New Book Published by FAIR

[Alf O'Mega]

Mike, you better be ready for a book signing tomorrow, cause I am soooo there and am brining my copy of your book.

Yes, I've heard that's the best way to keep the book moist and flavorful. Throw in some sugar and whole peppercorns for an extra punch.

By the way, Mike, can you sign my turkey?

[Rommelator]

Yes, I've heard that's the best way to keep the book moist and flavorful. Throw in some sugar and whole peppercorns for an extra punch.

??

Is this a bad attempt at sarcasm or what?

[Alf O'Mega]

Is this a bad attempt at sarcasm or what?

Eye of the beholder, I guess. Personally, I seldom brine my books, but I'm kind of old school that way.

[juliann]

Word coming in is that two of the three respondents were somewhat ludicrous with their criticism....such as Duffy insisting Mike should have written a book about his testimony instead and arguing with an audience member over it. Mike was able to counter several of their more off the wall crticisms by simply reading quotes from the book they were supposed to be reviewing. Reports from those in the audience include things like a person in front of them raising their hands over their head to applaud Mike. It is dissapointing that Sunstone would stack the deck like that, they usually try to have a more academic presentation....but it evidently didn't go unnoticed by a significant amount of attenders.

[juliann]

??

Is this a bad attempt at sarcasm or what?

It is typical of the reaction to this book from those who want to control the exit narrative which is as important as the book itself. FAIR only reacts to something when it is seen as having an impact....we are witnessing that with this book in spades.

[wenglund]

I haven't taken the opportunity to visit other discussion boards or blogs, but I am wondering if much being said about Mike's thoughtful discussion of cognitive dissonance (one of the favored buzz word of certain former members)?

Maybe I will start a thread here to discuss it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

Word coming in is that two of the three respondents were somewhat ludicrous with their criticism....such as Duffy insisting Mike should have written a book about his testimony instead and arguing with an audience member over it. Mike was able to counter several of their more off the wall crticisms by simply reading quotes from the book they were supposed to be reviewing.

Indeed, it is very ironic that Duffy made such a comment. I see Ash's testimony throughout the entire book, (granted I barely reached part 2, page 111). There is a very explicit part at the end of chapter 9 where Ash essentially bears a testimony as we might hear over the pulpit at Church. Instead of introducing the pronoun "I," however, he talks generally of "LDS apologists" who believe in the reality of the resurrection, that God lives, calls prophets, has a plan for His children, that JS was a true prophet, that the restored Church is God's, etc. It is very plainly a testimony. From a literary standpoint, then, Ash bore his testimony (in the traditionally understood way; I also believe by writing the book in general he bore it) according to the voice of the book; in other words, he maintained the same narrative voice even in bearing witness of his own beliefs, knowing that like-minded apologists stand by him in that witness. In short, testimony was correctly and obviously done especially if viewed from a literary standpoint; Duffy's lament about absence of testimony fails.

Given that Ash repeatedly tells readers that a true witness comes from the Spirit, that evidences are aids to faith, that some questions still remain unanswered and that an eye of faith will need to patiently anticipate resolutions of remaining contrary data, I find Duffy's comments entirely puzzling. Did he fully read the book? Perhaps he expected the approach to be void of "testimony," and thus looked to those parts which fit his expectations. I really don't know what to make of Duffy's response in that regard.

[Alf O'Mega]

Mike, you better be ready for a book signing tomorrow, cause I am soooo there and am brining my copy of your book.

Yes, I've heard that's the best way to keep the book moist and flavorful. Throw in some sugar and whole peppercorns for an extra punch.

By the way, Mike, can you sign my turkey?

Is this a bad attempt at sarcasm or what?

It is typical of the reaction to this book from those who want to control the exit narrative which is as important as the book itself. FAIR only reacts to something when it is seen as having an impact....we are witnessing that with this book in spades.

Really, Juliann? My riff on a typo (brine//bring) "is typical of the reaction to this book from those who want to control the exit narrative which is as important as the book itself"?

