Article about "Mormon Scholars Testify"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He is a literal Bible Christian - very devout.

I don't know what you mean here.

[zeezrom]

I don't know what you mean here.

meaningless details. He believe the Bible literally. And he is very active in his church.

[Daniel Peterson]

So it is a missionary focus?

That's what I and others have repeatedly and publicly said.

It's an article of faith with the Stalker that I'm a liar. But if you're really a questioner, as you say, you won't simply take his word for that.

I just assumed it had an apologetic focus.

That's what the Stalker has been claiming. He just makes things up, though. And that's what he's done here, too.

Imperious orders from The Packer Faction©, retreats from evidence, desperate attempts to reassure unicorns and "Chapel Mormons" and leprechauns that we're on the same team, panic at the inroads of Rod Meldrum and his disciples . . . these are all the products of the Stalker's fertile, malignant, and obsessively hostile imagination.

So the audience is mainly non-members?

That's always been my predominant focus. I've said so multiple times.

I'm interested to see what my non-member friend thinks. He is a literal Bible Christian - very devout.

I doubt that he'll be overly impressed, though maybe I'll be wrong. Among non-members, evangelicals and Protestant fundamentalists weren't my first concern with this particular project.

Thanks for the links DCP - I will look over them tonight.

Happy reading!

PS - DCP - have you considered making into more of a podcast site of recorded interviews or spoken testimonies? Just curious. Not saying that is better or worse just wondering.

Not really, though that might be very worthwhile. I've got dozens of irons in the fire, however, and I don't have too much more time to devote to this particular effort.

[Lars Umlaut]

PS - DCP - have you considered making into more of a podcast site of recorded interviews or spoken testimonies? Just curious. Not saying that is better or worse just wondering.

Not really, though that might be very worthwhile. I've got dozens of irons in the fire, however, and I don't have too much more time to devote to this particular effort.

Would you ever consider appearing on John Larsen's Mormon Expression podcast, were he to ask you?

[Wiki Wonka]

E=C/S

where:

E is the effectiveness of the MST website

C is the number of conversions in a given month

S is the number of featured scholars for that month

OK, lets look at variable "C":

D&C 18: 15-16

And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one soul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!

The way I read it, the Lord considers your labor to be successful even if you spend your entire life to bring only "one soul" to the Lord. Therefore, we can minimize variable "C" to 1. This means that the effectiveness "E" is simply inversely proportional to the number of scholars on the site. This seems to indicate that the maximum "success" of MST would be achieved if all of the scholars' testimonies were removed except for one.

Now let's apply the formula to the parody site. Under the "Featured Scholars" section of the parody site, we see "Currently Under Construction." They may have a chance to maximize the effectiveness of the site by including only one "anti-testimony." If no "anti-testimonies" are added, we might consider the effect of having zero in the denominator - the parody site simply blows up. If we instead consider the denominator to simply be approaching zero, then the parody site might be considered infinitely effective in its current state.

WW

[Daniel Peterson]

Would you ever consider appearing on John Larsen's Mormon Expression podcast, were he to ask you?

I have no objection in principle, and I think he's actually trying to get me to do it.

The problem is scheduling. I was in x over the weekend, and just got back from y last night, and leave on Tuesday morning for a month in z. After my return from z, I'll be home for about a week, and then I leave again for a week of [something or other] in an area just south of y.

(The names of the actual places, and the accompanying details, have been suppressed, so as not to upset rockslider and like-minded critics.)

[noel00]

How many of these scholars were converted after they did their Phds? That guy who wrote Why People Believe Wierd Things said something along the line that some educated persons believe in his mind wierd things because they were raised in that belief system. Also there are a number of former Mormon Scholars (Quinn, Mulder, McMurrin, Poulson).How many famous scholars are former Mormons?

[LifeOnaPlate]

How many of these scholars were converted after they did their Phds? That guy who wrote Why People Believe Wierd Things said something along the line that [a]some educated persons believe in his mind wierd things because they were raised in that belief system. Also there are a number of former Mormon Scholars (Quinn, Mulder, McMurrin, Poulson).How many famous scholars are former Mormons?

[a] and seem to contradict here.

[Daniel Peterson]

How many of these scholars were converted after they did their Phds?

I don't know, off the top of my head. At least one. And he's in Australia, no less.

If you're interested, you can read through the testimonies and let us know.

That guy who wrote Why People Believe Wierd Things said something along the line that some educated persons believe in his mind wierd things because they were raised in that belief system.

That would be Michael Shermer. He chaired a panel that I was on last summer. Nice guy. (We disagree on some things, though.)

You realize, don't you, that his reasoning works against your current form of Christianity just as well (or as badly) as it works against mine?

Anyway, a number of those on the "Mormon Scholars Testify" site are converts. They tell their conversion stories.

Also there are a number of former Mormon Scholars (Quinn, Mulder, McMurrin, Poulson).

Which Poulson are you talking about?

Quinn, by the way, still believes in the Book of Mormon and the Restoration, last thing I heard.

