For those who felt deceived

[AmorLibertas]

Is it satisfying, in some way that eludes me, to construct idiotic straw men like this?

It is hardly a straw man, it is merely an observation illustrated with a hypothetical. I believe the same would be true of the vast majority of Mormon Apologists.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is hardly a straw man, it is merely an observation illustrated with a hypothetical.

Then it's an outright falsehood.

If that's what you prefer, you're welcome to it.

[AmorLibertas]

Then it's an outright falsehood.

If that's what you prefer, you're welcome to it.

Really? Then what is the minimum amount of non-spiritual evidence that it would take for you to lose your belief and faith in the claims of the LDS Church about itself, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith Jr.?

[Daniel Peterson]

Really? Then what is the minimum amount of non-spiritual evidence that it would take for you to lose your belief and faith in the claims of the LDS Church about itself, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith Jr.?

Oh, a confession (in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting) in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s, that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that he didn't see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. For example.

You presumably don't know me, and you certainly don't understand me. Your ridiculous agenda-driven caricature has no basis in reality.

[Honorentheos]

Yet he expected them to "come, follow [him]," without months of study, without knowing much (if anything) about his childhood and youth, and certainly without full disclosure of the new doctrines they would have to accept...

Pause here, please.

Are we talking about new doctrines that people would have to live? or more about things that a member could go their entire life not knowing and the church could be perfectly ok with it?

It would not be overly simplistic to suggest that this is not a good analogy since no one is saying that the early christians were being asked to go through these things while not really knowing the claims of the apostles and early church fathers regarding the resurrection, the nature of Christ's baptism, his ministry, etc.

Personally, I don't care for either background story, but we're not talking about the same thing here, are we.

[Honorentheos]

Really? Then what is the minimum amount of non-spiritual evidence that it would take for you to lose your belief and faith in the claims of the LDS Church about itself, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith Jr.?

AmorLibertas,

While I think I see what you are getting at, attacking Dr. Peterson personally is not furthering the discussion in any meaningful way. I have no reason to believe he is illogical. Invested in the LDS faith, yes. But not illogical.

You have made many good observations in this thread. Heaven knows I have learned the hard way that keeping people invested in your ability to carry on a logical argument is too fragile a thing on boards like this.

[AmorLibertas]

Oh, a confession (in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting) in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s, that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that he didn't see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. For example.

You presumably don't know me, and you certainly don't understand me. Your ridiculous agenda-driven caricature has no basis in reality.

That's the minimum it would take? I certainly don't know you personally, but unless what you convey on line in your posts here and your articles in Meridian Magazine is somehow misrepresenting your position, I stand by my position that when it comes right down to it, no amount of secular evidence is sufficient to overcome your "spiritually based" testimony. I firmly believe you would find some plausible reason to reject the aforementioned hypothetical document for one reason or another.

[Daniel Peterson]

Whatever.

It seems that we disagree about what I think. And you think you know better than I do on that subject.

For those, however, who understand that a person himself is likely to know his opinions better than a hostile stranger is, let me just say that A.L.'s very partisan caricature is worth rather less than the electrons that convey it here on this board.

[Daniel Peterson]

Pause here, please.Are we talking about new doctrines that people would have to live? or more about things that a member could go their entire life not knowing and the church could be perfectly ok with it?It would not be overly simplistic to suggest that this is not a good analogy since no one is saying that the early christians were being asked to go through these things while not really knowing the claims of the apostles and early church fathers regarding the resurrection, the nature of Christ's baptism, his ministry, etc.Personally, I don't care for either background story, but we're not talking about the same thing here, are we.

I had, and, with this illustration, have always had, the apostles themselves in mind.

When they converted, they didn't know the crucifixion was coming. They didn't know much of anything at all.

****

Incidentally, this gratuitous personal attack was pretty completely out of the blue:

As near as I can tell, as far as DCP is concerned, nothing, save a revelation from God would be sufficient to cause him to question his belief or faith in the doctrines of the LDS Church or his testimony of Joseph Smith Jr. being a prophet of God. I doubt even a confession in what is unquestionably Joseph's own handwriting in a letter or court affidavit that is unquestionably dated to the 1830s or early 1840s that the Book of Mormon is not ancient scripture, or that He did not see God the Father, Jesus Christ, or any angels would be sufficient. All kinds of rationalization would be summoned to explain why such a confession should not be taken at face value.

