"Mormon Scholars Testify"

[sjdawg]

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.

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.

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.

No kidding.

No. Nor is it attempting to imply that.

CFR!

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

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?

Mr. Peterson,

You're so smart. I am now re-converted to the LDS Church. I previously believed that all Mormons were mouth-breathers without a thought in their heads, but your new website has convinced me otherwise.

Thank you.

[Daniel Peterson]

Mr. Peterson,

You're so smart. I am now re-converted to the LDS Church. I previously believed that all Mormons were mouth-breathers without a thought in their heads, but your new website has convinced me otherwise.

Thank you.

Happy to have been of service.

But that's Herr Professor Doktor Peterson to you.

[Jaybear]

I've never doubted that for a moment.

How about that. It would appear then that we are in agreement on all relevant points.

You website will be appreciated by many of your members who will take comfort and pride that there are many bright intelligent people that share their belief that JS was a true prophet of God. Critics won't be the least bit impressed, and will continue to openly wonder how intelligent and rational people can actually believe JS's prophetic claims.

[Daniel Peterson]

David B., I've been in communication with Clayton Christensen. (I'm at least slightly heartened by what he had to say.) His testimony and etc. should be up on "Mormon Scholars Testify" fairly shortly.

Critics won't be the least bit impressed, and will continue to openly wonder how intelligent and rational people can actually believe JS's prophetic claims.

And yet they'll be confronted by the undeniable fact that intelligent and rational people actually do believe in Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

It will be good for them to be obliged to face reality for once, and to have to struggle to incorporate it into their worldviews.

[David Bokovoy]

David B., I've been in communication with Clayton Christensen. (I'm at least slightly heartened by what he had to say.) His testimony and etc. should be up on "Mormon Scholars Testify" fairly shortly.

Most excellent! Very pleased to hear!

[wenglund]

Oh my, that is too funny.

Your questions were quite funny, too. It's just that my question was intended to be funny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

And yet they'll be confronted by the undeniable fact that intelligent and rational people actually do believe in Joseph Smith's prophetic claims.

It will be good for them to be obliged to face reality for once, and to have to struggle to incorporate it into their worldviews.

The question critics most often ask is not IF intelligent and rational people believe, but WHY intelligent and rational people believe, or more specifically HOW can they reconcile their rational beliefs with their supernatural beliefs. (Most often, the latter two questions are asked rhetorically.)

The first question is a strawman. We critics already know that smart, intelligent and rational people actually do believe that JS is a true prophet. Its already part of our worldview. Heck, I can't imagine that anyone that could be smarter than Wade Englund. (If you don't beleive me, ask him yourself.)

The latter two question are not, and cannot effectively addressed by your website, which is really more of a faith promoting project.

[Scott Lloyd]

(Most often, the latter two questions are asked rhetorically.)

Meaning, of course, that such questions are not asked to elicit information or enlightenment, but rather, to express one's own prejudiced, foregone conclusions.

[Jaybear]

Meaning, of course, that such questions are not asked to elicit information or enlightenment, but rather, to express one's own prejudiced, foregone conclusions.

How about that. Someone here restated what I said in words of their choosing, while retaining the proper context and meaning I intended to convey. That might actually be a first.

Woohoo!!!

[noel00]

It would be a fascinating topic to study. Why do some people with Academic qualifications leave or no longer believe (Sterling McMurrin, William Mulder) and others convert to Mormonism? I remember in a letter from Wes wlaters who told me he knew a a few teachers at BYU who were closet doubters but did not say anything because of family connections.Why aren't people like Alvin Plantinga, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, Stephen Evans, all who have spoken in a Mormon run conferences and yet show no signs of converting.I remember someone asking Dr Davies (UK, Durham) being asked the question basically why after all he studied of Mormonism why he did not convert. He refused to answer the question directly or gave an evasive response. Why hasn't Jan Shipps shown any desire to convert? She seems to have been invloved in a lot of study of LDS history

[Scott Lloyd]

Why hasn't Jan Shipps shown any desire to convert? She seems to have been invloved in a lot of study of LDS history

It has been a while since I've read it, but I believe Shipps herself answered that question in her own autobiography.

