"Others" in the BoM: Michael Ash and MormonTimes

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know. I have not asked him that question. I just don't know how much something from the old testament would resonate with him. Like I get where you are coming from. I really think I do, I just think there is something missing from that approach. Anyway, I don't want to get off topic here. Also, and this will sound maudlin, but I just don't have much to add personally to this board. I don't think I bring much to the table and my brand of trying to find my way or discussing others is likely too general and informal. I have run the spectrum with my testimony the last three years. When I am angry (and I am angry and frustrated a lot), I post on what we would consider anti boards. Where else can a mormon go and vent and not be attacked? When I am not i still try to pray, I read this board, fair and other "positive" stuff and write in my journal. You could classify me as a hypocrite if you want but I am real and had what I would consider a very real testimony. I suspect there are many members who have been raised pre internet and are dealing with post internet or information transparency issues. I still go to chuch although it is hard. Working out my own salvation does not fit nicely into a box or go down a straight path.

Guys like MAsh are part of the solution. A board like this with its brainpower is part of the solution. However, I believe the solutions to the problems that apologetics are addressing run much deeper than having an answer for everything or some sort of plausible explanation etc. Something should be done at the ward level, some sort of help or some sort of group. People are just leaving and they are in pain and it is sad. Between the volleys of the apologists and the antis are maybe thousands of well meaning people that are not getting help. It is likely too late for me. I understand this board is no place for my whining, but maybe its a small reminder that it's not about the apologetics, the answeres, the anti,....it's about people and it always will be.

I am not here to make a judgment. Some of my fellow board member might. I am just currious to see why he has an issue with the priesthood ban. I have always looked at the the prieshtood ban that God bestowed on the rest of Isreal. Only the Levites could hold it. It seem that God does discriminate at times. My only point is that most poeple don't have any issue with anything found in the bible but have issues with the spin that some poeple put on the LDS faith. I suggest asking him. If he does have an issue with it, then Christianity might not be right for him. He has to work out his own issues.

[ttribe]

I am not here to make a judgment. Some of my fellow board member might. I am just currious to see why he has an issue with the priesthood ban. I have always looked at the the prieshtood ban that God bestowed on the rest of Isreal. Only the Levites could hold it. It seem that God does discriminate at times. My only point is that most poeple don't have any issue with anything found in the bible but have issues with the spin that some poeple put on the LDS faith. I suggest asking him. If he does have an issue with it, then Christianity might not be right for him. He has to work out his own issues.

My guess (and it's just that) is that the disaffection of the referenced brother and his family has less to do with the priesthood ban than it does some of the racist commentary by various Church leaders over the years.

[Lloyd Dobler]

I am not here to make a judgment. Some of my fellow board member might. I am just currious to see why he has an issue with the priesthood ban. I have always looked at the the prieshtood ban that God bestowed on the rest of Isreal. Only the Levites could hold it. It seem that God does discriminate at times. My only point is that most poeple don't have any issue with anything found in the bible but have issues with the spin that some poeple put on the LDS faith. I suggest asking him. If he does have an issue with it, then Christianity might not be right for him. He has to work out his own issues.

Yeah, I like your point. I think it is more of this issue coupled with the racist statements by church leaders and the like. It's like a one two punch and its not coming from a thousand years ago, the punch is coming from as recently as 1950s or something. I agree, the dude has to work it out on his own and the Church may not be right for him. This just seems like it could have been avoided somehow.

[ttribe]

Yeah, I like your point. I think it is more of this issue coupled with the racist statements by church leaders and the like. It's like a one two punch and its not coming from a thousand years ago, the punch is coming from as recently as 1950s or something. I agree, the dude has to work it out on his own and the Church may not be right for him. This just seems like it could have been avoided somehow. (emphasis added)

I agree with your sentiment. There's no reason someone should be blindsided by this in this day and age.

[rodheadlee]

Welcome to the board Lloyd Dobler. It's never too late to strengthen your testimony.

[volgadon]

I was devasted because it was never taught to me. Infact, something completely different was taught to me..........for my entire life. I heard this on my mission in Alabama and told people it was anti, it certainly did not feel good at the time when I heard it. When I got off my mission, it still was not taught in any classes etc. When I finally learned about it on the interent and realized what the deal was, i felt very uncomfortable. I think it's one thing to look for bury treasure with a map or old court docs or something. It was quite another for me to learn that he looked for treasure using a rock and a hat. It stuck me as ridiculous and wierd. Then he uses the same means to produce the Book of Mormon, which again, was something I had never heard. When I told my sister about the rock and hat thing her first "feeling" was that what I was saying was actually evil. I sent her the Ensign article on it from long ago and she cried. She is a smart girl and a college soccer player and totally devout. I am actually suprised you seem to think it should be no biggie for regular members. The fact that the church still does not put this simple fact in the lesson manuals is disengenuous. If we are a peculiar people, put it in the manual, teach the truth and get on with it."

