"Mormon Scholars Testify"

[David Bokovoy]

I hadn't heard that, and am terribly, terribly sorry to hear it now.

His health was the focus of our Ward fast this month and a group of LDSSA students invited any Harvard students who wished to join their prayers with ours to do so. There was an enormous response and a desire expressed to hold a special prayer meeting on campus. Clayton himself showed up unexpectedly. I was not there, but have heard from those who attended that he bore a very impressive testimony.

Clayton is truly an extraordinary individual, a man of deep and sincere faith, who is highly respected by his students and colleagues. I personally cannot say enough good words about this kindly man who has never shied away from sharing his spiritual convictions with the academic/professional world.

[wenglund]

Great idea and inspiring website.

I trust, though, that you have already braced yourself for undeserved accusations of "elitism" from ironically smug critics who are incapable of seeing anything good in things Mormon.

Thanks, -Wade englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

Great idea and inspiring website.

I trust, though, that you have already braced yourself for undeserved accusations of "elitism" from ironically smug critics who are incapable of seeing anything good in things Mormon.

Such accusations started up within a couple of hours of the website's launch.

I'm also being accused of doing it for the money. One message board even offers a specific figure. At least some time back, it appears, "Dr. Peterson received $20k one year for apologetic work, [he] travels in an official capacity staying in expensive hotels and eating at fine restaurants on behalf of the Maxwell Institute." (For the record: This is not true. It would be nice, though!)

There seems no limit to the gullibility of some of the critics.

[Doctor Steuss]

I hope you

[Daniel Peterson]

I hope you

[David Bokovoy]

Mormons think the testimony carries more weight than it really does. A testimony is evidence of nothing other than the fact that the person bearing it, believes something to be true.

Why go through all the trouble of categorizing various types of testimonies?

What makes a testimony of a scholar any different from the layman? Does it make it more credible? I suspect that most of these people became LDS long before they became scholars.

I mean when scholars leave the faith based on what they have learned through formal education, Mormons don't think their advanced education adds anything to their testimony against the Church.

Shouldn't the same hold true for those for the Church?

Just curious.

Dan can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it, the site simply provides evidence against the false assumption sometimes proliferated in certain spheres that Mormonism is incompatible with academic sophistication. I don't sense any degree of "elitism" in the site itself, nor have I ever in my entire life ever picked up on such a notion from Dan himself. The idea, in fact is really quite laughable for anyone who has interacted with Dan personally. The site never claims that a scholar's testimony is any more credible than a layman's. It would be silly however, to ignore the fact that many individuals are going to take more seriously the testimony of one who is learned over the witness of one who, for whatever reason, has not had the same opportunity to pursue serious eduction.

Daniel Peterson rightfully deserves praise for taking the time to sponsor this website.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel Peterson:

Well done and bravo.

[Nofear]

The charge is often made that our belief in the Church is rooted in our ignorance of the Church. That is, if we really knew what happened in Church history or if we really knew any philosophy or we really knew [insert topic] then our faith would be shattered. This charge has been made repeatedly in various forms -- including by individuals participating on this board.

The point of "scholars" is testifying is to provide a sample of individuals who cannot be credibly accused on not really knowing [insert topic].

Indeed, I personally have met an individual who was wavering in his testimony because of some of the things he had learned. He met with some apologists for a dinner (among who I believe Dr. Peterson was one - can't recall for sure) and was mildly shocked to realize that they were fully informed on all of the things that he had learned which had shook him. Led by the inspiration of their examples this individual allowed himself chance to verify for himself the veracity of the claims of the Church. The Spirit testified and his faith was strengthened.

Based on this one example alone, I do not think the concept behind the website is silly at all.

[volgadon]

As a lifelong devotee of Russian literature and having served my mission in Russia, I really enjoyed Thomas Rogers's testimony.

[Jaybear]

That will be true in most cases, though not in all.

I'm content to neutralize a common criticism.