[wenglund]

Heck, I can't imagine that anyone that could be smarter than Wade Englund. (If you don't beleive me, ask him yourself.)

Golly, at least you CAN imagine, and must have imagined, this about me since it isn't anything close to my self-perception (speaking of straw men). That I may consider myself to be wiser than many critics (a feat easily attainable for people of average intelligence), is not to think myself smarter than anyone. You might have know this were you somewhat smart yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel Peterson]

WHY intelligent and rational people believe, or more specifically HOW can they reconcile their rational beliefs with their supernatural beliefs. . . . The latter two question are not, and cannot effectively addressed by your website, which is really more of a faith promoting project.

I certainly plead guilty to its being a faith-promoting project. That's sort of, umm, why I'm doing it, you know?

Your certainty that a website containing testimonies will not, and cannot, address the question of why people believe strikes me as extraordinarily peculiar. That is precisely what it will address.

As to the question of how believers reconcile their "rational" beliefs with their "supernatural" beliefs -- which, in a nice display of question-begging, you implicitly equate with "irrational" beliefs -- some of the testimonies will address that, and others will not. But a number of the contributors to the website thus far (e.g., Paul Hoskisson, Kent Jackson, John Sorenson, and myself) have devoted hundreds and hundreds of published pages to laying out rational grounds for our faith. "Mormon Scholars Testify" doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Why aren't people like Alvin Plantinga, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, Stephen Evans, all who have spoken in a Mormon run conferences and yet show no signs of converting.

I don't know. Why haven't David Paulsen and Ben Huff and I converted to mainstream Christianity? We've participated in the Society of Christian Philosophers, yet we show no signs of converting to any Alexandrian sect of Christendom.

I helped to host Clark Pinnock and John Sanders here. They were extremely friendly, and we agree on many things. Have you been following David Paulsen's work on Mormonism and "open theism"? Clark Pinnock had some extraordinarily nice things to say about Louis Midgley's writings, things that, I believe, would cause apoplexy in many of Lou's more fevered critics.

Why hasn't Jan Shipps shown any desire to convert? She seems to have been invloved in a lot of study of LDS history

I haven't the foggiest idea. Do you?

Whoever decided to create and maintain a website, which advertises an ongoing collection of testimonies from Mormon scholars. That's no small task.

True. But you're shifting your position, which originally had something to do with "categorizing" people. I don't blame you for shifting your position, of course. You're wise to do so.

I've never heard this, at least not in a way that was meant, or meant to be taken, seriously. One might as well say, only stupid people become Mormons. Do any of us really believe there are people out there who think no person alive is both Mormon and formally educated? These ridiculous statements are no more significant than Utah fans saying only losers root for BYU.

When the author of How the Irish Saved Civilization says that Mormonism contains nothing to satisfy serious intellects, I find his statement absurd, gratuitously insulting, and ignorant, but I take it seriously. And I think it deserves a rebuttal. So do the lesser fry who, as quoted on this very thread, have made similar assertions.

You're obviously a highly intelligent individual, which makes one wonder if this website has less to do with responding to silly claims and more to do with gloating that Mormonism claims so many bright minds.

This is, I would estimate, roughly the tenth distinct disreputable motive that has been ascribed to me for the scandalous crime of simply putting up a website featuring Mormon testimonies.

The reaction from certain critics has been both amusing and enlightening.

And I suspect that most non-LDS might see it that way too.

Maybe so. Maybe not. Until you provide plausible survey data, we'll just never know.

Again, if you could refer us to these claims it would give more credence to your argument that this is all you're really trying to do.

LOL. I'm under no obligation to provide "evidence" or an "argument" as to my motive. I've stated it. You apparently disbelieve what I've said. End of game. Boring.

Well for starters, it would undermine anyone trying to imply that a person's testimony was shaped as a result of their formal education.

Who is trying to imply that?

People who begin with testimonies can, and often do, manufacture support for their beliefs deriving from just about anything they want.