Why the need to personalize the discussion?

[AmorLibertas]

AmorLibertas,

While I think I see what you are getting at, attacking Dr. Peterson personally is not furthering the discussion in any meaningful way. I have no reason to believe he is illogical. Invested in the LDS faith, yes. But not illogical.

Is bias or prejudice which causes a person to give greater weight than is merited to a position one favors, and lesser weight to a a position one does not favor considered illogical? I believe so. It is nevertheless understandable. I certainly would be predisposed to believe my beloved is faithful to me than believe that she has been unfaithful to me given my investment in the relationship, even though another observing the evidence might consider my predisposition to be somewhat illogical or irrational.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my assessment, but I simply don't believe so. I think DCP's bias is rather obvious to behold, as is the bias of most Mormon apologists. Do I think that such bias indicates that DCP is stupid? Far from it; I find from his articles in Meridian Magazine and his posts here and elsewhere that Mr. Peterson is intelligent, articulate, and well educated.

[LifeOnaPlate]

While we're on the subject of bias, Amor, and without engaging your critique of the bias of others, how bias are you?

[Honorentheos]

Is bias or prejudice which causes a person to give greater weight than is merited to a position one favors, and lesser weight to a a position one does not favor considered illogical? I believe so. It is nevertheless understandable. I certainly would be predisposed to believe my beloved is faithful to me than believe that she has been unfaithful to me given my investment in the relationship, even though another observing the evidence might consider my predisposition to be somewhat illogical or irrational.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my assessment, but I simply don't believe so. I think DCP's bias is rather obvious to behold, as is the bias of most Mormon apologists. Do I think that such bias indicates that DCP is stupid? Far from it; I find from his articles in Meridian Magazine and his posts here and elsewhere that Mr. Peterson is intelligent, articulate, and well educated.

I agree fully with your assessment of bias and it's influence on one's ability to be truly logical. I don't think you are mistaken in your assessment, just that it applies to all of us. Is Dr. Peterson biased in favor of the church? Certainly. I also recognize that I am biased against the church for similar ground-level psychological reasons. That I am certain I am right and his view is wrong is human nature. To be otherwise is to be, at least in part, either dysfunctional within society because ones views are too flexible to be functional or not invested in the topic being discussed.

For this reason, I feel that we all benefit by keeping the discussion aimed at the logic, argument, and ground principles being used to defend our biases. At worse, it keeps the discussion somewhat civil and we can retain some claim to being civilized; and at best it allows us to re-examine our own beliefs and bias against those of others.

[Honorentheos]

I had, and, with this illustration, have always had, the apostles themselves in mind.

When they converted, they didn't know the crucifixion was coming. They didn't know much of anything at all.

Perhaps I am being dense, but I do not see how the apostle's lack of foreknowledge of the crucification and their ultimate martyrdom compares to the modern member or investigator of the LDS faith who is unaware of the multiple first vision accounts, the nature of JS's polygamy, etc.

[Mortal Man]

I agree fully with your assessment of bias and it's influence on one's ability to be truly logical. I don't think you are mistaken in your assessment, just that it applies to all of us. Is Dr. Peterson biased in favor of the church? Certainly. I also recognize that I am biased against the church for similar ground-level psychological reasons. That I am certain I am right and his view is wrong is human nature.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and offer my services in this regard. If anyone here is struggling to assess his personal level of bias, you can simply ask me and I'll be happy to tell you.

To be otherwise is to be, at least in part, either dysfunctional within society because ones views are too flexible to be functional or not invested in the topic being discussed.

What if you are deeply invested in a particular position but nevertheless committed to following the facts wherever they may lead?

For this reason, I feel that we all benefit by keeping the discussion aimed at the logic, argument, and ground principles being used to defend our biases. At worse, it keeps the discussion somewhat civil and we can retain some claim to being civilized; and at best it allows us to re-examine our own beliefs and bias against those of others.