I don't see that you have neutralized the common criticism. The aspects of mormonism that critics find shallow are still there, and will be criticized, notwithstanding the testimony of scholars who have great deal of time, money, emotional, family and community investment into the LDS Church.

If you genuinely want to nuetralize the cricism, you would have to up a scoreboard, tallying the number of educated mormons who studied their way out of the LDS Church, as against the educated nonmormons who studied their way into the LDS Church. Though I am not sure you would like the results. The undeniable reality is that the more educated a person becomes, especially in the sciences, the less religious they become and the less likely they are to remain theists.

Nemox is correct, in that the testimony only has persuasive value only to other Mormons. Thus, while the website will not moot the criticism as you suggest, it will give comfort to your fellow Mormons who look to the testimony of others to strengthen their own.

Nofear: The charge is often made that our belief in the Church is rooted in our ignorance of the Church. That is, if we really knew what happened in Church history or if we really knew any philosophy or we really knew [insert topic] then our faith would be shattered. This charge has been made repeatedly in various forms -- including by individuals participating on this board.

I recall many an exmo claiming that such information shattered their faith/testimony. I don't recall anyone claiming that faith shattering is the inevitable consequence of such knowledge. Do you have an example of someone actually making such a claim?

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't see that you have neutralized the common criticism.

Not surprisingly, I disagree.

The aspects of mormonism that critics find shallow are still there, and will be criticized,

Of course they will. And the aspects of Mormonism that believers find rich, profound, and convincing, are still there and will still be disregarded by those critics. And the world will continue to revolve around the sun, and night will continue to alternate with day, and young men and women will continue to fall in love.

Do you really imagine that I ever imagined that this website would convert you?

notwithstanding the testimony of scholars who have great deal of time, money, emotional, family and community investment into the LDS Church.

And notwithstanding the testimonies of those who don't.

What you're basically saying, it seems to me, is that expressions of faith on the part of those who believe in Mormonism are to be disregarded as biased because they believe in Mormonism.

Just five minutes ago, I received a note from a professor at the University of Sydney whom I don't know, with undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the University of London, who converted to the Church 12.5 years ago at age 54, and who wants to contribute a testimony to "Mormon Scholars Testify." I'm serenely unconcerned that you and some like you may dismiss his testimony, too, as that of someone who has invested a "great deal of time, money, emotional, family and community investment into the LDS Church."

If you genuinely want to nuetralize the cricism, you would have to up a scoreboard, tallying the number of educated mormons who studied their way out of the LDS Church, as against the educated nonmormons who studied their way into the LDS Church.

No I wouldn't. That's flat nonsense.

The claim to which I'm responding -- for the record, this is simply a subtheme of the website, and not the most important one -- is that thinking and educated people cannot believe in Mormonism. One counterexample weakens that claim. Numerous counterexamples slay it. Period.

Though I am not sure you would like the results.

I'm amused that you think you already know them.

And you pretend to look down upon professions of faith!

The undeniable reality is that the more educated a person becomes, especially in the sciences, the less religious they become and the less likely they are to remain theists.

You might actually read the opening page of "Mormon Scholars Testify":

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Nemox is correct, in that the testimony only has persuasive value only to other Mormons.

Then why are you and certain others so visibly disturbed by "Mormon Scholars Testify"?

Thus, while the website will not moot the criticism as you suggest, it will give comfort to your fellow Mormons who look to the testimony of others to strengthen their own.

Not a bad thing, from my point of view.

Sorry that it bothers you.

I recall many an exmo claiming that such information shattered their faith/testimony. I don't recall anyone claiming that faith shattering is the inevitable consequence of such knowledge. Do you have an example of someone actually making such a claim?

I've already alluded to one, above.

[Nofear]

I recall many an exmo claiming that such information shattered their faith/testimony. I don't recall anyone claiming that faith shattering is the inevitable consequence of such knowledge. Do you have an example of someone actually making such a claim?

Can't recall? Curious.

