking logically.
But I didn't leave the faith I was raised in over its historical misdeeds (of which there were plenty), and I won't leave the LDS Church for that reason either.
Uncle Reality | 3:34 p.m. July 2, 2009
to re: The Truth Shall Set You Free | 3:19 p.m. July 2, 2009,
One of the biggest cases of Cognitive Dissonance that I have ever seen. Wow!
One of the biggest cases of Cognitive Dissonance that I have ever seen. Wow!
bent twig | 3:48 p.m. July 2, 2009
Kenny/CWP, Seriously, what did you do that so many others apparently
haven't (even though they fervently try), that got you a solid gold gift of
a testimony? A god that unfairly distributes blessings and events that
justifies an airtight testimony just doesn't seem like a fair and loving
god to me...
kenny | 4:05 p.m. July 2, 2009
To Bent Twig: I don't know.
To Bent Twig:You are way off base.
To Fred: I did not ask for a sign.
To Bent Twig:You are way off base.
To Fred: I did not ask for a sign.
Uncle Reality's Dad | 4:10 p.m. July 2, 2009
Where is there a more perfect organization? God's Church leaders may not be
perfect, but who is? You?
You have a case of delirium worse than cognitive dissonance if you think we should listen to you, after you have told us not to listen to imperfect people like you.
In fact, no shortcoming of the prophets is any greater than the errors of their detractors. I think I'll follow the preaching of people chosen by a perfect being over the rambling arguments of persons whose credibility is no match for such company.
You have a case of delirium worse than cognitive dissonance if you think we should listen to you, after you have told us not to listen to imperfect people like you.
In fact, no shortcoming of the prophets is any greater than the errors of their detractors. I think I'll follow the preaching of people chosen by a perfect being over the rambling arguments of persons whose credibility is no match for such company.
Anonymous | 4:23 p.m. July 2, 2009
To: Uncle Reality's Dad
There is a big difference between being chosen by a perfect being and saying you were chosen by a perfect being. Of course, there is also a similarity - neither claim can be proven or disproven.
I am not perfect and I don't expect perfection in my leaders, my friends, or anyone else I deal with.
There is a big difference between being chosen by a perfect being and saying you were chosen by a perfect being. Of course, there is also a similarity - neither claim can be proven or disproven.
I am not perfect and I don't expect perfection in my leaders, my friends, or anyone else I deal with.
Uncle Reality's Mom | 4:58 p.m. July 2, 2009
To Uncle Reality's Dad,
I think you must have a different view of "perfection" than most people. Oppression, racial or against women is not "perfection".
I think you must have a different view of "perfection" than most people. Oppression, racial or against women is not "perfection".
Re: Bent twig | 5:07 p.m. July 2, 2009
God is just,he is soverign,I thankful he is also merciful.
The wages of sin is death,we all have sinned and fallen short. We all deserve death,but God will have mercy on who he will have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
The wages of sin is death,we all have sinned and fallen short. We all deserve death,but God will have mercy on who he will have mercy.
Lord have mercy.
Anonymous | 5:13 p.m. July 2, 2009
If "cognitive dissonance" means not believing in guilt by association
or not holding institutions responsible for the wrongdoings of individuals, then
yes, I have cognitive dissonance.
Agree | 5:46 p.m. July 2, 2009
Anonymous | 5:13 p.m. said:
"If 'cognitive dissonance' means not believing in guilt by association or not holding institutions responsible for the wrongdoings of individuals, then yes, I have cognitive dissonance."
I agree. That is why we both must agree that "The Great Apostasy" is a myth, because holding the entire Christian tradition "guilty" of apostasy because of their mere association with a few bad Popes is absurd! And Holding the institution of the Catholic Church, as well as all the other Christian and non-Christian Churches responsible for the wrongdoings of a few individual Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. is wrong-headed!
So we agree that there was NO GREAT APOSTASY. And if no Great Apostasy occurred, then there was never any need for a Restoration.
Glad we could agree on so much!
"If 'cognitive dissonance' means not believing in guilt by association or not holding institutions responsible for the wrongdoings of individuals, then yes, I have cognitive dissonance."
