Thomas Riskas, "deconstructing Mormonism"

[kryoung1983]

I have never read this book and I don't have a real inclination to do so. But I do know the author wrote a book entitled "deconstructing Mormonism: An analysis and assessment of the Mormon faith." I know this book is probably the leading book that led a certain apologist from FAIR to abandon his faith. I am not saying his name because that probably isn't appropriate. The Book claims to be a psycho social analysis of Mormonism. Has FARMS or FAIR critiqued this book? How damaging is it for those that may have read it?

[Crypto]

A quick search revealed yes there is a response:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Deconstructing_Mormonism
 

[Uncle Dale]

I have his book -- which he kindly sent to me, free of charge,

even knowing in advance that I would not be an easy critic.

 

It helps to know that the author (a former Mormon) has discarded

all of his previous professions of Latter Day Saintism, Christianity,

theistic religion, and (if I understand him correctly, even atheistic

religion such as Zen or Taoism or Saturday afternoon yoga class).

 

He has arranged his arguments into something like a series of

doubts, or challenges to religion that the objective (?) investigator

of anti-Mormonism (and anti-religion) ought to work through, in

order to possibly end up at the same point as Riskas himself.

 

In other words, the prospective professor of LDS religion would

begin this study (exercise? experiment?) by first of all laying aside

his or her "testimony." If that seems impossible as a beginning point,

the reader of the book will be confronted with that implicit challenge

on practically every page of this thick, dense, hard-to-read volume,

replete with the sort of specialized jargon one might expect to encounter

in graduate courses in human psychology and philosophy.

 

How many Latter Day Saints can begin such an examination by

seriously and "objectively" doubting their most basic beliefs --

those apparent "truths" that the Brother of Jared might say go

even beyond mere belief, into the realms of certain knowledge?

 

I have a hard time visualizing anybody's Bishop saying, "Sure,

go ahead and read Riskas with the open mind of a benighted

gentile -- throw away your testimony, and become a "clean

slate" for the precepts of men to write upon..."

 

And I say all of that, not as a Latter Day Saint, myself, nor as

a Christian, as a theist, nor even as a practicioner of athestic

religion -- of supporting Greenpeace, or Save the Whales,

or the Unitarian-Universalists, etc. etc.

 

I say it simply as a reader who was willing to attempt reading

the fellow's book and taking his arguments/advice seriously.

 

I did ask Riskas where he suggested that I myself should begin,

in experimenting with dropping my "beliefs" -- and he appeared

unable to answer. I suspect he would do better engaging a

recent convert, who had never been to the Temple nor finished

reading 1st Nephi. That, or perhaps Bro. Shirts...

 

Oh well,

 

UD

[Avatar4321]

How do you put aside the witness of the Holy Spirit?

I mean it seems extremely difficult to say there is no God when He has spoken to you.

Of course, laman and lemuel managed it.

[ERayR]

I have his book -- which he kindly sent to me, free of charge,

even knowing in advance that I would not be an easy critic.

 

It helps to know that the author (a former Mormon) has discarded

all of his previous professions of Latter Day Saintism, Christianity,

theistic religion, and (if I understand him correctly, even atheistic

religion such as Zen or Taoism or Saturday afternoon yoga class).

 

He has arranged his arguments into something like a series of

doubts, or challenges to religion that the objective (?) investigator

of anti-Mormonism (and anti-religion) ought to work through, in

order to possibly end up at the same point as Riskas himself.

 

In other words, the prospective professor of LDS religion would

begin this study (exercise? experiment?) by first of all laying aside

his or her "testimony." If that seems impossible as a beginning point,

the reader of the book will be confronted with that implicit challenge

on practically every page of this thick, dense, hard-to-read volume,

replete with the sort of specialized jargon one might expect to encounter

in graduate courses in human psychology and philosophy.

 

How many Latter Day Saints can begin such an examination by

seriously and "objectively" doubting their most basic beliefs --

those apparent "truths" that the Brother of Jared might say go

even beyond mere belief, into the realms of certain knowledge?

 

I have a hard time visualizing anybody's Bishop saying, "Sure,

go ahead and read Riskas with the open mind of a benighted

gentile -- throw away your testimony, and become a "clean

slate" for the precepts of men to write upon..."

 

And I say all of that, not as a Latter Day Saint, myself, nor as

a Christian, as a theist, nor even as a practicioner of athestic

religion -- of supporting Greenpeace, or Save the Whales,

or the Unitarian-Universalists, etc. etc.

 

I say it simply as a reader who was willing to attempt reading

the fellow's book and taking his arguments/advice seriously.

 

I did ask Riskas where he suggested that I myself should begin,

in experimenting with dropping my "beliefs" -- and he appeared

unable to answer. I suspect he would do better engaging a

recent convert, who had never been to the Temple nor finished

reading 1st Nephi. That, or perhaps Bro. Shirts...