Rather the way you're manufacturing nonsensical fantasies about a simple, straightforward website that features Mormon testimonies?

And it seems to me that the criticism could easily be neutralized by providing a list of Mormon scholars.

Maybe you haven't noticed that I've said, several times, that responding to that criticism is only a subtheme of "Mormon Scholars Testify"? Something of a byproduct?

Well, if so, I've just said it yet again.

Soliciting and then advertising their testimonies seems to serve a different agenda, and after reading Kent Jackson's "testimony," it seems to be more of a missionary effort than apologetic.

Golly. D'ya really think that a Mormon might have a missionary agenda? How shocking! How embarrassing!

Of course there's a missionary agenda to the website! Good grief.

Not disturbed, just trying to figure out what the purpose is in a way that makes sense.

"Es

[Somebodyz]

I know it wasn't meant to be, but this thread is one of the funniest on the board for a long time.

The responses from the non or no longer LDS are amusing and the replies by DP well...... .

Congratulations Dr Peterson on your new site. Looks good.

[Jaybear]

I certainly plead guilty to its being a faith-promoting project. That's sort of, umm, why I'm doing it, you know?

Of course I know. I said so myself.

Your certainty that a website containing testimonies will not, and cannot, address the question of why people believe strikes me as extraordinarily peculiar. That is precisely what it will address.

Nope. You can't address that question in an intelligent, respectful and meaningful manner, without undermining the faith promoting aspect of the website.

As to the question of how believers reconcile their "rational" beliefs with their "supernatural" beliefs -- which, in a nice display of question-begging, you implicitly equate with "irrational" beliefs -- some of the testimonies will address that, and others will not. But a number of the contributors to the website thus far (e.g., Paul Hoskisson, Kent Jackson, John Sorenson, and myself) have devoted hundreds and hundreds of published pages to laying out rational grounds for our faith. "Mormon Scholars Testify" doesn't exist in a vacuum.

No. You think you have laid out a rational grounds. But your rationality begins with a preexisting belief in the supernatural, when such a belief is not by definition rational.

I presume for example that you believe that reason the golden plates can't be presented by the LDS Church for inspection is because an angel took the golden plates back to heaven.

Sure its a reasonable explanation, if angels exist.

Many scholars avoid this problem, by defining faith as believing something to be true, when their is no rational reason to do so.

[Nofear]

Nope. You can't address that question in an intelligent, respectful and meaningful manner, without undermining the faith promoting aspect of the website.

The question of "WHY and HOW intelligent and rational people believe" will be addressed by the very testimonies themselves. I believe because... is a common theme among the testimonies. Have you read them?

A few sentences from the very testimonies are:

So why am I a believing Latter-day Saint?

Why do I choose to belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an organized religion, rather than attempt as an individual to live a good life?

Many scholars avoid this problem, by defining faith as believing something to be true, when their is no rational reason to do so.

I would encourage you to read the testimonies. Many explain why they believe their faith is quite rational.

[wenglund]

No. You think you have laid out a rational grounds. But your rationality begins with a preexisting belief in the supernatural, when such a belief is not by definition rational.

I presume for example that you believe that reason the golden plates can't be presented by the LDS Church for inspection is because an angel took the golden plates back to heaven.

Sure its a reasonable explanation, if angels exist.

Many scholars avoid this problem, by defining faith as believing something to be true, when their is no rational reason to do so.

I don't wish to derail this thread, so I will post this ironically basesless assertion for discussion on another thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

The question of "WHY and HOW intelligent and rational people believe" will be addressed by the very testimonies themselves. I believe because ... is a common theme among the testimonies. Have you read them?

You are moving the target. The broad testimonial presented do not address how and why believe intelligent rational educated people can believe in specific claims made by Smith which critics find facially absurd. That is, afterall, the specific criticism that Peterson claimed at one point to have neutralized.

By way of example, Smith's claim that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and they lived in Missouri some 6,000 years ago.

...that an angel wielding a flaming sword compelled Smith to take multiple wives.