How many famous scholars are former Mormons?

A few. I couldn't give you a precise number.

What difference does it make?

[noel00]

Yes Michael Shermer was one of the participants who appeared on the panel in the DVD The Question of God which compared the worldviews of CS Lewis and Freud. The funny thing about Freud as revealed in the book The Question of God was that he was secretly writing to theologian in Switzland regarding matter so faith. The Poulson I heard was a closet doubter was supposed to have been a Professor of Psychology at BYU. It was rumoured he had a large number of books in his basement some of which were critical of his religion. I take your point Shermer has negative views about religion including my own. But how would he explain C S Lewis' conversion later in life. Lewis's early experiences were anything but happy (loss of mother, his father goes to pieces and of course the war).

I am curious what your views are on the debate about neuroscience and the body/soul idea. I want to read Joel Green's book Body and Soul and Human Life. Chris Smith has suggested also Fuller Sems Nancy Murphy's Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies. I read in one book where a lady shot herself through the head and lived. The part of the brain that was effected was that which involved depression. After that she was never depressed again. Maybe this topic is something for a special thread.If Green and Murphy are right no LDS member goes to the spirit world after death. "Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."

[Daniel Peterson]

I am curious what your views are on the debate about neuroscience and the body/soul idea. I want to read Joel Green's book Body and Soul and Human Life. Chris Smith has suggested also Fuller Sems Nancy Murphy's Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies. I read in one book where a lady shot herself through the head and lived. The part of the brain that was effected was that which involved depression. After that she was never depressed again. Maybe this topic is something for a special thread.If Green and Murphy are right no LDS member goes to the spirit world after death. "Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."

I'm a dualist. Both because LDS doctrine appears plainly to demand it and because near-death experiences (or, more precisely, out-of-body experiences) seem to demonstrate it.

That's a topic for a different thread, though. And, begging rockslider's forgiveness, I'm not going to be around much for such a thread.

[Nofear]

I'm a dualist. Both because LDS doctrine appears plainly to demand it and because near-death experiences (or, more precisely, out-of-body experiences) seem to demonstrate it.

That's a topic for a different thread, though. And, begging rockslider's forgiveness, I'm not going to be around much for such a thread.

Unfortunate, since I would take issue with the idea that LDS doctrine appears to "plainly demand" dualism -- at least depending on what you mean by dualism.

I rather, instead, see it plainly demanding physicalism -- at least in the sense that all is material. But we might depart from traditional physicalists in that we claim there exists material substance which is not encapsulated by the standard model of particle physics.

Yet, as you say, that is indeed a topic for another thread.

[zeezrom]

DCP - I had a pretty grueling conversation with my dad yesterday and something came up that I thought would be interesting to you. He asked if my questioning of the church started because I've been attending a school other than BYU (for PhD work). I got my BS at BYU and am the only one in the family going this far in school.

I told him, "no dad, it was actually something said in EQ that got me started." He was shocked.

Anyway, I find it interesting that he felt my higher education had something to do with my doubting. Well, not only that but higher education at a school other than BYU.

[Daniel Peterson]

Unfortunate, since I would take issue with the idea that LDS doctrine appears to "plainly demand" dualism -- at least depending on what you mean by dualism.

I rather, instead, see it plainly demanding physicalism -- at least in the sense that all is material. But we might depart from traditional physicalists in that we claim there exists material substance which is not encapsulated by the standard model of particle physics.

Obviously, it's the latter sense that I mean by dualism.

Yet, as you say, that is indeed a topic for another thread.

Agreed.

DCP - I had a pretty grueling conversation with my dad yesterday and something came up that I thought would be interesting to you. He asked if my questioning of the church started because I've been attending a school other than BYU (for PhD work). I got my BS at BYU and am the only one in the family going this far in school.

I told him, "no dad, it was actually something said in EQ that got me started." He was shocked.

Anyway, I find it interesting that he felt my higher education had something to do with my doubting. Well, not only that but higher education at a school other than BYU.

Interesting.

Well, I hope you come out at the end of the process with a stronger testimony.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I told him, "no dad, it was actually something said in EQ that got me started." He was shocked.

What was said in EQ? You brought it up, please do tell.

[LifeOnaPlate]

zeezrom, you mentioned questioners and I was reminded of something President Uchtdorf said in a fireside last year.

What about doubts and questions? How do you find out that the gospel is true? Is it all right to have questions about the Church or its doctrine? My dear young friends, we are a question-asking people because we know that inquiry leads to truth. That is the way the Church got its start

[zeezrom]

DCP - my non-member friend got back to me on his short review of MST:

I asked him: "What do you think of this site:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

Fascinating? Interesting? What?

Thanks.

And here is his response:

Well, I dont know that I would use the word fascinating but it was interesting. I learned a little about how the brainstem works. It is also interesting to see what and how people rationalize their belief system. Some were flat out boring. After the first few it seemed that they were all saying the same testimony...the same one my missionaries would rattle off each time - especially when they seemed to get nervous. So, fascinating? I wouldnt say so. Id rather talk to someone. You could ask the guy if he would find a non-member's testimony fascinating regardless of what faith they come from. I think everyone has some sort of testimony or reason that they have their world view. Some are very interesting others not so much.

