| |
Click the subject to go directly to the article. Click the red arrow to the right of the article to return to the top.
|
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2012
Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.3
HOSTED BY |
Do you sell Avon? Stampin-Up? Scentsy? Mary-Kay? Comic books? Trinkets? Widgets?
AvoBase does them all AND can do them all at the same time! Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.
Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.
| | |
|
|
Containing 5,004 Articles Spanning 346 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 2".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 2
Total Articles:
7
Michael R. Ash is a Mormon Apologist.
|
|
| Monday, Apr 25, 2011, at 08:17 AM Ash Setting Himself And Mormon Apologists As Better Than The Mormon Prophets Original Author(s): Jesus Smith MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ | After last week trying to persuade us that witnesses are direct, reliable evidence and that DNA is indirect evidence, now Michael Ash is going up the ego ladder a few more steps.
"If we forego traditions and folk-assumptions about the Book of Mormon and apply the methods of modern science and scholarship to what the Book of Mormon actually says and does not say, we find that the book paints a picture which is amazingly similar in many ways to the same picture painted by New World experts about the ancient cultures during Book of Mormon times."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70...
Translation:
Modern latter-day scholarship (moaps) is reading the between-the-lines, implied picture and fitting it to modern science. The words of joe smith and subsequent profits are folk lore.
This morning Mr. Ash proposes that the BofM is the evidence. It must be proof, because Joseph Smith could not have known what archaeology is finding.
Ash said this: "we find that the book paints a picture which is amazingly similar in many ways to the same picture painted by New World experts about the ancient cultures during Book of Mormon times."
I'm still waiting for iron swords, coins, horse bones, chariots, ... but Ash now claims that instead of evidence to support the BofM, it is the evidence!
Here are three sources from professionals who are speaking up about "archaeological fantasies". They help to bring sanity when reading apologist writings such as today's.
Three Basic Principles of Archaeological Research
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php...
Irrationality and Popular Archaeology
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/wp-conten...
Crusading Against Straw Men: An Alternative Viewo of Alternative Archaeologies: Response to Holtorf
http://sites.matrix.msu.edu/wp-conten...
| Last week Mr. Ash said this:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70...
“Direct evidence … is evidence of a fact based on a witness’s personal knowledge or observation of that fact."
Now using that definition, Joseph Smith's bedroom tale about Moroni's appearance is direct evidence as long as the source is from Joseph Smith and not from second or third hand accounts.
And there is just such a source in Joseph Smith's own journal from November, 1835. It tells us what Moroni said.
http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/pap...
"he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham"
To clarify what "literal descendants of Abraham" meant to Joseph Smith, look at a revelation written on March 28, 1835, before his journal story.
D&C; 107:40 "The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made."
To Joseph Smith, "literal descendant" meant from father to son. These are from sources of direct evidence. An example of indirect evidence would be a newspaper article written by Oliver Cowdery or someone else. The journal and D&C; are direct evidence because they are the words of Joseph Smith.
What these words tell us is that Moroni said the Indians were literally from Abraham, father-to-son, through Isaac and Jacob on down to the tribes in New York in 1835.
Today Mr. Ash said this:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70...
"If we forego traditions and folk-assumptions about the Book of Mormon and apply the methods of modern science and scholarship..."
The "direct evidence" from Joseph Smith's own mouth about the visit from Moroni is now "traditions and folk-assumptions."
If we apply the methods of modern science using DNA, it does not support what Moroni told Joseph Smith. It looks like the apologists are now claiming that Moroni's words are just folk-assumptions.
How do apologists get away with denying "direct evidence"? It seems that to admit it as evidence does prove that Joseph Smith lied about Moroni.
| This past weekend a Mormon Bishop in the UK posted his resignation letter online onto his blog. Mormon Apologist Michael R. Ash registered on the site attacking the Bishop. The following is the transcript of Ash's response:
I’m not one to publish frequently on blogs or message boards. Quite frankly, life is too short, I have too many irons in the fire, and I have
precious little time to work on projects that I feel are more worthwhile than arguing with others.
Having said this, however, I feel the need to comment on a few things discussed herein.