I agree. That is why we both must agree that "The Great Apostasy" is a myth, because holding the entire Christian tradition "guilty" of apostasy because of their mere association with a few bad Popes is absurd! And Holding the institution of the Catholic Church, as well as all the other Christian and non-Christian Churches responsible for the wrongdoings of a few individual Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. is wrong-headed!
So we agree that there was NO GREAT APOSTASY. And if no Great Apostasy occurred, then there was never any need for a Restoration.
Glad we could agree on so much!
re: Agree | 6:48 p.m. July 2, 2009
I do agree with you. I don't judge any faith tradition based on its
association with people who did bad things. I judge religions based on what they
teach, their official doctrines.
I was raised Catholic. I didn't leave the Catholic Church based on the Inquisition, Crusades, or any bad thing any Pope ever did. That would be ridiculous. I left because there are official teachings of the Catholic Church with which I do not agree. The Great Apostasy has to do with beliefs and teachings and not actions of religious leaders.
The same holds today. I don't hold the Catholic Church responsible for the priest scandal. That is the fault of the individual priests and not the church as an institution, it does not prove the Catholic Church is false. and the scandal is not a reason to leave the institution. In the gospel plan, only individuals can/must repent.
Misrepresentation of LDS teachings – and Mormons are all too often guilty of it ourselves – is a big reason why this series of articles is needed. And other religions would do well to clarify their on beliefs, too.
I was raised Catholic. I didn't leave the Catholic Church based on the Inquisition, Crusades, or any bad thing any Pope ever did. That would be ridiculous. I left because there are official teachings of the Catholic Church with which I do not agree. The Great Apostasy has to do with beliefs and teachings and not actions of religious leaders.
The same holds today. I don't hold the Catholic Church responsible for the priest scandal. That is the fault of the individual priests and not the church as an institution, it does not prove the Catholic Church is false. and the scandal is not a reason to leave the institution. In the gospel plan, only individuals can/must repent.
Misrepresentation of LDS teachings – and Mormons are all too often guilty of it ourselves – is a big reason why this series of articles is needed. And other religions would do well to clarify their on beliefs, too.
Mike Ash | 12:03 p.m. July 3, 2009
Anonymous | 11:22 a.m. July 2, 2009
"Mr. Ash makes his living as an apologist for the LDS Church. I don't think his opinion can be trusted as Neutral."
I don't work for the Church and I don't make my living as an apologist. In fact, I've never yet received a dime for anything I've done that relates to LDS apologetics. Even if, however, I were to receive monetary compensation for writing apologetic material, your argument has no bearing on the veracity of my claims. You argument is what they refer to as ad hominem.
"Mr. Ash makes his living as an apologist for the LDS Church. I don't think his opinion can be trusted as Neutral."
I don't work for the Church and I don't make my living as an apologist. In fact, I've never yet received a dime for anything I've done that relates to LDS apologetics. Even if, however, I were to receive monetary compensation for writing apologetic material, your argument has no bearing on the veracity of my claims. You argument is what they refer to as ad hominem.
Mike Ash | 12:16 p.m. July 3, 2009
"Anonymous | 12:21 p.m. July 2, 2009
To: Who's on the Lord's side
What if my spiritual experience does not lead me to Mormonism? Does that make it less valid? I think Mr. Ash would say that it does. My problem with religion in general (and Mormonism in particular) is that it advocates individual spirituality only if it leads you to agree with the ideals of the group.
What if my personal revelation told me that Mormonism was not true? Would I be told I was answered by a false spirit?"
Faith is a personal journey. Each of us is required to put in our own spiritual and intellectual homework and come to our own conclusions.
To: Who's on the Lord's side
What if my spiritual experience does not lead me to Mormonism? Does that make it less valid? I think Mr. Ash would say that it does. My problem with religion in general (and Mormonism in particular) is that it advocates individual spirituality only if it leads you to agree with the ideals of the group.
What if my personal revelation told me that Mormonism was not true? Would I be told I was answered by a false spirit?"
Faith is a personal journey. Each of us is required to put in our own spiritual and intellectual homework and come to our own conclusions.
