My parents decided to send me some books. Joy. I found out that they are the following.

"Shaken faith syndrome" and "scholarly evidences supporting Joseph Smith"

Both by Michael Ash.

Anyone read these and have thoughts? How vomit inducing are they? Do they actually cover the issues, or will 5 mins on mormonthink give more information.

just curious at this point, I am planning on writing a rebuttal to the books, they sound like a joke.

Since I vomited just reading the titles of the books in your post, I assume they are very vomit inducing.

You're having a rough day!

I haven't read those, but I have read enough LDS apologist writings to know that they hardly answer anything.

There is so much damning evidence on Mormonism that the apologists really have to cherry pick what they defend. They will pick the easiest items to defend, then make an ad hominem attack on "anti-Mormons" supposedly demonstrating how they misconstrue the facts, tell half lies, etc. They claim that they have "answered' all the anti-Mormon accusations. What they don't tell you is that a) they don't and b) their "answers" are lame.

Most of the time they focus on easy anti-Mormon material like the question of whether Mormons are Christian. Or why its not bad to have more than just the Bible as scripture. Most of that stuff is Evangelical stuff.

When they do address real historical problems, they rarely, if ever, cite ALL the evidence. Instead of quoting everything the early LDS leaders have said or done that were extremely racist, they'll simply say something general like "anti-Mormons have claimed Mormons are racist. Well maybe some said things that in the past could be construed as racist but times were different back then and they were no worse than other churches of the time."

And other defenses are simply pathetic spin. For example DNA studies simply do not support the theory that Native Americans have Jewish ancestors. However Mormon apologists will spin it saying "science isn't perfect" or "the BoM never states ALL Native Americans are Lamanites," etc.

Their arguments will often contradict their other arguments. As in the above argument that the BoM never states all Native Americans are Lamanites, but then they fail to mention that countless church prophets have labeled people all over the Americas as Lamanites. Apologists will cite Central America as a likely location for the BoM, but then this is contradicted in the D&C where it calls people in North America Lamanites.

They will throw a lot of red herrings at the reader that really have nothing to do with the real problem. I remember reading a LDS apologist book dealing with the Book of Abraham. The authors spent the whole time trying to discredit one of the anti-Mormons but never actually dealt with the accusations made against the BoA.

And most of the "answers" are just plain weak. Like, "Joseph Smith may have married 14 year old girls as his wives but it was normal back then to marry young." Oh, okay. Sorry, I can't just buy that answer. What's wrong is wrong. In my opinion God would not allow his 38 year old prophet to marry 14 year old girls. Or the "horses" mentioned in the BoM may have just been Tapirs. Right. Not gonna buy that one either. The church discriminate against blacks because "the members weren't ready." Lame. Not gonna buy that explanation either. In MY opinion, God would NEVER allow his church to practice racism. Just because they claim to have "answered" an anti-Mormon accusation, doesn't mean we have to accept them as reasonable answers.

Reading LDS apologetics is not different than listening to a defense attorney's babble who's client is clearly guilty.

I say go ahead and read the books. Study both sides. Then tell your parents you read the books and they didn't answer any of your questions and you thought the authors did a poor job of defending Mormonism.

Average marriage ages back then were younger, but people married those of the same age. This 14 year old married to a 30-something was not normal.

Exactly. Obviously the marrying age was younger and it was MORE common for a 14 year old to marry compared to today, but usually they were closer in age like 3 or 4 years, not someone who could be their dad's age. Apologists love to use the "it was a different time then" excuse; still doesn't make it right and why would god be beholden to the practices of man? He'd send that angel with a flaming sword to tell Joseph NOT to marry girls so young. Even back then, people would raise an eyebrow to someone Smith's age marrying someone that young. Either way, its obvious he was a pervert.

Actually I'm not sure it was all that common to marry young back then. According to the U.S. Census, the average marrying age for women in the 1830s and 40s was 20. Maybe you saw child brides more - maybe they were more accepted - but it wasn't common. Look at the ages of Joseph Smith's sisters when they married. Look at how old Emma was. And older men marrying children would have raised eyebrows in any age, as explained above. This is just another red herring that can be gutted by historical fact.

I would love for a TBM to do the same with me.

I'd take my time on the books and document every mistruth, logical fallacy, and outright lie and then send it back challenging them to answer.

Me too! FIL sent us a book and that's what I did! Then sent back a book of my own! Though its annoying, it also opens up the lines for communication both directions. Should they not realize that and thi k it only goes one way, then shut it down.

Well, from what I've read by Michael Ash (articles, not these books), he appears to be seriously psychologically disturbed - apologetics at their weirdest, equivalent to going "La La La" with his fingers in his ears.

There's a (very interesting;-) regular poster on this forum whose moniker is "Chicken'n'Backpacks" due to Ash's ridiculous assertion that the references to horses in the BOM were really about taking food along for the journey, as in putting chicken in your backpack when you go for a hike.