Thoughts?

[zeezrom]

What was said in EQ? You brought it up, please do tell.

Looking back, it wasn't that big of a deal but it got me to thinking and to investigating.

He said something like, "Did you guys know that Joseph Smith married like more than 30 women and some were teenagers and some married to other men? And that Emma didn't know about a lot of them?"

The bishop got some phone calls after that.

[zeezrom]

zeezrom, you mentioned questioners and I was reminded of something President Uchtdorf said in a fireside last year.

I respect Uchtdorf and like his talks and think he says inspired things. Thanks for sharing.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thoughts?

Why, yes, as it happens. In fact, I've had several thoughts so far this week.

Well, I dont know that I would use the word fascinating but it was interesting.

Good enough for me.

I learned a little about how the brainstem works.

Typical fast and testimony meeting fare, I suppose.

It is also interesting to see what and how people rationalize their belief system.

A bit condescending, that verb rationalize.

Does your friend regard his own reasoning, in support of his convictions, as rationalization?

Some were flat out boring.

I haven't found any of them boring, thus far, though, as might be expected, I find some more interesting and stimulating than others. (I've edited a couple for posting over the past few days that I've really, really liked.)

After the first few it seemed that they were all saying the same testimony...the same one my missionaries would rattle off each time - especially when they seemed to get nervous.

My mileage differs. I see few if any of the entries on "Mormon Scholars Testify" as simply "rattling off" some sort of rote, standard-issue testimony.

Your friend's use of dismissive language -- e.g., rationalize and rattle off -- and his insinuation that such testimonies are simply rote devices that are "rattled off" as defensive measures when nervous or threatened -- suggests to me that he's not the kind of person (not at the moment, anyway) who would likely be open to being influenced by them. Which is fine, and doesn't trouble me even slightly: I never assumed that the site would appeal to everybody, nor even to most. But if it might appeal to, say, potentially even one percent of the population in any way, that's roughly three million Americanos and -- crudely, since language and access to the Internet are obvious constraints -- 68,151,000.00 people worldwide.

So, fascinating? I wouldnt say so.

"Fascinating" is a rather high bar. "Interesting" seems to me a much more reasonable standard.

Id rather talk to someone.

Nothing at "Mormon Scholars Testify" prohibits him or anybody else from talking with anybody at all.

Nor was "Mormon Scholars Testify" conceived as a superior substitute for interpersonal communications, face to face. But the fact is that it's been viewed, thus far, in at least seventy-one countries -- and, despite my rather frenetic travel schedule (sorry, rockslider and pals of rockslider!), I still haven't quite even visited seventy-one countries. It does what I cannot do.

You could ask the guy if he would find a non-member's testimony fascinating regardless of what faith they come from.

And you can answer the guy that, yes, I would and do. I've read many such accounts.

Of course, I don't have a visceral aversion to fast and testimony meetings, and I don't bristle at the very word testimony.

I think everyone has some sort of testimony or reason that they have their world view. Some are very interesting others not so much.

Obviously.

[Edward]

Does your friend regard his own reasoning, in support of his convictions, as rationalization?

My personal opinion is that all people will rationalize and defend their beliefs and opinions and as long as they do it in a respectful, civil and intelligent manner it actually contributes to a better understanding of what we believe as individuals and what others believe and I'm the "big picture" kind of person who wants to know where others stand and why they take their position and I respect those who disagree with me and are willing to debate a point but I don't like to have my point of view dismissed as "rationalization" even if it is because it assumes bad faith and puts me on the defensive which I then have to work to overcome so I understand where you are coming from.

Nothing at "Mormon Scholars Testify" prohibits him or anybody else from talking with anybody at all.

Nor was "Mormon Scholars Testify" conceived as a superior substitute for interpersonal communications, face to face. But the fact is that it's been viewed, thus far, in at least seventy-one countries -- and, despite my rather frenetic travel schedule (sorry, rockslider and pals of rockslider!), I still haven't quite even visited seventy-one countries. It does what I cannot do."

One of the good things about Mormon Scholars Testify is that it does not allow comments. To many of these sites just turn into a place for people to vent in anonymity without having to be accountable for what they say or how they treat others. I am really glad that you created Mormon Scholars Testify and that it's reaching such a ride audience.

[Daniel Peterson]

One of the good things about Mormon Scholars Testify is that it does not allow comments. To many of these sites just turn into a place for people to vent in anonymity without having to be accountable for what they say or how they treat others.

I strongly agree.

I am really glad that you created Mormon Scholars Testify and that it's reaching such a ride audience.

Thanks!

Incidentally, a testimony went up today from Dr. Ugo Perego, a Latter-day Saint geneticist from Italy whose research focus has been on American Indian DNA:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/906/ugo-a-perego