Mike Ash | 12:19 p.m. July 3, 2009
"Uncle Reality | 3:34 p.m. July 2, 2009
to re: The Truth Shall Set You Free | 3:19 p.m. July 2, 2009,
One of the biggest cases of Cognitive Dissonance that I have ever seen. Wow!"
Apparently you misread my issue on Cog. Dis. It's universal-- equally applied by believers & non-beleivers.
to re: The Truth Shall Set You Free | 3:19 p.m. July 2, 2009,
One of the biggest cases of Cognitive Dissonance that I have ever seen. Wow!"
Apparently you misread my issue on Cog. Dis. It's universal-- equally applied by believers & non-beleivers.
Mike Ash | 12:22 p.m. July 3, 2009
"Anonymous | 1:22 p.m. July 2, 2009
I completely agree. My question is, what happens when after a frank discussion of some of these issues, the youth in question are left not just intellectually but spiritually dissatisfied with the answers that they receive?"
Actually, I believe that a frank discussion strengthens one's intellectual and spiritual testimony.
"It's been a source of pain to me over the years that when I was struggling with some of these issues, and asking these questions with faith and prayer, the answers I got get me called an apostate."
I've investigated the same issues and have never been called an apostate.
I completely agree. My question is, what happens when after a frank discussion of some of these issues, the youth in question are left not just intellectually but spiritually dissatisfied with the answers that they receive?"
Actually, I believe that a frank discussion strengthens one's intellectual and spiritual testimony.
"It's been a source of pain to me over the years that when I was struggling with some of these issues, and asking these questions with faith and prayer, the answers I got get me called an apostate."
I've investigated the same issues and have never been called an apostate.
Anonymous | 1:21 p.m. July 3, 2009
To Mr. Ash,
Thank you for actually taking the time to respond to some of the comments. I have pursued a spiritual journey and believe that leaving Mormonism is the correct path.
I wish that the LDS church could accept that decision without calling it apostasy or explaining it away as a lack of faith, desire to sin, testimony built on false foundation etc, etc.
Mormonism didn't work for me for a number of reasons, but the most compelling reason is that many of the doctrines did not coincide with my own sense of right or wrong. Is that apostasy? I don't think so, but you might disagree.
Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to answer your critics. I respect that.
Thank you for actually taking the time to respond to some of the comments. I have pursued a spiritual journey and believe that leaving Mormonism is the correct path.
I wish that the LDS church could accept that decision without calling it apostasy or explaining it away as a lack of faith, desire to sin, testimony built on false foundation etc, etc.
Mormonism didn't work for me for a number of reasons, but the most compelling reason is that many of the doctrines did not coincide with my own sense of right or wrong. Is that apostasy? I don't think so, but you might disagree.
Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to answer your critics. I respect that.
Mike Ash | 1:58 p.m. July 3, 2009
Anonymous | 1:21 p.m. July 3, 2009:
"Apostasy" comes from the Greek "apostasia" which means to revolt (and has been used in a politcal sense). In religion it means to forsake or reject one's religion. So "apostasy" and "apostate" are accurate descriptions.
As I note in my series (and in greater depth in my book) there are complex reasons for belief, unbelief, and apostasy. Some leave because of sins, lack of faith, an attraction to a different faith, social pressure, or what appear to be intellectual reasons, etc.
My book (and much of this series) engages the supposed intellectual reasons for leaving-- which I find weak. There are solid intellectual rebuttals to critical arguments and strong intellectual reasons to support belief. In my opinion the intellectual scale titls in favor for belief.
In the end, however, it comes down to faith and spiritual experience. Some critics claim that believers who can't see the evidences are self-deluded, blind, or dishonest. I demonstrate that this is a false argument and that many apostates leave because they (like many members) have naive and fundamentalist assumptions about the nature of prophets and scripture.
"Apostasy" comes from the Greek "apostasia" which means to revolt (and has been used in a politcal sense). In religion it means to forsake or reject one's religion. So "apostasy" and "apostate" are accurate descriptions.
As I note in my series (and in greater depth in my book) there are complex reasons for belief, unbelief, and apostasy. Some leave because of sins, lack of faith, an attraction to a different faith, social pressure, or what appear to be intellectual reasons, etc.