Maybe if you'd started with a better literature review . . .

[juliann]

Really, Juliann? My riff on a typo (brine//bring) "is typical of the reaction to this book from those who want to control the exit narrative which is as important as the book itself"?

Maybe if you'd started with a better literature review . . .

So you respond with more sneering and disdain. What message do you think you are imparting? Mormon apologists have made it through the sophomore year and they have learned from it. Perhaps it is time for the countermopologists to do some re-evaluating as well.

[Alf O'Mega]

So you respond with more sneering and disdain.

Serious misread, old friend. Nothing more than playfulness on my part. Belittling Mike's work was the furthest thing from my mind. I would have made exactly the same joke no matter what title was about to be brined.

And even if I have to surrender my Pundit card, I'm never giving up booger jokes!

[juliann]

Alf, old friend, the jig is up. The brining "riff" might have been funny until you clumsily threw in turkey...which aren't brined. Throwing in a good dose of condescension with derision and calling it funny isn't accepted when it is thrown your way and it is time to wake up and smell the coffee along with the other mixed metaphor turkey. It isn't just the mopologists who are going to have to be "nice" anymore. We are meeting your demands...all we ask is that you all live up them yourselves.

[Alf O'Mega]

Alf, old friend, the jig is up. The brining "riff" might have been funny until you clumsily threw in turkey...which aren't brined.

My kitchen sensei, Alton Brown, will be so disappointed to hear that. I'm saving my copy of his recipe for roast turkey before he edits it.

Throwing in a good dose of condescension with derision and calling it funny isn't accepted when it is thrown your way and it is time to wake up and smell the coffee along with the other mixed metaphor turkey. It isn't just the mopologists who are going to have to be "nice" anymore. We are meeting your demands...all we ask is that you all live up them yourselves.

I just had a quick huddle with all the critics who have ever crossed swords with you. We have collectively agreed to live up to the standards that you and all your fellow-non-sophomoric-apologists have signed onto. Please report any violations to me personally, and I'll take care of everything.

If you want to read condescension and derision into anything I have written on this thread, you do so against authorial intent.

[Rommelator]

Now, now. Play nice you two.

Seriously, it seems like this whole thing is a big misunderstanding. Let us all take a deep breath and walk this off.

I made a typo in my post that I didn't notice until later, therefore, I did not understand Alf's sarcasm and teasing to that point. That's all there is to it.

.....

There, I just corrected the mis-spelling. Now, lets all get along and continue to bash each other over other stupid and trivial matters such as MMM, polygamy, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, science vs. religion, etc.

[Alf O'Mega]

Now, now. Play nice you two.

Seriously, it seems like this whole thing is a big misunderstanding.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. I thought I was playing nice.

You just keep right on salting your books, Rommelator. Don't let my sneers, derision, or condescension discourage you. I have it on good authority that I'm a worthless, critical hack whose posts are the object of amused contempt throughout the learned apologist community. (Hey, you know this DCP wig is pretty comfortable!)

[ryanelwood]

I thought I should chime in on the review of Ash's book at Sunstone that several that was not there have a strong opinion about it. Since I was there I will give a brief rundown. Duffy by far had the most critical things to say about it. From Duffy's point of view he see's testimony through prayer above attempts to prove or demonstrate even plausability of the churches claims. Duffy actually questioned Ash if he has a spiritual testimony or if it is all intellectual. Of course that is simply HIS point of view. I also thought it was a little strange since I assume Mike Ash was writing to those that believe testimony through prayer was not good enough. Ash also responded that testimony is personal and saw no need to write a detailed account of his conversion story. The most praise came from the guy who replaced Tom Kimball as a reviewer, I have forgotton his name. His only problem was that he doesn't think people like Mike Ash should have to write such books. He is critical of church leaders not dealing with the issues rather than leaving it to others such as Mike Ash. John Dehlin echoed similar comments. Dehlin also thinks church leaders should take a more active role in dealing with the issues. Dehlin also felt that the manner in which things are presented at church and CES shares blame for setting people up for leaving the church since the church is rapped in such a package of perfection in these arena's and generally don't deal with the rough issues. Dehlin understood why Ash did not go down this road. Dehlin also believes the book will only help the light questioner of the gospel, not those with deep doubts. Roy Schmidt liked the book but thinks the claims that horses were deer and other wild claims about animals, metals, and swords by Sorenson is silly. Schmidt is also critical of some FARMS authors for thinking they know more than Joseph Smith about where Book of Mormon events occured.