Except that most people use this board for sport; i.e., the critics launch their clay pigeons and the apologists fire off their "Logical Fallacy!", "False Premise!" and "Straw Man!" shotgun shells.

[AmorLibertas]

While we're on the subject of bias, Amor, and without engaging your critique of the bias of others, how bias are you?

More than some, less than others, depending on the subject.

[AmorLibertas]

Whatever.

It seems that we disagree about what I think. And you think you know better than I do on that subject.

I made my assement based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the occasional if not singular assertion to the contrary.

For those, however, who understand that a person himself is likely to know his opinions better than a hostile stranger is, let me just say that A.L.'s very partisan caricature is worth rather less than the electrons that convey it here on this board.

Whatever

[Honorentheos]

What if you are deeply invested in a particular position but nevertheless committed to following the facts wherever they may lead?

I don't believe that you can distance the observer from the observed enough.

You have to first change as the observer before you can reinterpret the facts in a new way that is in conflict with your current worldview.

Except that most people use this board for sport; i.e., the critics launch their clay pigeons and the apologists fire off their "Logical Fallacy!", "False Premise!" and "Straw Man!" shotgun shells.

Too true.

You'd almost wonder if it really matters, wouldn't you? I do, often.

[Honorentheos]

I made my assement based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the occasional if not singular assertion to the contrary.

AmorLibertas,

I wasn't meaning to come across as busting your chops on this.

I just don't care to foul someone when they are throwing up a prayer from way beyond the three-point line at the buzzer.

[Daniel Peterson]

I made my assement based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the occasional if not singular assertion to the contrary.

I make the assessment of what I think based on the fact that I'm the one who thinks what I think. That gives me unique access to what I think.

Your out-of-the-blue personal attack was baseless, misguided, irrelevant, and completely gratuitous.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps I am being dense

No comment.

I do not see how the apostle's lack of foreknowledge of the crucification and their ultimate martyrdom compares to the modern member or investigator of the LDS faith who is unaware of the multiple first vision accounts, the nature of JS's polygamy, etc.

I was writing to Teancum, who, if I'm not mistaken, is a believer in Christ.

Christ, according to most Christians, had a very clear idea of what was going to happen, both to himself and to his disciples. Yet he didn't disclose it to them. He knew that certain doctrines would arise in Christianity. At their conversion they had no idea about such things. They committed themselves to him, and ultimately to martyrs' deaths, knowing essentially nothing, simply obeying the command to "follow" him.

If Mormon leaders can be faulted for failure to fully disclose everything, and for a failure to require or encourage a long period of study and investigation before commitment, so can Jesus Christ. (He offered the command "Come, follow me." That's all. There weren't even any discussions or lesson plans.) For a believing Christian, though, condemning Christ might be more than a little bit problematic.

If P, then Q.

If you don't want Q, don't assert P.

[Tarski]

No comment.

I was writing to Teancum, who, if I'm not mistaken, is a believer in Christ.

Christ, according to most Christians, had a very clear idea of what was going to happen, both to himself and to his disciples. Yet he didn't disclose it to them. He knew that certain doctrines would arise in Christianity. At their conversion they had no idea about such things. They committed themselves to him, and ultimately to martyrs' deaths, knowing essentially nothing, simply obeying the command to "follow" him.

If Mormon leaders can be faulted for failure to fully disclose everything, and for a failure to require or encourage a long period of study and investigation before commitment, so can Jesus Christ. (He offered the command "Come, follow me." That's all. There weren't even any discussions or lesson plans.) For a believing Christian, though, condemning Christ might be more than a little bit problematic.

If P, then Q.

If you don't want Q, don't assert P.

It seems to me that we don't really know how much Christ told his potential followers. The scriptures are sketchy, there may have been much more said than was recorded-- of course there was more said.

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems to me that we don't really know how much Christ told his potential followers. The scriptures are sketchy, there may have been much more said than was recorded-- of course there was more said.

The New Testament suggests that the apostles didn't even understand Jesus' references to his approaching death -- and, since this reflects so poorly on the leaders of the early church, I'm inclined to believe the portrayal.

Incidentally, I'll get back to you on the other matter as soon as I can, but I have to get some sleep now. A bishop's Sunday is always long and demanding, and tomorrow is going to be unusually so. It not be until Monday that I have time to respond.