My book (and much of this series) engages the supposed intellectual reasons for leaving-- which I find weak. There are solid intellectual rebuttals to critical arguments and strong intellectual reasons to support belief. In my opinion the intellectual scale titls in favor for belief.
In the end, however, it comes down to faith and spiritual experience. Some critics claim that believers who can't see the evidences are self-deluded, blind, or dishonest. I demonstrate that this is a false argument and that many apostates leave because they (like many members) have naive and fundamentalist assumptions about the nature of prophets and scripture.
FBC | 11:47 a.m. July 5, 2009
Mr. Ash, you stated that you don't make a dime off this work.
So am I to understand that you have not made more than $0.10 from the sale of your book "Shaken Faith Syndrome"? Since articles like this one would contribute to publicity of that work, can you please clarify?
So am I to understand that you have not made more than $0.10 from the sale of your book "Shaken Faith Syndrome"? Since articles like this one would contribute to publicity of that work, can you please clarify?
Mike Ash | 3:18 p.m. July 8, 2009
"FBC | 11:47 a.m. July 5, 2009
Mr. Ash, you stated that you don't make a dime off this work.
So am I to understand that you have not made more than $0.10 from the sale of your book "Shaken Faith Syndrome"? Since articles like this one would contribute to publicity of that work, can you please clarify?"
Not only haven't I made .10 on Shaken Faith Syndrome but (although I didn't self-publish) I've shelled out a lot of my own money to give away copies, make flyers, etc. It's possible that someday I may make some money from the book but any profits I might see are low on the list of priorities for the income on this book. I should note that I don't have a problem making money from the book (and hope to at some point) but that the primary purpose for writing it was to help those who are struggling with their testimonies.
To claim that I make my "living as an apologist for the LDS Chruch" is demonstrably false and an ad hominem distraction.
Mr. Ash, you stated that you don't make a dime off this work.
So am I to understand that you have not made more than $0.10 from the sale of your book "Shaken Faith Syndrome"? Since articles like this one would contribute to publicity of that work, can you please clarify?"
Not only haven't I made .10 on Shaken Faith Syndrome but (although I didn't self-publish) I've shelled out a lot of my own money to give away copies, make flyers, etc. It's possible that someday I may make some money from the book but any profits I might see are low on the list of priorities for the income on this book. I should note that I don't have a problem making money from the book (and hope to at some point) but that the primary purpose for writing it was to help those who are struggling with their testimonies.
To claim that I make my "living as an apologist for the LDS Chruch" is demonstrably false and an ad hominem distraction.
FBC | 9:55 p.m. July 10, 2009
Thanks for the clarification. (For the record, I knew you weren't a
full-time apologist.)
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Mammogram guidelines spark debate 12:57 p.m.
- Man dies after SUV backs over him 12:39 p.m.
- At 6-5, hard time arguing firing Weis 12:24 p.m.
- $27M transfer for state Route 193 12:20 p.m.
- 'Christmas With King Family' DVD 12:16 p.m.
- Youn men help fill food-pantry needs 12:15 p.m.
- Who is Oprah's heir apparent? 11:39 a.m.
- Florida No. 1, TCU 4 in AP Top 25 11:34 a.m.
- Fed under fire, public anger mounts 11:28 a.m.
- No quagga mussels at Bear Lake 11:27 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- BYU records with win
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals
- Utah Utes whip SDSU
- Former BYU professor remembered
- Cougars put the fun back in football
- Kirilenko heating up for the Jazz
- Y. coach Hill up for Portland State job
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
194 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?166
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- BYU records with win116
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
Latest comments
Reading the letter, I am not sure that it is eating that is the sin, but...
The media that Sarah criticizes so much is the same force that is providing...
We'll be back next year. I know it, and I hope that all of our coaches and...
This year TCU has proven to the world how weak the MWC is (MWC=WAC). BYU and...
I have no problem with religious people voting their conscience. I do,...
I have to agree that the comment about "the pesky seniors" is uncalled...
I was in my Latin class in High School in California. Our teacher hadn't...
Glenn Beck is Oprah's heir apparent since he has a larger following and can...
of atheism just as morally equal to spreading the Gospel of Christianity. To...
Yes, 40% of doctors polled said they will definitely or seriously consider...
Advertisements