The church does not put a whole lot of details into the lesson manuals either. Joseph's gun is in the manuals, yet many members are surprised to hear of it.

Anyway, let me try a bit of pop psychology. The reason you had a bad feeling when you heard about the rock was because you were being told it by an anti, someone attempting to tear down your faith. The rock became associated with those bad feelings. Am I anywhere close?

And when you told your sister, what mood were you in yourself?

My general premise is that if you asked most members, especially a few years ago and before, if there were people who pre dated the BofM people, they would say no. If you disagree with that, fair enough. For some guy who writes for a magazine that the Church does not officially stand behind or endorse to give his opinion in the form of fact (again my opinion) is prematurely dismissive when set against the backdrop of many years of faithful alternative thinking.

Tacking 'in my opinion' onto every sentence would make for extremely tedious reading.

The basis for this opinion is that it's my opinion.

Obviously, but what is your opinion based on, that is, how did you reach it.

When I think of Mormon Times I think of regular members like my family and extended family who read it. They are not informed like the people on this board. They don't make the time to do lots of research. They are busy living their lives and from my experience with them, simply adopt the conclusions and anaysis of Ash. I don't think that is much of a stretch at all. We do this kind of thing in the Church all the time, especially with our General Authorities. Now I don't have a problem with members adopting the conclusions and opinions of the prophet for example without doing research.....but for these kinds of articles I think it is a problem when he takes this presumptive truth and correctness type tone.

would they take the time to do the research if he said research it? I suspect not.

Because he is hitting what in my opinion are huge issues that cause major problems for peoples testimonies and he is addressing and wrapping up these incredibly important and complex issues in one page with a nice bow on top. Yeah, I think the principle of humility alone would compel him to encourage his readers to treat it like LifeonPlate said, as an introduction only. He should mention that there is at the very least much information that he is not including etc and encourage people to read further. He should at least acknowledge the other sides of issues and the important facts etc supporting those sides. It's really not asking for much considering importance of the subjects he is addressing, especially in this age of the interent.

It actually is asking for very much. In essence, you expect him to do all the work for you.

I would be accusing Mike Ash of decieving his readers, yes. If you knowingly leave out a bunch of information regarding your topic like Cinepro pointed out in the beginning and simply take them to a simplified conclusion, week after week, with no disclaimers or encouragement to the reader to do their own research, or a list of resources pro and con for readers to do additional reading I think it is a form of deception.

I've never needed to be told to do additional research, or indeed, how to think.

[MAsh]

In response to some of Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

In response to some of Lloyd

[MAsh]

Just want to say here, Mike, that I very much like your column and am glad that Mormon Times features it. I know from experience how difficult it can be to write concisely and cogently at the same time, even when one is knowledgeable about the subject matter, and I appreciate the effort you put into it.

Thanks Scott. I appreciate that.

[Lloyd Dobler]

The church does not put a whole lot of details into the lesson manuals either. Joseph's gun is in the manuals, yet many members are surprised to hear of it.

Anyway, let me try a bit of pop psychology. The reason you had a bad feeling when you heard about the rock was because you were being told it by an anti, someone attempting to tear down your faith. The rock became associated with those bad feelings. Am I anywhere close?

And when you told your sister, what mood were you in yourself?

You know at this point I don't remember what website I heard of the rock and hat thingn. It was likely an anti site. To be honest and not to try to win any debate, yeah I think you would be in the ballpark. I think many times the sort of first impression can leave an imprint. My first experience in finding out most of this kind of stuff was not a good one. You could make the case that these bad feeling etc chased away the spirit and left me vulnerable. Now with my sister it was totally mellow and earnest. It seems hard for people on this board to feel how the rock and hat thing can upset people but I have seen it happen a few times. I understand the rational behind explaining it as no big deal, the whole if you believe in the urim thing then why is a hat such a big deal. But for me and I think many people, thinking the Book of Mormon was translated by an ancient device that has been used before in biblical history for the purpose of translating and was carried by Moroni and kept safe and then stored for the restoration and the translating of the Book of Mormon........when you are taught that and believe that and learn or hear of nothing else, well when you compare that story to learning that he used a rock and hat to find buried treasure and then used the same means to produce the BofM with the plates mostly not around......Look this comparison does not need the aid of any bad feeling etc. It is just crazy. You go from this ancient and preserved translation device to a rock and a hat, if no one here can see how this makes memebers feel shocked, sad, embarrassed or lied to etc then I just don't know what else to say.

Tacking 'in my opinion' onto every sentence would make for extremely tedious reading.

Right on that one. I will put you out of your misery and stop.

