Dan Peterson: "what It Feels Like To Be A Mormon 'apologist'"

[rockpond]

That's not anecdotal. "Apologists drove me out of the Church" is indeed a frequent assertion. Unless you think Dehlin was prevaricating when he said so.

 

That's an anecdote.  The claim you made in the first sentence of your OP is anecdotal in nature until you back it up with some sort of data.

[Scott Lloyd]

The point is that the definition of "inconclusive" is pretty subjective. What you find conclusive, I might find inconclusive, and vice versa. For example, Dan Peterson lists the witnesses as his first example of conclusive evidence, yet a lot of people don't find them to be conclusive at all, not even particularly compelling. Is it a matter of Dan having more of a desire to believe, or simply a matter of Dan giving different weight to witness testimony than others do?

If it cannot be generally agreed upon that it's conclusive, it's a pretty good indication that it's inconclusive, no?

 

By the way, a friendly CFR: Where did Dan Peterson "list the witnesses as his first example of conclusive evidence"? Are you saying that Dan says the testimony of the witnesses conclusively proves the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? I would be very surprised if that were the case, as I have always known Dan to be very wary about asserting that something has been proven. Supported through evidence is one thing; proven is quite another.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That's an anecdote.  The claim you made in the first sentence of your OP is anecdotal in nature until you back it up with some sort of data.

I did. I linked to a thread on this board where Dehlin talked about his survey and how a lot of respondents (he may have said an "overwhelming" number) had said that very thing in the course of the survey.

 Are you saying Dehlin was not being truthful? I'd be interested to know if you can prove that.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Your comment about ward boundaries being beneficial to inner-city, less-privileged kids is interesting, and certainly a worthy goal, but I only know of the case in my state where an deeply disadvantaged inner-city area with relatively to extremely socio-economically privileged cities all around it (Eastern Seaboard) has ward and stake boundaries that completely surround it and separate it out, assigning it to the mission area with which it has no contingent borders.

 

I have often thought that was unfortunate, that the goal of benefiting less privileged kids would be better met if their area were included in one of the surrounding areas, even if it was just being a separate ward in the surrounding stake.  I certainly don't know enough to know why the borders are as they are, but it would be interesting to hear your take on what might be happening there.

 

My (relatively uneducated) guess was that it may have something to do with the pool of available priesthood holders, but again, I would be interested if you have any other insight or observations to add.

 

Our views are likely colored by different experiences. Here's mine. In my stake we had one ward that over time because the "strong" one with the best primary and youth groups. Anyone moving into the area would pick that ward if possible. After awhile the stake presidency dissolved the ward and divided the strength between all the neighboring units. As part of the move, my family was aligned with a struggling ward. I will never forget the look on the primary president's face the first week we showed up. She was overcome with joy.

[jkwilliams]

If it cannot be generally agreed upon that it's conclusive, it's a pretty good indication that it's inconclusive, no?

Then we shouldn't be talking about conclusive or inconclusive when we are talking about Mormonism. IMO, we should be talking about "conclusive for me." I think the evidence is pretty conclusive, and I would imagine you do, too. We just disagree about the conclusions.

 

 

By the way, a friendly CFR: Where did Dan Peterson "list the witnesses as his first example of conclusive evidence"?

I was thinking about this, from the essay you linked to:

 

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the complexity of its content and the speed of its dictation, the manifold ways in which it and other revelations given through Joseph Smith seem to fit the ancient milieu that they purport to reflect, the abundant evidence of Joseph’s sincerity and good character, the profundity of his teachings — these and many other things seem so striking that, for us, many other controversies resemble quibbles over whether St. Denis walked a hundred miles or only 99.

But, technically speaking, he said it was "striking" evidence, not conclusive. But, as I said, if he thinks it's striking, I would imagine he thinks it's conclusive evidence for him.

Edited November 2, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

 

If it cannot be generally agreed upon that it's conclusive, it's a pretty good indication that it's inconclusive, no?

Then we shouldn't be talking about conclusive or inconclusive when we are talking about Mormonism. IMO, we should be talking about "conclusive for me." I think the evidence is pretty conclusive, and I would imagine you do, too. We just disagree about the conclusions.

 

 

By the way, a friendly CFR: Where did Dan Peterson "list the witnesses as his first example of conclusive evidence"?

I was thinking about this, from the essay you linked to:

 

The witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the complexity of its content and the speed of its dictation, the manifold ways in which it and other revelations given through Joseph Smith seem to fit the ancient milieu that they purport to reflect, the abundant evidence of Joseph’s sincerity and good character, the profundity of his teachings — these and many other things seem so striking that, for us, many other controversies resemble quibbles over whether St. Denis walked a hundred miles or only 99.

But, technically speaking, he said it was "striking" evidence, not conclusive. But, as I said, if he thinks it's striking, I would imagine he thinks it's conclusive evidence for him.

