So, my parents sent me Michael Ash's book "Shaken Faith Syndrome". It is an absolutely worthless book, that I am going to enjoy tearing apart over the next while. Just so I don't feel so alone, I am going to be posting my dissection of each part. I don't like to read long things on a white background, so here it is on a black background.

http://blacksheepamidstthecougars.blogspot.com/2013/07/shaken-faith-syndrome-my-response.html

In short, it is an academic failure in every way. He doesn't even make a decent attempt at intellectual discourse. It seems to primarily be a book for those that have doubts, but want to feel good about themselves for not acknowledging or resolving them.

ETA: Damn, it must be getting late, my typing is going to hell and fast, this post was harder than it should have been -_-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2013 01:49AM by newatthis.

I hate it when the Mormons try to define us, and categorize us, and lump us all together as apostates. Each one of our exit stories is unique, and some are painful, and some take family members away from us, some ruin us financially, and on and on.

There is no such thing as "shaken faith syndrome." We just wake up to the Truth, that's all, one way or another. I still have faith, because I still believe in Love, Truth, Personal Integrity, Respect for Women, Acceptance of Differences, and even in God and Christ, still.

Mormonism is not a "faith" to begin with. It is a hoax perpetrated on us and our loved ones, to get money from us (and free labor) for life, and to do the same to our children, grandchildren, and other generations. Faith? NOT. I was a Mormon because my Presbyterian ancestor was conned by his neighbor, JS, to apostatize, and join a polygamous cult. I was abused in childhood, because I was brainwashed to trust adults who were evil. There was never any "faith" to begin with--only fear and blind obedience.

I like what you said. They seem to equate faith with blind obedience. They stress obedience so much, it becomes excrutiatingly stressful.

If Faith is the assurance of things not seen, then things seen destroy faith. Things like the Journal of Discourses, and things like original writings, first hand accounts and the obvious fakery of a Patriarchal Blessing. Faith can only be sustained as long as the truth is kept from view.

Mike Ash had an excellent article on FAIRLDS before they took it and most of their stuff down for the R-Money campaign, that said that the Lamanites probably "prepared" horses for battle, as in preparing them for meals and dragging horsemeat on a travois. Even the most minimally sentient organism can see the complete idiocy of such a statement.

It is seeing arguments like that that cause faith to wither. For a faithful member of the church to read something like that is to recognize that the church thinks that the member is stupid, and that like the kid who claims his dog ate his homework, they're just making up excuses to hide the truth.

I never read white on black. It is too hard on the eyes besides gives me a headache.

If you have the original link I would like to read that.

The whole book is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) blame shift onto the victim. He is NOT an expert in any subject he speaks on and uses pseudo-pop psychology to try to justify his laughable positions.

He quickly restricts any discussion on historical problems and shifts blame onto the person troubled by the problems. Obviously they haven't read enough before, or are too easily taken in by critics, or never were very strong in their faith to begin with.

His book is quite a dastardly smear campaign against any doubter. It wasn't written to convince someone leaving that everything is okay, but rather to convince the family members that the one leaving isn't doing so for any real reason.

Ash fakes who the book is for. It really is for the person giving it away rather than the receiver of it.

I loved the post. It's an easy read. A complete waste of time, of course, but I can understand the itch.

To me, Ash will always be the guy who proposed that "preparing the horses" means cooking them. What more needs to be said about his intellectual capacities and integrity?