Steve, I honestly hope that you find happiness in your own personal spiritual quest. In the end, each of us has to decide for ourselves what brings us true happiness.
I can imagine (with a touch of anecdotal recollection of my own) the emotional turmoil you must have gone through. The phrase “cognitive dissonance” [CD] is thrown about loosely in discussions about LDS issues, but true CD is very hard on the emotions and mind, and can make you physically ill. You cannot endure CD for long and your mind/body seeks a quick resolution. Some people find resolution by brushing difficult issues aside, others by embracing the new difficulties and changing their paradigm. Either way, the psychological tension is relieved. This doesn’t automatically make one direction right and the other wrong, however.
Common among those who leave the church are feelings of anger and betrayal, and those feelings can be so powerful that they can cloud any or all thoughts of accepting the claims made by the Church. This comes from feelings of mistrust and are hard to overcome– and certainly influence a bias against arguments that support the Church.
Feelings of mistrust, as you note in your post, come most often from feeling that things have been “hidden.” The simple truth, however, is that things are not nearly as “hidden” as some– who stumble upon such information [often painted in the worst possible light by critics]– would think. There isn’t enough space in this blog to do this topic justice but I can refer you to information that demonstrates a) that most of the difficult issues have been discussed in Church-related publications for years, b) most people in general are blissfully unaware of significant historical/political etc., events. In other words, it’s sad but true, that most people are simply ignorant of things they should know more about.
When a believing member “discovers” such things, the Church is immediately held up as the culprit for “hiding” the information in a “cover-up” to control the minds of members. This is simply not true.
Your post speaks of “solid, reliable, testable scientific data,” that supports your current religious views of Mormonism. At the risk of sounding rude, I seriously doubt that you could produce such data. Before you begin writing a list please keep in mind, that a large number of educated Latter-day Saints are fully aware of every single LDS-critical argument. I, myself, have studied them for many decades. There is absolutely no intellectual data that automatically compels an intelligent person to reject the Book of Mormon. Of course there is no intellectual data that automatically compels an intelligent person to accept the Book of Mormon either. In short, all the “scientific data” that is used to discredit the Church has an equally “solid, reliable,” and “testable” refutation (and, generally, vice-versa for pro-LDS claims).
The journey is yours, and yours alone. No one can ride on the shirt tail of anyone else when it comes to matters of faith, so I have no dog in the race as to the outcome of your own decision on religious issues. I merely wish to emphasize that you are not the only one to “discover” difficult issues. Lots of intelligent people have examined them. A number of these intelligent people are not only still believing members but recognize that there are rational and logical explanations that account for every criticism out there.
From what I have seen through years of reading exit stories is that the main factor which causes a person to leave is indeed “hurt feelings” and feeling “offended”– not offended by someone in the Church, but offended at the thought that they’ve been conned. And the primary reason that such people feel they were conned is because they never really engaged “study and faith” in their gospel lives.
Like most people who fail to put their minds to full use as God intends, they often take a black-and-white approach to religious issues. It’s either true or false. There either were horses in the New World, or the Book of Mormon is fictional. The Book of Abraham was either written by Abraham himself, or Joseph Smith created the text. Such a fundamentalist attitude is anathema to a healthy paradigm of how God works through fallible humans.
Good luck, and if you are ever open again to searching for answers, let me know.
| I just finished Ash’s most recent article in the D-News. The entire article can be boiled down into the following thesis sentence:
Ash observes that although the scientific community may have uncovered some evidence that tends to support the veracity of the Book of Mormon, that community instead chooses – because of its own views – to ascribe that evidence to non-Book of Mormon phenomena.
Why did the D-News let Ash publish an entire article about this?
Apologists, FAIR and FARMS need to realize that the best evidence of the Book of Mormon is not scientific data or archaeological remnants. Indeed, the frenetic search for such evidence – as repeatedly demonstrated by Ash – is counterproductive as there will be always be much more empirically rational, logical, and scientific explanation than that offered by the Book of Mormon narrative.
The best evidence of the Book of Mormon is its narrative which can, and occassionaly does, have an affect on an individual’s heart and spirit. Such personal changes do not require supporting evidence, and never have so required.