 

Oh well,

 

UD

 

For me the big question for him is why should I trust your interpretations with my eternal welfare?

[DBMormon]

I have his book -- which he kindly sent to me, free of charge,

even knowing in advance that I would not be an easy critic.

 

It helps to know that the author (a former Mormon) has discarded

all of his previous professions of Latter Day Saintism, Christianity,

theistic religion, and (if I understand him correctly, even atheistic

religion such as Zen or Taoism or Saturday afternoon yoga class).

 

He has arranged his arguments into something like a series of

doubts, or challenges to religion that the objective (?) investigator

of anti-Mormonism (and anti-religion) ought to work through, in

order to possibly end up at the same point as Riskas himself.

 

In other words, the prospective professor of LDS religion would

begin this study (exercise? experiment?) by first of all laying aside

his or her "testimony." If that seems impossible as a beginning point,

the reader of the book will be confronted with that implicit challenge

on practically every page of this thick, dense, hard-to-read volume,

replete with the sort of specialized jargon one might expect to encounter

in graduate courses in human psychology and philosophy.

 

How many Latter Day Saints can begin such an examination by

seriously and "objectively" doubting their most basic beliefs --

those apparent "truths" that the Brother of Jared might say go

even beyond mere belief, into the realms of certain knowledge?

 

I have a hard time visualizing anybody's Bishop saying, "Sure,

go ahead and read Riskas with the open mind of a benighted

gentile -- throw away your testimony, and become a "clean

slate" for the precepts of men to write upon..."

 

And I say all of that, not as a Latter Day Saint, myself, nor as

a Christian, as a theist, nor even as a practicioner of athestic

religion -- of supporting Greenpeace, or Save the Whales,

or the Unitarian-Universalists, etc. etc.

 

I say it simply as a reader who was willing to attempt reading

the fellow's book and taking his arguments/advice seriously.

 

I did ask Riskas where he suggested that I myself should begin,

in experimenting with dropping my "beliefs" -- and he appeared

unable to answer. I suspect he would do better engaging a

recent convert, who had never been to the Temple nor finished

reading 1st Nephi. That, or perhaps Bro. Shirts...

 

Oh well,

 

UD

One would likely not read this unless into apologetics or having doubts. One with doubts is hesitant to validate their testimony over the testimony that those of other faiths have. Why is my spiritual fuzzy feeling of more worth than another's? From this starting point a person with doubt's can began on the authors premise.

[why me]

. Why is my spiritual fuzzy feeling of more worth than another's? From this starting point a person with doubt's can began on the authors premise.

Of course if mormons were experiencing warm fuzzy feelings I would agree with you. But to equate the experiences of the holy ghost to a warm fuzzy is interesting. I don't think that mormons experience warm fuzzies. At least I have never had a warm fuzzy. But I have had genuine spiritual experiences. Perhaps other faiths have warm fuzzies.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course if mormons were experiencing warm fuzzy feelings I would agree with you. But to equate the experiences of the holy ghost to a warm fuzzy is interesting. I don't think that mormons experience warm fuzzies. At least I have never had a warm fuzzy. But I have had genuine spiritual experiences. Perhaps other faiths have warm fuzzies.

 

I prefer warm fuzzies to cold pricklies.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Games_and_their_analysis

[Kenngo1969]

... Why is my spiritual fuzzy feeling of more worth than another's? From this starting point a person with doubt's can began on the authors premise.

It's not, necessarily.  

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/

 

See also Alma 29:8.

[Uncle Dale]

How do you put aside the witness of the Holy Spirit?

...

 

I may be mis-stating Riskas' deconstruction process, but, according

to what I see as his world-view, even St. John of the Cross would

have to throw his theophanies into the garbage dump and begin

by admitting those godly experiences to have been hallucinations.

 

Siddhartha would have to begin by admitting he had no true

transcendental enlightment while sitting under a tree in Deer Park.

 

And those groups of people who testify to having witnessed an

authentic supernatural event, would have to begin by admitting

that they were most likely victims of mass hysteria.

 

Moses encountered no Divinity in any burning bush.

 

No guy named Jesus ever suffered in any garden, pouring forth blood.

 

There is nothing supernatural. Metaphysics is a philosophical hoax.

 

If any of you folks can start off from such admissions (I can't) and

then be prepared to be de-programmed by Riskas in a step-by-step

process of belief deconstruction, go ahead and make the attempt.

 

As I said, Riskas could not even begin to suggest what beliefs I

should drop. Perhaps 2+2=4? Or maybe Newton's Laws? Or,

perhaps there never was a George Washington or Abe Lincoln?

 

Oh well...