Some of the more prominent recent accusers have been Expose, Paul344, and DrW.

Peruse The Lie of Mormonism, Barges vs. Noah's Ark, and Are there any valid criticism. The last one including a favorite of mine:

What I want to know is how any educated rational person can put the slightest credence in this fantastical, anti-science nonsense.

How can anyone who adheres to this fantasy, or even considers this kind of thinking as reflective of Mormon doctrine in any way, claim that Mormonism and science are not diametrically opposed?

[Joseph Antley]

I posted the link to the 100,000+ LDS fans of the BoM on Facebook.

[Daniel Peterson]

I posted the link to the 100,000+ LDS fans of the BoM on Facebook.

Great!

[Jaybear]

Then why are you and certain others so visibly disturbed by "Mormon Scholars Testify"?

Sorry that it bothers you.

What did I say, that would lead you to conclude that I am visibly disturbed or bothered? Obviously, I did not accurate convey my emotional tone.

I can assure you that I find the topic raised by your website fascinating.

I would love to have a frank and open discussion with an intelligent and rational true believer, to gain a better understanding on how they can reconcile modern science with supernatural belief. Unfortunately, my experience is that most true believer are very sensitive and are easily offended when discussing their belief system with someone who does not believe in God.

The fact that real smart people are Mormons isn't really newsworthy, as far as I am concerned. Though I would be interested in knowing if, as a whole, these people are less fundamentalist in their beliefs, ie, do any of them believe the earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were the first humans (without radically redefining "first" and "human"), whether Noah and his family, and the animals survived a global flood, etc.

[Nofear]

I would love to have a frank and open discussion with an intelligent and rational true believer, to gain a better understanding on how they can reconcile modern science with supernatural belief. Unfortunately, my experience is that most true believer are very sensitive and are easily offended when discussing their belief system with someone who does not believe in God.

All this time and this hasn't occurred?

The fact that real smart people are Mormons isn't really newsworthy, as far as I am concerned. Though I would be interested in knowing if, as a whole, these people are less fundamentalist in their beliefs, ie, do any of them believe the earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were the first humans (without radically redefining "first" and "human"), whether Noah and his family, and the animals survived a global flood, etc.

I suspect you'll find Mormons in general less "fundamentalist" than our Protestant peers. Wasn't there a thread about that recently with a Pew poll about interpreting the Bible?

[Daniel Peterson]

What did I say, that would lead you to conclude that I am visibly disturbed or bothered? Obviously, I did not accurate convey my emotional tone.

I based my diagnosis on the energy and effort that you've put into posting ill-considered objections to "Mormon Scholars Testify."

[SlackTime]

What did I say, that would lead you to conclude that I am visibly disturbed or bothered? Obviously, I did not accurate convey my emotional tone.

I can assure you that I find the topic raised by your website fascinating.

I would love to have a frank and open discussion with an intelligent and rational true believer, to gain a better understanding on how they can reconcile modern science with supernatural belief. Unfortunately, my experience is that most true believer are very sensitive and are easily offended when discussing their belief system with someone who does not believe in God.

The fact that real smart people are Mormons isn't really newsworthy, as far as I am concerned. Though I would be interested in knowing if, as a whole, these people are less fundamentalist in their beliefs, ie, do any of them believe the earth is 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were the first humans (without radically redefining "first" and "human"), whether Noah and his family, and the animals survived a global flood, etc.

Why would those issues be important to you? None of those things are foundational to the Church. Most of those interpretations of scripture predate us and were inherited by us from protestantism. Now if you had said you would be interested in knowing how many of them believed that:

1. Jesus Christ died for their sins and suffered both body and soul and was resurrected, which is a pretty wild claim, or

2. Joseph Smith Jr. was given an ancient record by an angel, which he couldn't read, but translated it by the gift and power of God through the use of magic spectacles and a rock from a well that he stuck in a hat. That is pretty unbelievable! or

3. They believe that God revealed to Joseph that they were children of God and that they could become like God through faith in Christ, repentance, the ordinances of the Gospel, and obedience to the laws and commandments of Jesus Christ. That is downright crazy!