[Tarski]

The New Testament suggests that the apostles didn't even understand Jesus' references to his approaching death -- and, since this reflects so poorly on the leaders of the early church, I'm inclined to believe the portrayal.

I see the point you wish to make.

[AmorLibertas]

I make the assessment of what I think based on the fact that I'm the one who thinks what I think. That gives me unique access to what I think.

I agree that you have unique access to what you think, but it is hardly singular access. What you think is evidenced by your responses to questions put to you as well as the articles and other works you've written. You may protest one way, but when the preponderance of the evidence suggests something different, I don't consider it foul to state I am skeptical and don't believe you.

Your out-of-the-blue personal attack was baseless, misguided, irrelevant, and completely gratuitous.

On the contrary, you have responded to numerous examples of what I and many who have left the Church, and even some who have not left and still believe, consider to be examples of the whitewashing of Church History or less than candid or honest depictions of Mormon history and doctrine by the Church and/or its leaders. In every instance, you take the position that the Church is not in the wrong, hasn't lied, deceived, or dissembled. Although you frankly admit that in many instances you would have handled things differently, you maintain that the Church does not and has not whitewashed anything, and even declare a rejection or aversion towards the word, at least with respect to the Church. It was upon this basis that I made my highly relevant comment suggesting my belief based on my observations in this thread in particular, but others as well and your writings that I have read taken as a whole that nothing in the way of secular evidence could cause you to lose your belief or faith in the claims of the LDS Church, that no matter what the secular evidence that might arise, you would find some plausible explanation for it that would preserve or maintain your belief in the Church and its claims.

I find your denial particularly interesting, not to mention rather dubious, that you would actually lose your faith in the LDS Church and its claims in light of the preeminence that believing members place on the witness of the Holy Ghost over any and all secular evidence or witnesses. I wouldn't have guessed that you, Mr. Peterson, would place greater weight on such a hypothetical document were it to exist than you would on the "spiritual witness" most Mormons claim is the basis of their testimony. I must say, I am actually somewhat, but not entirely, surprised by your previous assertion that such an affidavit would destroy your faith, so you'll forgive me I hope if I am rather skeptical of your claim. I apologize to you and the other members of this forum if this observation of mine is regarded as a personal attack against you and I will not bring it up again in this forum.

[beastie]

I would adjust this to suggest that we (I was once there and have traveled this road) were open to the possibility it wasn't true and if this was the case, finding the way out was the right thing to do.

The issue is that of worldview preservation and the way the mind works. I do not care what your world view is - if you believe it strongly you will defend it and find argument that supports your worldview anywhere possible.

For someone to be able to even question their current worldview means it has to have been damaged in some manner. The exposure to things like Mormon Enigma may be the thing that causes the damage and creates an environment where one has to reevaluate their worldview (because they need a healthy one to take the place of the one damaged) or it may be part of the evidence that one finds after the damage has been done otherwise. It may be the current issues with the church's stance on same-sex marriage or that homosexuality is a challenge some are born into, etc. The symptoms or the "straw" can be any of the things Dr. P listed. But it is fundamentally about the health of one's psyche.

The second part of what I said is also important, Deborah. The believer who sees these historical facts as non-issues does so because of the same condition - only preserving their current worldview is the shortest path to a healthy psyche. It's easier to preserve ones current worldview than have to create a new one.

This is why so many critics who have left the church will tell you how difficult it has been. It is. One is basically mending one's worldview and having to formulate one the makes sense of the world based on what you now believe to be true. It takes time, it takes effort, and it hurts.

Underlying all of this is the question of the truthfulness of the church - and does it really, REALLY matter to anyone if it is true?

I would be most ungrateful if I did not take a moment to express my personal testimony of the truth of honor's words.

Well said. Well said.

BTW, this very phenomenon - that our brains seemed wire to preserve our pre-existing beliefs/worldviews even at the cost of helpfully editing information in our behalf, often causes me distress in terms of the possible future of mankind. I also think that this phenomenon is why the advent of the scientific process as well as the rules of logic were so significant in changing the course of history. These processes finally offered a manner in which we could make headway in controlling and minimizing the impact of this tendency.