 

UD

[cinepro]

How do you put aside the witness of the Holy Spirit?

I mean it seems extremely difficult to say there is no God when He has spoken to you.

Of course, laman and lemuel managed it.

 

This isn't unique to Riskas.  I think both the Church and anti-Mormons would agree that if an LDS "sets aside" their testimony in their process of questioning, or seeks other possible explanations for the experiences and feelings they have thus far accepted as having supernatural origins, the odds of them ever finding their testimony again are drastically reduced.

 

Or, as one ex-Mormon told me, one of the worst things and LDS can do is to honestly ask themselves how the Church would be different if it weren't "true", and then look at every reason they come up with as objectively as possible. 

[thesometimesaint]

I have some sympathy for the agnostics, but I just can't go the atheistic route.

[cinepro]

I have never read this book and I don't have a real inclination to do so. But I do know the author wrote a book entitled "deconstructing Mormonism: An analysis and assessment of the Mormon faith." I know this book is probably the leading book that led a certain apologist from FAIR to abandon his faith. I am not saying his name because that probably isn't appropriate. The Book claims to be a psycho social analysis of Mormonism. Has FARMS or FAIR critiqued this book? How damaging is it for those that may have read it?

 

FWIW, the name of the person being referred to is found in one of the Amazon reviews for the book.

 

Deconstructing Mormonism

 

From his review:

 

 

This is not a mere will-o-wisp book or a simple pimple either. It is a huge, brawling 480 pager packed with intense analysis, incredible discussion, penetrating, sincere, serious, and very, very pointed questions for Mormons in the faith. Very dense book, very thorough book analyzing the Mormon concept of God, faith, revelation, (on revelation pp. 297-303 is simply going to blow your minds, but read the first 296 pages FIRST!), plan of salvation, and reality. And his entire analysis and critique can be applied to any and all faiths across the boards, astoundingly enough! I am more than serious here. You Christian who want to get one up on Mormonism, you just go right ahead and use Riskas. You best be dang good and sure you realize, however, that his critique is clearly, obviously, and very powerfully fully taking your own beliefs and knowledge completely apart leaving you in ashes and dust also.

Now for a confession. I am singularly *unprepared* to deal with this. What?! An apologist for almost 2 decades ***unprepared***? Having tackled innumerable anti-Mormon and idiotic pro-Mormon (you simply have no idea how indubitably silly some conservative Mormon apologetics is, I mean you just have NO IDEA!) thinking for years, reading literally hundreds of books of all kinds and types to broaden my education and ability to discuss intelligently the reasons Mormonism is viable? Am I serious? Unfortunately, yes, I am. Here are a few reasons why I feel completely inadequate to the task of taking on Riskas. I, as a Mormon (and the serious VAST majority of all the rest of you Christian in the Western World have had this problem as well, don't you even pretend you don't), have been told what to think my entire life. I came to recognize this a few years ago actually, and have actually gotten a rather horrid taste in my mouth for apologetics. We as Mormons are simply never taught HOW to think, we are only taught WHAT to, and we in our simple minded non-thinking, non-critical, naive as sheep way, have simply believed in WHAT we have been told. And everything we read is geared to simply reinforcing what we have been told. Thomas Riskas has shown me the cost now of being raised and kept in abject ignorance of HOW TO THINK through theology ALL THE WAY TO THE LOGICAL, EVIDENTIAL END. This is ***critical*** to grasp. We always (we - meaning we Mormons and ALL the rest of you Christians, whether you admit it or not) stop at the faith-promoting points whether in scripture, or listening to inspired leaders (who also always make sure whatever is taught and said ends up building testimony, not analyzing viable contrasts), or reading church related literature. The simple Sally, ****, and Jane mentality that has been spoon fed to us for decades has now come home to roost with some very powerful evidence that our faith is simply not prepared for *real* thinking, *real* knowledge, and *real* problems of DOUBT, that dastardly devilish doubt, that we all have, we all are taught to fear and think is of Satan, and that we all ignore, entirely to our perils, either sooner or later. Because we have been conditioned to simply have faith and believe, have faith and believe, have faith and believe, the sledge hammer of logic and doubt is now shattering the glass of faith.

Edited January 25, 2015 by cinepro

[why me]

I prefer warm fuzzies to cold pricklies.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Games_and_their_analysis

From experience I know that when members call their spiritual experiences warm fuzzies they could be heading out the door of the church. Such words should not be used lightly. One trick that exmembers attempt to convince the lds of is that all members of faiths have the same spiritual experiences as the lds. Not true at all since many members of other faiths mock the 'warm fuzzy' feeling.