...that the bones encountered by the saints were Zelph's, a white Lamanite.

...that he could locate buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat.

...that he translated the plates, by this same method.

You can't address the specific criticism and provide a faith promoting testimonials.

[Daniel Peterson]

When you focus strictly on testimonies by LDS scholars, you are by definition categorizing testimonies.

So you shifted back again.

And, so, I ask again, how is inviting scholars (rather than, say, everybody) difficult or "troublesome"?

Then you should rebut it, and let your audience know what it is you're rebutting. Is this truly too much to ask?

No. But there's no need to do it. I've simply created a website that features the testimonies of Mormon scholars. People can draw from those testimonies any conclusion that they want -- as you clearly are.

You could provide the citation at the top of the page followed by a list of LDS scholars. Mission accomplished.

But, poor fellow, as I've said several times, that was not, and is not, the principal or only point of the website.

Clearly there was no need to create a website for this but you have already admitted that the purpose of this website went well beyond a simple rebuttal to an obscure and insignificant claim. This is what I was trying to get at.

And, since I've been saying it from the start, and have never said anything else, it's comforting to know that you've finally gotten at it. Bravo!

What you're really doing is trying a backdoor method to convince people that Mormonism can't be false because too many smart people believe it

LOL! Nope.

Keep pondering this very difficult matter, though. Enlightenment may yet come.

and you're using your doctorates as leverage.

You have a gift for detecting sinister motives where there are none. It's simply a site featuring the testimonies of LDS scholars. Each scholar writes his or her own, as he or she chooses to write it.

This is why critics on other forums find the whole thing rather bizarre.

Perhaps you're monitoring more fora than I do. I'm watching just this one and my Malevolent Stalker's. I count approximately seven or eight "critics" who seem to be obsessing about this simple little site -- among whom are at least four who would find it sinister, ridiculous, and troubling if they were to see my lacing up my shoes.

But how many of these people converted to Mormonism during their post-graduate studies or because of their post-graduate studies?

The number of such people is irrelevant to any point that matters to me. But, as the testimonies continue to appear, you'll be able to keep a tally for yourself. We won't be hiding anything -- except, of course, our wicked and disreputable secret agenda.

Well, you just verified that my suspicion was true. Your intent was not only to rebut an obscure, unreferenced claim; it is a missionary agenda first and foremost.

ROTFL. Guilty as charged!

It is an appeal to authority when all other appeals have failed.

It's a website that features testimonies by Mormon scholars. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I get a kick out of the hyperventilation, though.

Why so tense?

I have absolutely no idea. But your reaction amuses me, whatever its roots.

I think what might actually happen is that many former LDS who also scholars, might start their own little website in response.

My my my. I would be very troubled if, in response to my little website, anti-Mormons began posting things on the web. We've managed to go for so long without any of that happening!

[Daniel Peterson]

I can think of at least a dozen scholars on another forum who are all ex-LDS. And I suspect that they'd be very willing to include a commentary section for open discussion, whereas I highly doubt yours ever will. Am I right?

You are right. Just as fast and testimony meetings and sacrament services aren't fora for debate, this will not be a discussion board. Such things, I'm told, already exist. And many, though not all, of the scholars featured on my Deeply Sinister and Disturbing Little Website have already set forth many pages of argument elsewhere for their positions.

It should be if you state that its "only" purpose is to rebut an unreferenced claim. A claim you said is repeated "frequently." I've been around the apologetic scene for quite some time, read both sides to a considerable degree, and I've never heard this claim coming from anyone worthy of a response.

You've been provided with several examples on this very thread, including one made in a best-selling book. It's not my problem that you don't seem to get out much.

I do not think anyone really believes it or takes it seriously. That you do is incredible. Again, who in this world really believes no Mormon is formally educated?

Nobody that I've ever encountered. And, of course, I've never claimed that anybody believes such a thing. That's your re-write.