Seeking after scientific proof to support one’s belief in the Book of Mormon is a mystifying endeavor. Why does Ash expend such energy on this? Is it to aid in missionary work? Is it to authoritatively respond to critics of the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Is it to shore up Ash’s own faltering faith in the record? The Savior soundly criticized those who seek after signs. It seems to me that Ash is – in effect – seeking signs for whatever purpose.
Perhaps if Ash were cease his sign-seeking and accept the Book of Mormon narrative for what it is, he would come to comfortable terms with his religion.
We Utah Mormons, of which Ash is now one, tend to have an unhealthy preoccupation with how the outside world views us. Utahans in general have an inferiority complex about our home state, and we are reactively, fiercely defensive of any criticism of Utah as a place, a society, or a culture. That preoccupation derives from our instinctive defense of our religion, which most of us were raised in without having experienced the intellectual, spiritual, or emotional epiphanies that usually accompany adult conversion. As children and adolescents in Mormondom, we grow up “knowing”, without ever learning, that it is only we who have the truth, that it is only we who are the standard bearers of Israel, that it is only we – not the misguided, apostate, and heathen “they” – who have the fullness of the gospel and the priesthood.
Many adults around the world choose to accept the Gospel, on account of their own study, with fairly good knowledge of the Book of Mormon’s historicity controversies, translation hilarities, plural marriage, Masonic similarities of the temple, and disparate treatment of races among myriad other issues. But, most of us who were raised in Mormon culture didn’t have the opportunity to join the church after having learned of, struggled with, and coming to terms with these unanswerable quandaries. This doesn’t mean that we don’t eventually have to address them and somehow transcend them in our own ways. I have had my own struggles with the breadth of it all, and have chosen for myself to let go what I cannot control or explain (which is much). The historicity of the Book of Mormon is one of those issues I have chosen to let go. And much the happier have I been!
I suspect Ash is in the midst of his own personal struggle with the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and is trying to address it with a wild goose chase for hard scientific evidence of the book. My advice to Ash is to just let it go.
| | Friday, Apr 29, 2011, at 07:53 AM Non-Mormon Professor Angry At Misuse Of His Words By Mormon Apologists Original Author(s): Simon Southerton MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ | Michael Ash (among others at Maxwell House) has used the words of non-Mormon scientists to support his apologetic arguments that Israelites did migrate to the Americas but their DNA went extinct. Evidently Israelite DNA was much more prone to being lost through bottlenecks and genetic drift than Native American DNA was. (Why did the bottleneck pick on Israelite DNA Michael? Just unlucky DNA?)
Some (mis)quotes from Michael Ash's Mormon Times article:
“In fact, non-LDS molecular anthropologist Michael H. Crawford wrote that the Spanish Conquest "squeezed the entire Amerindian population through a genetic bottleneck. ... This population reduction has forever altered the genetics of the surviving groups, thus complicating any attempts at reconstructing the pre-Columbian genetic structure of most New World groups," - (The Origins of Native Americans, 1998).”
Also:
“Drs. Beth Shook and David Smith, two non-LDS scientists, claim genetic drift among Native Americans has "altered haplogroup frequencies and caused the loss of many haplotypes" - (American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2008).”
This is how Professor Crawford feels about having his words twisted by apologists.
“This sentence has been misused! I had intended to state that there may be some genes that have been lost due to depopulation. However, there is no question that the genetic evidence does not in any way support the presence of lost tribes from Israel. The Mormon apologists are misusing and misinterpreting one sentence in a volume that disputes any suggestion of lost tribes of Israel." - Dr. MH Crawford Professor of Anthropology and Genetics at the University of Kansas
Who wouldn't be ticked off if you had spent years doing REAL scholarship to create an excellent book only to have it completely misrepresented by someone with no formal qualifications in the field.
David Glenn Smith has already gone on record as saying that Native Americans have no genetic links to Israelites. He would be furious to see his words being used to distort the truth by Mormon apologists.
| Mike Ash, 'naïve Assumptions About New World Christians' May 2011:
'I explained that even if evidence for an early Christian community in Mesoamerica could be found, that still wouldn’t satisfy most critics or prove that the Book of Mormon is true. The task of finding the evidence of a real ancient community of New World Christians becomes difficult once we understand the complexity and nature of what might be found.'