Edited January 25, 2015 by why me

[Avatar4321]

This isn't unique to Riskas.  I think both the Church and anti-Mormons would agree that if an LDS "sets aside" their testimony in their process of questioning, or seeks other possible explanations for the experiences and feelings they have thus far accepted as having supernatural origins, the odds of them ever finding their testimony again are drastically reduced.

 

Or, as one ex-Mormon told me, one of the worst things and LDS can do is to honestly ask themselves how the Church would be different if it weren't "true", and then look at every reason they come up with as objectively as possible.

I understand their position, but how can one ignore God when you hear His voice tell you He is real, the church is true, Jesus is your savior and Joseph was a prophet?

[Avatar4321]

From experience I know that when members call their spiritual experiences warm fuzzies they could be heading out the door of the church. Such words should not be used lightly. One trick that exmembers attempt to convince the lds of is that all members of faiths have the same spiritual experiences as the lds. Not true at all since many members of other faiths mock the 'warm fuzzy' feeling.

I've never had anyone from another faith use warm fuzzies to describe why they believe.

[why me]

I understand their position, but how can one ignore God when you hear His voice tell you He is real, the church is true, Jesus is your savior and Joseph was a prophet?

And this why critics need to call all this a warm fuzzy. Or deconstruct it by claiming that members of all faiths have such experiences. However, those lds who have had such experiences about the the beliefs you mentioned above know that their experiences are special and unique, a sort of a one of a kind. Unfortunately, many former members have forgotten their spiritual experiences or put it on the level of what one feels when attending a circus.

[why me]

I've never had anyone from another faith use warm fuzzies to describe why they believe.

They wouldn't since they mock such experiences. But they do use it to describe what mormons feel.  They can also mock the burning of the bosson idea. All this tells me that they have never experienced the holy ghost within them.

Edited January 25, 2015 by why me

[Avatar4321]

Another thing I've always wondered about those who push logic over faith, how is it logical to ignore your person witnesses of God?

[Uncle Dale]

And this why critics need to call all this a warm fuzzy. Or deconstruct it by claiming that members of all faiths have such experiences. However, those lds who have had such experiences about the the beliefs you mentioned above know that their experiences are special and unique, a sort of a one of a kind. Unfortunately, many former members have forgotten their spiritual experiences or put it on the level of what one feels when attending a circus.

 

 

Again, I'll probably get criticized for mis-characterizing Riskas, but

I conclude that his view of an LDS testimony would be something

like the scenario I encountered in the Delaware, Ohio LDS branch

back in 1979:

 

A young couple brought their five-year-old son up to the microphone

on F&T Sunday, and told him to bear his testimony to the congregation.

 

"I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Book of Mormon is true --

and, and..."

 

"What else, Timmy?" we could all hear his father whispering into the

kid's ear.

 

"And that the Church is true -- uh, er..."

 

"And that ... (inaudible)..." The dad continued.

 

"And that Ezra Taft Benson is a true prophet!" the boy finally blurted out.

 

This sort of thing was so foreign to my experiences as an RLDS, that I could

not help but ask the father and mother what all of that really meant?  Did

Timmy really know "beyond a shadow of a doubt?"

 

"Of course, it's true. We taught him. He didn't say anything that wasn't true."

Was the cryptic response I got from the obviously irritated dad.

 

I asked no more. But I truly think that Riskas views all LDS testimony in

that light -- as nothing more than what little Timmy thought he should say;

coupled with some unusual level of emotion or excitement.

 

If we were to ask Mr. Riskas what difference there was between his

own bearing of testimony (before he dropped out) and Timmy's public

profession, I suppose Riskas would answer "no difference at all."

 

UD

Edited January 25, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Avatar4321]

You're probably right. Which is why it irritates me to no end to see parents encourage kids to get up when they don't know what they are saying.

I've never known anyone familiar with the Holy Spirit describe it as warm fuzzies either.

[Tacenda]

You're probably right. Which is why it irritates me to no end to see parents encourage kids to get up when they don't know what they are saying.

I've never known anyone familiar with the Holy Spirit describe it as warm fuzzies either.

What? Just google President Monson and Warm Fuzzies.

[Calm]

That is talking about the good feelings that come from helping others, not about a witness of the Holy Spirit.

[pogi]

I don't see what is wrong with "warm fuzzies".

 

It can mean different things to different people.  To me it is neither warm nor fuzzy but is a feeling of happiness, contentment, comfort, reassurance, affection, love, goodwill... These feelings often accompany spiritual experiences for me but is not necessarily the spirit.  When I feel good about doing good, seeing good or hearing good, I could aptly describe that as a "warm fuzzy".

Edited January 25, 2015 by pogi

[Calm]

Goes back to the origin story of "warm fuzzies" for children (makes a spiritual witness a child's tale iow, imo) and the idea that the only thing experienced is a warm feeling without distinction or information.