I know, cause I believe all those things.

- SlackTime

[Jaybear]

I based my diagnosis on the energy and effort that you've put into posting ill-considered objections to "Mormon Scholars Testify."

Well then there is the problem.

I offered no objections to your website. In fact, i think it could very well be a great source of pride for the mormon community.

I objected to your conclusion that the website nullified the specific criticism you cited. I am quite certain that that the criticisms you noted will continue unabated, despite your website.

[Jaybear]

All this time and this hasn't occurred?

Lets just say, not as often as I would like.

I suspect you'll find Mormons in general less "fundamentalist" than our Protestant peers. Wasn't there a thread about that recently with a Pew poll about interpreting the Bible?

Yes. I think Mitt Romney also made that point clear during a republican debate.

Slacktime: Why would those issues be important to you? None of those things are foundational to the Church.

Foundational to LDS faith or not, these are some of the beliefs that, to me, define fundamentalism.

[SlackTime]

Foundational to LDS faith or not, these are some of the beliefs that, to me, define fundamentalism.

And why would you expect scholars to have fundamentalist attitudes? Doesn't seem a reasonable expectation to me. Especially since the Church tries to get us to learn and overcome our fundamentalist tendancies?

- SlackTime

[sjdawg]

How many people on the website were scholars first and converted to Mormonism after the fact? Or were they conditioned to Mormonism and became scholars after the fact?

[wenglund]

How many people on the website were scholars first and converted to Mormonism after the fact? Or were they conditioned to Mormonism and became scholars after the fact?

More importantly, how many of them frequently wear bow ties or Berkenstocks and drive Volvo's and voted for Obama?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[sjdawg]

More importantly, how many of them frequently wear bow ties or Berkenstocks and drive Volvo's and voted for Obama?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh my, that is too funny.

Another question...

I assume there are scholars who are muslim. Does that make it the true religion?

I assume there are shcolars who are JW's. Can we extrapolate that to mean their religion is true?

I really don't understand the point of the website. Is it trying to infer that if smart people believe in Mormonism we should too? There are many, many more smart people who don't believe in Mormonism.

How many nobel prize winner's can we count among these Mormon Scholars?

[Daniel Peterson]

I am quite certain that that the criticisms you noted will continue unabated, despite your website.

I've never doubted that for a moment.

If I conducted my life according to the views of others, or based my beliefs on what others think, or judged arguments by whether certain others were convinced by them rather than by their logic and supporting evidence, I would be a rather pathetic person -- even more so than some of my critics already believe me to be.

How many people on the website were scholars first and converted to Mormonism after the fact? Or were they conditioned to Mormonism and became scholars after the fact?

I love your use of the word conditioned. So Pavlovian! So dismissive!

In any event, I've already commented on this rather weak implicit criticism, and won't do so again for at least three hours. I have my limits.

I assume there are scholars who are muslim. Does that make it the true religion?

I assume there are shcolars who are JW's. Can we extrapolate that to mean their religion is true?

Has anybody made the argument that, because there are scholars who are Latter-day Saints, Mormonism is true?

I don't defend straw men. Mark that down, and remember it.

I really don't understand the point of the website.

No kidding.

Is it trying to infer that if smart people believe in Mormonism we should too?

No. Nor is it attempting to imply that.

There are many, many more smart people who don't believe in Mormonism.

CFR!

(Just joking. Some of us, you know, are conscious, and aware of the external world.)

How many nobel prizes winner's can we count among these Mormon Scholars?

None. Although, having accomplished nothing relevant, I fully expect to win the Nobel Peace Prize next year. And it's important to note that Kent Jackson has been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Biblical Studies and Morgan Davis for the Nobel Prize in Islamic Studies.

What on earth does their failure to win Nobel Prizes have to do with anything?