 

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I did. I linked to a thread on this board where Dehlin talked about his survey and how a lot of respondents (he may have said an "overwhelming" number) had said that very thing in the course of the survey.

 Are you saying Dehlin was not being truthful? I'd be interested to know if you can prove that.

 

No.  I haven't read the entire thread.  I was only commenting on your OP.  Glad you backed it up with data.

[jkwilliams]

Our views are likely colored by different experiences. Here's mine. In my stake we had one ward that over time because the "strong" one with the best primary and youth groups. Anyone moving into the area would pick that ward if possible. After awhile the stake presidency dissolved the ward and divided the strength between all the neighboring units. As part of the move, my family was aligned with a struggling ward. I will never forget the look on the primary president's face the first week we showed up. She was overcome with joy.

 

In our stake in Houston years ago, there was one ward that was struggling such that the other wards in the stake took turns doing the home teaching for that ward. They didn't have enough active members to sustain the ward, and it seemed odd to have them sharing a building with another ward rather than just dissolve the ward. The impression I got from the high priests group leader, who was my home teaching companion when it was our turn, was that the struggling ward was in a pretty rough part of town, whereas the rest of the stake was fairly affluent suburbia. As I recall, the ward was dissolved, eventually, and the sliver of the ward that was middle-class was incorporated into two wards in our stake, and the rest of the ward was absorbed into an adjacent stake in the "bad part of town."

 

I have no idea what the rationale was for what was done, but it did make me think that sometimes the boundaries may be based on socioeconomic factors. I don't know, though.

[jkwilliams]

Striking means conclusive? Not in any lexicon that I'm acquainted with.

 

I think you need to re-examine your definitions. If something has been conclusively shown, it means that all doubts or questions pertaining to it have been resolved.

 

Striking in this context is synonymous with impressive or persuasive; not the same as conclusive.

 

Fine, then let's go for the lesser certainty of impressive or persuasive evidence. I think it's safe to say that Dan believes the evidence he listed is impressive and persuasive. It is not for others. I don't know why we're quibbling about definitions. I think someone would be a little crazy to ignore evidence they find impressive and persuasive, wouldn't you?

[Scott Lloyd]

Fine, then let's go for the lesser certainty of impressive or persuasive evidence. I think it's safe to say that Dan believes the evidence he listed is impressive and persuasive. It is not for others.

Hence, it's inconclusive. As are their own doubts, questions and criticisms.

I don't know why we're quibbling about definitions.

 

Because you didn't seem to have a correct understanding of what conclusive means. It doesn't mean "striking." I hope you have a better grasp now.

 

 

I think someone would be a little crazy to ignore evidence they find impressive and persuasive, wouldn't you?

 

Who said it should be ignored? I can be impressed or persuaded by something without insisting that it is conclusive.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Fine, then let's go for the lesser certainty of impressive or persuasive evidence. I think it's safe to say that Dan believes the evidence he listed is impressive and persuasive. It is not for others. I don't know why we're quibbling about definitions. I think someone would be a little crazy to ignore evidence they find impressive and persuasive, wouldn't you?

I'm reminded of Philip Jenkins or whatever his name is, take from some time ago. Wherein he was adamant there is no evidence at all. The witnesses is impressive to Dan because he believes supernatural took place for the witnesses to receive witness. Mr. Jenkins would not, it seems. One seems to go with the, "it's evidence because it's possible it's supporting the story". While the other seems to suggest, "it's not evidence because it's possible that this piece of whatever is out there without the story".

Religion is perhaps the most interesting place to witnesses the two views because of it's relation to modern conceptions of knowledge, it seems to me. How to reconcile?

[jkwilliams]

Hence, it's inconclusive. As are their own doubts, questions and criticisms.

Because you didn't seem to have a proper understanding of what conclusive means. It doesn't mean "striking." I hope you have a better grasp now.

 

 

Who said it should be ignored? I can be impressed or persuaded by something with insisting that it is conclusive.

Then what you seem to be saying is that people who find evidence against the church's truth-claims to be impressive and persuasive are not inclined to believe in the first place; otherwise, they would not find the evidence so persuasive. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm reminded of Philip Jenkins or whatever his name is, take from some time ago. Wherein he was adamant there is no evidence at all. The witnesses is impressive to Dan because he believes supernatural took place for the witnesses to receive witness. Mr. Jenkins would not, it seems. One seems to go with the, "it's evidence because it's possible it's supporting the story". While the other seems to suggest, "it's not evidence because it's possible that this piece of whatever is out there without the story".

Religion is perhaps the most interesting place to witnesses the two views because of it's relation to modern conceptions of knowledge, it seems to me. How to reconcile?

So it would seem you agree that striking does not mean conclusive.