'First, it’s important to remember that the Nephites were “Christian” for, at the most, 400 years. Second, the Nephite-Christians were a small group of persecuted believers among a sea of non-Christian believers in the ancient Americas.'
Mike has another go at explaining away why no evidence of Book of Mormon peoples has been found. Ever.
This time it's because we are looking for evidence of a relatively small Christian community in a much larger group of people, except...
...what is actually being looked for is evidence of the 'small group of persecuted believers' AND the 'sea of non-Christian believers in the ancient Americas'. Who, after all were supposed to be, collectively, the only people on the land that the Lord had saved from other nations for them.
Mike is being deliberately disingenuous.
Let's be clear.
The Book of Mormon is a story of generations of millions of people who were the 'literal' ancestors of the Native American's and who were the first people to inhabit the land.
Now, because there is absolutely no evidence these people existed throughout America some apologists (Ash included) have tried to persuade people that the 'land' meant a relatively small part of Mesoamerica.
No problem. Let's accept that on face value.
A civilization of millions of people in a relatively small area of Mesoamerica should be apparent to any one who cares to make a serious search.
- We know who they were
- We know where they were
- We know how many of them there were
- We know what 'stuff' they had
- And - We know exactly when they were there
Why is it SO difficult...
| So I’m reading Mike Ash’s 2007 piece on the FAIR web site about horses in the Book of Mormon. He makes the claim that no horse bones have been found among Hun archaeological remains, though as others have shown, this claim is erroneous.
He also makes this statement, which made me curious:
"Even in areas of the world where animals lived in abundance, we sometimes have problems finding archaeological remains. The textual evidence for lions in Israel, for example, suggests that lions were present in Israel from ancient times until at least the sixteenth century AD, yet no lion remains from ancient Israel have ever been found."
I should mention that here he’s suggesting that the lack of archaeological evidence for something attested to in ancient writings and art may not be conclusive negative evidence. We know that ancient Israel depicted lions as native to Palestine, but according to Ash, no lion bones have been discovered. Thus, if horse bones haven’t been found in the New World, that doesn’t mean the ancient Mesoamericans did not have horses.
Ash’s citation for this claim is:
"John Tvedtnes, “The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy” (unpublished, 1994), 29-30 (copy in author’s possession); Benjamin Urrutia, “Lack of Animal Remains at Bible and Book-of-Mormon Sites,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology, 150 (August 1982), 3-4."
So, here we have two LDS sources suggesting that “no lion remains from ancient Israel have ever been found.” That should be pretty easy to confirm, right?
Apparently not.
"The fauna of the country [Palestine] is almost unchanged from the earliest historic times. The lion and the wild ox have become extinct; the former is noticed by an Egyptian traveller in Lebanon in the 14th cent. B.C., and is even said to have survived to the 12th cent. A.D.; its bones are found in caves and in the Jordan gravels. (Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, 1900)."
More recent archaeological excavation confirms this:
"The largest faunal collections and most intensive archaeo-zoological research for [the Chalcolithic] period have been carried out in the northern Negev. This biological data provides us with a detailed picture of human/animal relations during this formative period. … If Shiqmim is taken as a representative sample for the valley, sheep … and goat … make up over 90 percent of the faunal assemblage with the remaining 10 percent consisting of cattle, … dog, equid and ca. 3.8 percent of wild animals (gazelle, hartebeest, hippopotamus, lion, small cat, fox, hare, ostrich, bird and fish). (The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas Levy, New York, Continuum, 1998, pp. 231-32)"
Heck, even another Maxwell Institute article from 2000 contradicts Ash:
"The biblical narrative mentions lions, yet it was not until very recently that the only other evidence for lions in Palestine was pictographic or literary. Before the announcement in a 1988 publication [L. Martin. "The Faunal Remains from Tell es Saidiyeh," Levant 20 (1988): 83—84] of two bone samples, there was no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of lions in that region. (Robert R. Bennett, “Horses in the Book of Mormon,” Maxwell Institute, 2000)"
Whoops.
| |