He is totally divorced from reality. Others on his board are even more painfully familiar with his nonsense.

Maybe they will chime in.

Tom in Paris

I would do one of two things.

Send them back corrected in red pen with all the untruths circled and proper references for the real facts.

Or, send them two books of your choosing. In Sacred Loneliness, maybe? Then every time they ask if you've read the books they sent, turn the question around on them.

Yes, its only fair that if they want you to read two of their books, they should be willing to read two of yours.

I'd give them The Changing World of Mormonism and An Insiders View of Mormon Origins. If nothing else, then

http://mormonthink.com/personalstories/A_Letter_to_a_CES_Director.pdf

Make it a bargain, you will only take the time to read these books if they read yours.

xnorth,I like both of your ideas, but the circling of the inaccuracies that are there forces them to focus on that area of the book.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 08:58PM by honestone.

I read SFS while I was doubting and I posted an overview of each chapter on another discussion board. Mike Ash thought I did a pretty good job summarizing it all. After reading the responses I realized that the book does not cover the main things I had a problem with and did not give me satisfactory answers.

I could see how if you read it and you wanted to believe then you could probably save your testimony (lots of mental gymnastics though). However; if you did what I did and look at both sides of the issues then your testimony would be destroyed!! :)

My parents sent me "Defender of the Faith" by Truman Madsen, about B. H. Roberts. This was a long time ago, way before the internet. But even at that time I recongnized the major omissions, like the fact that Roberts was not a defender of the faith at all. I threw the book in the garbage.

Do they want to discuss these books, or just send them to you to fix you so they won't have to discuss things?

Honestly, I think arguing with them about the facts will get you nowhere. I was just curious if the flow of information was one-directional. Most TBMs want you to read their stuff, but they are literally afraid to read yours because it might threaten their fragile testimonies.

Until TBMs are ready to cross-examine their own beliefs, they have no right to expect other people to accept them on faith. Nope . . . wait . . . they STILL don't have the right. It's a personal journey.

Exactly. I always told my family that they couldn't "know" something was true until they examined both sides of it.

Out of 10,000+ documented world religions, they just happened to be born into the "true" one, ignore the merits of all others, and won't acknowledge the inconsistencies of their own.

This one with some solid-gold arguments against his "ideas".

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,944595

Well done, sstone and Jesus Smith

Tom in Paris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 04:30PM by Soft Machine.

Thanks for the responses. My thoughts were along the lines of what some of you said. I can't decide if I want to respond by redlining the book or by writing a separate essay, but I will respond. There's some other history going on such that they feel I owe them the read (in reality my sister does, but they kind of lump the two of us together for God knows what reason). I kind of want to force my dad to either confront reality or reject it completely, both of which fall in the typical responses, so it is a win win for me. As long as they don't see me as a raging apostate, this will keep coming up for me and my sisters that have also left.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2013 04:46PM by newatthis.

Maybe it will help in the long-term to have read their books. At least they might feel you have listened to their arguments. At least, that's what an optimist might say. The fact probably is that even if you read everything they could ever send you if you don't arrive at the same answers they do then you didn't want to believe, you were reading anti stuff as well, or your heart wasn't in the right place. Only you can decide if reading their recommended books is worth your time!

By reading the books you at least raise your legitimacy in their eyes. My younger brother was the rebellious one who would "bash" the church and went inactive as soon as he physically could. My parents never took him seriously and saw him as a rebel against God or whatever. When I told them I no longer believed, the sat up and listened because they knew if I quit going to church there must have been a damned good reason. I was always the obedient, golden child who went to seminary, read the BoM everyday, mission, etc.

They didn't judge me and they actually listened to what I had to say. They ended up leaving the church too after I shared with them my "research."

My mother just gave me "Proof of Heaven" by Eden Alexander-Crazy Pants. I got "Mafia To Mormon" a few years ago. Haven't read either of them.

IMO, and mentioned above as well, even if you read the books, your mind probably won't change. Reporting back would just lead to an argument.

Eben Alexander's book has nothing to do with religion. In fact the "diety" discussed is an energy. No gender. No body, etc. Dr. Alexander is a neuro-surgeon who argues for the idea that consciousness at some level, resides outside the brain and therefore existance after physical death may occur. But it in no way supports mormonism. Religions, in fact, are not what it's all about.

I wonder why your mom would have given you this book as opposed to Betty Edie's (a mormon)book that, of course is in alignment with mormonism. Makes me think she didn't read Proof of Heaven but was intrigued by the title.

By Ash's hypocritical and inconsistent logic. Frequently he created boogy-man strawman arguments to attack and then say "see how silly those anti-mormons are?" Kinda reminded me of Gilderoy Lockheart from Harry Potter, if you know what I mean.