Obviously, but what is your opinion based on, that is, how did you reach it.

Well, I have read many of MAsh articles in MT. It is just my observation on the approach and tone of the articles.

would they take the time to do the research if he said research it? I suspect not.

I think most people here are proponents of figuring things out for yourself and coming to your own conclusion. People on this board seem to have strong testimonies and they are based on looking at both sides of the issue and informing themselves. Although a step in the right direction, the MAsh articles remain very simple, one sided and matter of fact.

It actually is asking for very much. In essence, you expect him to do all the work for you.

I expect fair and honest disclosure. I expect MAsh to tell more than only one simple side of an issue even if it means leaving out a few one sided facts to fit the space. For me, it would be more effective to lay out stuff fairly, then say this is my opinion and then encourage members to search it out for themselves, read ponder pray and talk about the importance of not living or borrowed light or something, whatever. I think members need to be encouraged to do their own reading and not take anyones word for it. There is way to much of that in the church and it is causing problems now. What does it hurt to take this approach?

I've never needed to be told to do additional research, or indeed, how to think.

Well, it would be another topic but I think there are many things about the Church culture that condition members to not think or act independantly for themselves. So I do think regular members need encouragement from somebody even if it is not a GA and it is MAsh. I think many people on this board shortchange the kind of influence they actually have on regular members. DCP and MAsh and others are on the front lines influencing members on these issues. It's not the GAs. I wish it was not the case but oh well. I don't think many people on this board needed to be told how to think or do research. However, I don't think the purpose of this board is apologetics between smart, educated and informed Mormons. If it is then it is sort of like a bunch of smart people living on an island telling each other how great the sand is and why the coconuts break apart in a certain way while many are drowning outside the surf (I would be one of those).

[J Green]

Just want to say here, Mike, that I very much like your column and am glad that Mormon Times features it.

I second the motion. Mike, there are a lot of us who love your column and look forward to it. Thanks for all you do.

[Lloyd Dobler]

In response to some of Lloyd

[Lloyd Dobler]

The word limit seems to be a recurring problem. Maybe these incredibly important topics when set against the backdrop of the history of church disclosure, member knowledge and the age of the internet should not be addressed in an 800 word article in the MT. I think what you are trying to do is great but each week you only have a little bit of icing to cover a really big cake and I think it is the member that goes wanting. Maybe choose smaller cakes? I will read your articles from the beginning to grasp the proper context. You must also understand that many if not most of the readers just jump in on your articles when they can and would also lack the valuable context you want me to get.

I have just discovered multi quote. I did respond to MAsh in the above blue box. good grief i don't know what I am doing.

[ttribe]

I have just discovered multi quote. I did respond to MAsh in the above blue box. good grief i don't know what I am doing.

You'll get it. Don't stress.

[cinepro]

Quite frankly, the facts are

[Calm]

Well, it would be another topic but I think there are many things about the Church culture that condition members to not think or act independantly for themselves.

If by this you mean the Church culture discourages people from doing research, you need to explain the presence of a significant percentage of members who do that research both privately and professionally.

[Brant Gardner]

The most interesting thing for me is the manner in which your articles assume the acceptance and compatibility of these ideas among mainstream LDS, especially in light of the acceptance Meldrum and his like have found among a certain segment of Church members.

That is an interesting question the covers a lot of ground, including the space limitations on Mike's articles and the presumed target.

Just to put a particular perspective on this, let us assume that what Mike is stating as though there isn't much controversy really does represent the best of scholarly thinking. It certainly doesn't represent all possible ways of looking at the question, and a scholarly article would examine all of the alternatives.

If we assume that both because of the venue and the fact that Mike's articles (in their current form) are being given space that this is a position that would be deemed acceptable if more members believed it--then shouldn't it be stated in that way? The alternative (Meldrum, as one example) definitely attempts to play the card of ultimate authority. If people really respond to that kind of thing, then what Mike is doing--in this particular venue--is just what is needed.

In a difference venue, something very different is required.

(by the way, I am still interested in where the original statements came from -- the change of font shows that they were copied, but I don't know if they were yours or someone else's--if they are elsewhere, I would like to know the source as I may respond in a different venue and need the reference).

[Lloyd Dobler]

If by this you mean the Church culture discourages people from doing research, you need to explain the presence of a significant percentage of members who do that research both privately and professionally.