What I see you doing is what you have done in your FARMS writings. You pick out some of the lamest stuff from the world of anti-Mormonism and make much ado about nothing. But it goes down as another quick victory to be enshrined in the museum of LDS apologetics. It serves only those LDS who are already enamored with the enterprise. To those who are familiar with the more sophisticated criticisms of LDS apologetics, these efforts seem rather silly. It would be like Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe starting their first website that lists archaeologists rebutting the claims of Wells Jakeman.

Wow. You don't approve of my FARMS writings, either? Who would have suspected?

I was clarifying the truth, and apparently I perceived it well. Just concede the point about the missionary agenda, and the fact that you are not ONLY trying to rebut Thomas Cahill. This is something I already suspected, I just wanted to hear you say it.

It must really gratify you to have extracted an admission from a Latter-day Saint that something he's doing has a missionary agenda. This is a very rare thing, and, of course, a well-kept but deeply embarrassing secret about Mormons.

So the rest of the overly defensive commentary was as superfluous as your website.

Oh, that superfluous cuts me to the quick.

I must say that the wild reaction of a handful of you folks on the web to my simple website is extremely gratifying to me. It suggests another reason for this project that I hadn't even considered, and gives me reason to believe that it may be even more effective than I had imagined it would be.

[volgadon]

I notice that as yet nobody has volunteered to set up Mormon Morticians Testify.....

[Nemesis]

Kevin you are still not welcome here, and as always your posts will be deleted.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

Then you should rebut it, and let your audience know what it is you're rebutting. Is this truly too much to ask? You could provide the citation at the top of the page followed by a list of LDS scholars. Mission accomplished.

So, it's not enough for you to inanely criticize the website. You now feel the need to dictate its content. For some reason, the phrase "control freak" comes to mind.

What you're really doing is trying a backdoor method to convince people that Mormonism can't be false because too many smart people believe it - and we can already see how some of the testimonies talk down to other Christian faiths - and you're using your doctorates as leverage.

Before patting yourself too hard on the back for supposedly revealing some presumed hidden missionary agenda behind the website, it might serve you well to educate yourself on the long-standing threefold mission of the Church or the newly formulated four-fold purpose of the Church. (Hint: both explicitely speak to "proclaiming the gospel")

Every thing we do as members of the Church is, or at least ought to be, done with these objectives in mind. We are overtly a missionary people. It's what we obviously do. So, to suggest that one of the underline intents behind LDS scholars bearing their testimonies on a website, is missionary work, is to unnecessisarily state the obvious. It goes without saying.

That you seem to have just of late figured this out, and felt the need to state it, speak more to your ignorance than to any alleged hidden agenda.

This is why critics on other forums find the whole thing rather bizarre.

This simply confirms that to the insipid-minded, rational actions may appear bizarre.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[clairc829]

I notice that as yet nobody has volunteered to set up Mormon Morticians Testify.....

I have an uncle and a cousin who would be happy to contribute to this site if someone sets it up. One is retired but both are active believing members, who happen to be Morticians.

I don't remember any one mentioning a pew poll last summer if I remember correct that showed that members of the Church were the only ones who showed increased activity with increased education.

Thanks for setting up the web site I think it is a great idea.

[Nofear]

You are moving the target. The broad testimonial presented do not address how and why believe intelligent rational educated people can believe in specific claims made by Smith which critics find facially absurd. That is, afterall, the specific criticism that Peterson claimed at one point to have neutralized.

Cite for Reference the text in red (or if color-blind, the not-quite-as-black text). Here, I'll even help you out.

I'm content to neutralize a common criticism. I've never imagined that this simple website would answer all questions, allay all doubts, refute all objections, satisfy all skeptics, please all critics, cure cancer, resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict, or convert the world. It will do the good that it will do, and that's enough for me.

The "common criticism" being defined here:

The claim is fairly often made that no thinking person can be a Mormon, that Mormonism is too shallow to satisfy a serious thinker, etc. I don't intend to argue directly against that claim (at least, not on "Mormon Scholars Testify"), but I do intend to showcase scores and scores of serious, thinking, believing Latter-day Saints.

The only "target" that was moved was the one you created and I'm not going to try to make the website hit your target. It's not its stated purpose or intent.