So there you have it, different points of view were presented. Sunstone did just fine in choosing their reviewers.

[MAsh]

I thought I should chime in on the review of Ash's book at Sunstone that several that was not there have a strong opinion about it. Since I was there I will give a brief rundown. Duffy by far had the most critical things to say about it. From Duffy's point of view he see's testimony through prayer above attempts to prove or demonstrate even plausability of the churches claims. Duffy actually questioned Ash if he has a spiritual testimony or if it is all intellectual. Of course that is simply HIS point of view. I also thought it was a little strange since I assume Mike Ash was writing to those that beleive testimony through prayer was not good enough. Ash also responded that testimony is personal and saw no need to write a detailed account of his conversion story. The most praise came from the guy who replaced Tom Kimball as a reviewer, I have forgotton his name. His only problem was that he doesn't think people like Mike Ash should have to write such books. He is critical of church leaders not dealing with the issues rather than leaving it to others such as Mike Ash. John Dehlin echoed similar comments. Dehlin also thinks church leaders should take a more active role in dealing with the issues. Dehlin also felt that the manner in which things are presented at church and CES shares blame for setting people up for leaving the church since the church is rapped in such a package of perfection in these arena's and generally don't deal with the rough issues. Dehlin understood why Ash did not go down this road. Dehlin also believes the book will only help the light questioner of the gospel, not those with deep doubts. Roy Schmidt liked the book but thinks the claims that horses were deer and other wild claims about animals, metals, and swords by Sorenson is silly. Schmidt is also critical of some FARMS authors for thinking they know more than Joseph Smith about where Book of Mormon events occured.

So there you have it, different points of view were presented. Sunstone did just fine in choosing their reviewers.

Good summary Ryanelwood. I know that Tom Kimball had planned on making negative comments about LDS apologetic efforts in general, so I was glad to hear Jake Zollinger's comments.

Duffy had the strangest and most critical comments. I've actually liked some of the things written by Duffy and expected more from him. I anticipated that he would be negative, but I didn't think he'd complain that my book did not do enough in trying to convince the reader to rely on testimony.

Dehlin's remarks somewhat rambled. I think he used the word "apologist" in a perjorative manner. While I could empathize and even agree with some of his comments, I thought it was too much of "can't we all just get along?" and "the leaders are failing us."

Schmidt has some good thoughts & some-- what I thought-- naive thoughts. Since he is the only one with a printed version available for response, I'm working on a rebuttal to some of his complaints.

[e=mc2]

Yeah, that was kind of my point. I thought I was playing nice.

You just keep right on salting your books, Rommelator. Don't let my sneers, derision, or condescension discourage you. I have it on good authority that I'm a worthless, critical hack whose posts are the object of amused contempt throughout the learned apologist community. (Hey, you know this DCP wig is pretty comfortable!)

You bought a skin head wig?

[ryanelwood]

Good summary Ryanelwood. I know that Tom Kimball had planned on making negative comments about LDS apologetic efforts in general, so I was glad to hear Jake Zollinger's comments.

Duffy had the strangest and most critical comments. I've actually liked some of the things written by Duffy and expected more from him. I anticipated that he would be negative, but I didn't think he'd complain that my book did not do enough in trying to convince the reader to rely on testimony.