That is not what I mean. I would not position it in a way that the church is directly discouraging people not to do research. I would mean that because of the culture of the church most members don't even see the need for research. I don't think this is a radical statement to make. My statement is just as general as "the presence of a significant percentage of member who do research privately and professionally". Yeah, in my ward we have an attorney who is great in gospel doctrine class. Dude has done a lot of reading. We have a few other people but that is about it. In my elders quorum I mean no way, maybe a couple guys. As for the women, I have no idea but I imagine it's about the same. Everyone else including our bishop (who I have spoke to about my issues) pretty much sticks to the scriptures, the lesson manuals, some of the latest prophet biographies or the work and the glory (which i think is totally ridiculous and insane along with church movies like the one about missionaries) deseret book type stuff. They don't even see the need. They are busy doing the whole church thing and they barely have time to read the scriptures. Besides, in their mind and heart they already know the important stuff that they are supposed to know and it's "true" so why bother. I really think there is value in casting a critical eye at the culture of our Church. Personally, I see big problems that will only get worse as time goes on. Obviously, that is not an appropriate subject for this board but there should be a board for that kind of stuff.

For me it's sometimes like what Robert Redford was saying to his student who he was trying to call him to become active in the community/world when he said " Rome is burning son". I have included this quote to provide a sufficient amount of maudlin for the guy earlier in this thread that appreciates it so much. Another good quote from Redford to the kid, "Your good with words Todd, but you know what would make them even better? If they had a heartbeat" And so ends my maudlin contribution.

[cinepro]

(by the way, I am still interested in where the original statements came from -- the change of font shows that they were copied, but I don't know if they were yours or someone else's--if they are elsewhere, I would like to know the source as I may respond in a different venue and need the reference).

I was actually quoting myself from a few similar threads from the past such as this one (to which you well responded). I just changed the font to call out that part of the post.

[aka]

Just want to say here, Mike, that I very much like your column and am glad that Mormon Times features it. I know from experience how difficult it can be to write concisely and cogently at the same time, even when one is knowledgeable about the subject matter, and I appreciate the effort you put into it.

Scott,

I believe that you were writing a series of articles in the Church News dealing with "controversial" issues such as discussed in this thread. And I believe that you were writing longer articles than Mike is able to write in Mormon Times.

I read the Church News each week and I don't think I've seen any articles of that type from you recently.

Has that effort ended? It seemed to me that there were still many topics you could have covered.

Thanks for your reply.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

I believe that you were writing a series of articles in the Church News dealing with "controversial" issues such as discussed in this thread. And I believe that you were writing longer articles than Mike is able to write in Mormon Times.

I read the Church News each week and I don't think I've seen any articles of that type from you recently.

Has that effort ended? It seemed to me that there were still many topics you could have covered.

Thanks for your reply.

I was doing that before the advent of Mormon Times, which is actually better suited to and expressly intended for that sort of thing. It's a moot point now anyway, since Church News subscribers these days also receive the Mormon Times, either as part of the Deseret News, or, for mail-out subscriptions, bundled with the Church News.

Incidentally, I think Mike is doing just fine covering the issues he does within the parameters he is given. A series of columns on specified subjects is a good way to handle the task, and readers who miss previous columns can find them on line at www.mormontimes.com

I should mention here that Daniel Peterson also is now a regular columnist for Mormon Times, so I'm very enthused about the publication's content. And Orson Scott Card and my friend and colleague, Jerry Johnston, from the publication's inception have also been writing very good columns, though not particularly on apologetics issues.

[MAsh]

I second the motion. Mike, there are a lot of us who love your column and look forward to it. Thanks for all you do.

Thanks J Green. That's kind of you to say.

[MAsh]

Maybe choose smaller cakes?

Easier said than done. In several cases an entire book is devouted to a single topic. I don't want to break one topic into 500 little cakes. These are brief snippets of the topics. Interested parties can consult material with greater depth. Links to both of my books are at the bottom of all my articles. They (especially Shaken Faith Syndrome) addresses many of these issues in greater detail.

Maybe choose smaller cakes?

I will read your articles from the beginning to grasp the proper context. You must also understand that many if not most of the readers just jump in on your articles when they can and would also lack the valuable context you want me to get.

[MAsh]

The most interesting thing for me is the manner in which your articles assume the acceptance and compatibility of these ideas among mainstream LDS, especially in light of the acceptance Meldrum and his like have found among a certain segment of Church members.

What Brant said.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Easier said than done. In several cases an entire book is devouted to a single topic. I don't want to break one topic into 500 little cakes. These are brief snippets of the topics. Interested parties can consult material with greater depth. Links to both of my books are at the bottom of all my articles. They (especially Shaken Faith Syndrome) addresses many of these issues in greater detail.

I will read your articles from the beginning to grasp the proper context. You must also understand that many if not most of the readers just jump in on your articles when they can and would also lack the valuable context you want me to get.

And what's the solution? I can't start every article with a recap of what went on before. I can't include all the previous material in each article. You ask me to make "smaller cakes"... how do I do that and not have the potential problem of readers who "jump" into my articles? Typically, the articles refer to something in, at least, the previous installment, and the MT has a link to a listing of my previous installments as well.