Dehlin's remarks somewhat rambled. I think he used the word "apologist" in a perjorative manner. While I could empathize and even agree with some of his comments, I thought it was too much of "can't we all just get along?" and "the leaders are failing us."

Schmidt has some good thoughts & some-- what I thought-- naive thoughts. Since he is the only one with a printed version available for response, I'm working on a rebuttal to some of his complaints.

I agree that Dehlin did ramble some, I to was sympathetic to some of the things he said. I also found Duffy's comments a little strange, but I suppose from his point of view his comments made sense; I just thought his comments didn't capture the purpose of why you wrote the book, to provide those that have a stuggling testimony with intellectual answers. I did not know that Schmidt had a printed review. Is it available? Or are you talking about the written comments he read from and then gave you a copy of them?

[Alf O'Mega]

You bought a skin head wig?

No, it's that powdered wig he wears while delivering lectures in class or (according to highly placed sources) while posting from home.

[MAsh]

I agree that Dehlin did ramble some, I to was sympathetic to some of the things he said. I also found Duffy's comments a little strange, but I suppose from his point of view his comments made sense; I just thought his comments didn't capture the purpose of why you wrote the book, to provide those that have a stuggling testimony with intellectual answers. I did not know that Schmidt had a printed review. Is it available? Or are you talking about the written comments he read from and then gave you a copy of them?

Schmidt's AML review can be found here: http://www.forums.mormonletters.org/yaf_po...oy-Schmidt.aspx

I hope to have a response finished by the end of the day.

[MAsh]

Schmidt's AML review can be found here: http://www.forums.mormonletters.org/yaf_po...oy-Schmidt.aspx

I hope to have a response finished by the end of the day.

Schmidt's review and my response can be found here: http://www.shakenfaithsyndrome.com/schmidt-response.pdf

[Calm]

On page 8, you say: "actual real word examples"

Is that supposed to be "real word" or "real world"?

add-on: finished, clear and precise, imo, and addressed the areas I found off in the review myself quite nicely.

[Dale]

I got and was very pleased to read the book. I think FAIR needed such a book for quite some time. I am the Reorganized LDS participant on the board. I feel us Community of Christ can benifit from good LDS resources.

The book has a few critics counter arguments i wish it might have delved into. I saw a few arguments related to the Book of Abraham, and the metal the plates were made out of that ignored critics counter-arguments. The beautiful papyrus argument is not accepted by all at FAIR. And By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson sought to rebut the argument. And i recall MRM trying to rebut the Tumbaga metal explanation for why the plates were 60 not hundreds of pounds if gold. It is impossible to rebut all critics counter response arguments, but some key ones should.

I was offline due to moving and no internet until tonight. I am so happy to be back involved in message board discussions again.

[MAsh]

On page 8, you say: "actual real word examples"

Is that supposed to be "real word" or "real world"?

add-on: finished, clear and precise, imo, and addressed the areas I found off in the review myself quite nicely.

"real world" - thanks for the catch

[MAsh]

I got and was very pleased to read the book. I think FAIR needed such a book for quite some time. I am the Reorganized LDS participant on the board. I feel us Community of Christ can benifit from good LDS resources.

The book has a few critics counter arguments i wish it might have delved into. I saw a few arguments related to the Book of Abraham, and the metal the plates were made out of that ignored critics counter-arguments. The beautiful papyrus argument is not accepted by all at FAIR. And By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus by Charles Larson sought to rebut the argument. And i recall MRM trying to rebut the Tumbaga metal explanation for why the plates were 60 not hundreds of pounds if gold. It is impossible to rebut all critics counter response arguments, but some key ones should.

I was offline due to moving and no internet until tonight. I am so happy to be back involved in message board discussions again.

Thanks, Dale. It's tough to deal with all the criticisms (especially when I tried to keep each chapter relatively short & attempted to summarize the primary points). Perhaps more info on these topics will be added in the future & I may try to tackle these issues on my www.ShakenFaithSyndrome.com website (to which readers are directed for additional & updated info).