[jkwilliams]

I'm reminded of Philip Jenkins or whatever his name is, take from some time ago. Wherein he was adamant there is no evidence at all. The witnesses is impressive to Dan because he believes supernatural took place for the witnesses to receive witness. Mr. Jenkins would not, it seems. One seems to go with the, "it's evidence because it's possible it's supporting the story". While the other seems to suggest, "it's not evidence because it's possible that this piece of whatever is out there without the story".

Religion is perhaps the most interesting place to witnesses the two views because of it's relation to modern conceptions of knowledge, it seems to me. How to reconcile?

Actually, Jenkins didn't say there was no evidence at all. What he was calling for was a type of evidence that met a certain standard (the Daubert standard), and none was forthcoming. I don't think that's the same thing as saying there's no evidence.

[stemelbow]

So it would seem you agree that striking does not mean conclusive.

Yes. I agree with that. Talking the nature of evidence with two opposing sides when ti comes to religion is one of the biggest headaches I've created for myself.

But I agree with you on this.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then what you seem to be saying is that people who find evidence against the church's truth-claims to be impressive and persuasive are not inclined to believe in the first place; otherwise, they would not find the evidence so persuasive. Maybe I'm missing something.

I believe that a current frame of mind can and does influence how open one is to being persuaded. Is that a controversial premise? I hadn't thought so. It seems rather axiomatic to me.

 

Incidentally, I made an error in my prior post. I typed "with" when I meant "without." I meant to write, "I can be impressed or persuaded by something without insisting that it is conclusive."

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Actually, Jenkins didn't say there was no evidence at all. What he was calling for was a type of evidence that met a certain standard (the Daubert standard), and none was forthcoming. I don't think that's the same thing as saying there's no evidence.

That's exactly what I mean. No matter the "evidence" presented it'd always be not evidence to Jenkins because it's possible Nahom ended up in the Book of Mormon anyway. Since it's possibly not evidence, it's not evidence. Or that's what came of it. But that's ok, because the other side suggested since it's possible it is evidence of Lehi's travels through the desert, it is evidence. I find the debate unfortunate--just a lot of talking past each other and tons of circus-level posturing. Or that's what it ended up being on both sides, in my mind.

[jkwilliams]

I believe that a current frame of mind can and does influence how open one is to being persuaded. Is that a controversial premise? I hadn't thought so. It seems rather axiomatic to me.

I agree with you, but I believe there are a lot of factors beyond "current frame of mind" involved in people letting go of their most cherished beliefs. Some people seem to think the very fact that someone would let go means they didn't cherish them much at all.

[jkwilliams]

That's exactly what I mean. No matter the "evidence" presented it'd always be not evidence to Jenkins because it's possible Nahom ended up in the Book of Mormon anyway. Since it's possibly not evidence, it's not evidence. Or that's what came of it. But that's ok, because the other side suggested since it's possible it is evidence of Lehi's travels through the desert, it is evidence. I find the debate unfortunate--just a lot of talking past each other and tons of circus-level posturing. Or that's what it ended up being on both sides, in my mind.

Again, I think you misunderstood what he was calling for, but that's not really on topic here.

[Calm]

"The witnesses is impressive to Dan because he believes supernatural took place for the witnesses to receive witness"

No, actually if I understand Dan properly, what is impressive to Dan are that when one looks at all of them, the witnesses provided two forms of experience, one spiritual in that it involved an angelic visit and the other a very practical, no supernatural claims experience. He has related that one of his favourite witnesses' account was John Whitmer, who is very 'down to earth' in his description of his experience.

See here:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all

Edited November 2, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you, but I believe there are a lot of factors beyond "current frame of mind" involved in people letting go of their most cherished beliefs.

I've never disputed this. I am certain there are a host of factors that converge and combine. I also believe personal choice has some degree of influence, though I have been pilloried for saying so. By that, I mean we choose our sources of information and other factors, and we choose the degree to which we allow ourselves to be influenced by any one factor, how much credibility we give it, and so forth.

 

The only time when choice does not play a part is when a thing has been proven conclusively (there's that word again). That is to say, if something is conclusive, we cannot reasonably deny it; consequently we have no choice other than to accept it.

 

 

Some people seem to think the very fact that someone would let go means they didn't cherish them much at all.

 

Well, there is cause to wonder. (See above about choice playing a part.)

Edited November 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I've never disputed this. I am certain there are a host of factors that converge and combine. I also believe personal choice has some degree of influence, though I have been pilloried for saying so. By that, I mean we choose our sources of information and other factors, and we choose the degree to which we allow ourselves to be influenced by any one factor, how much credibility we give it, and so forth.

 

The only time when choice does not play a part is when a thing has been proven conclusively (there's that word again). That is to say, if something is conclusive, we cannot reasonably deny it; we have no choice.

By your definition, there is pretty much nothing in the world that is proven conclusively, as long as someone disagrees. There are people who believe the earth is flat, but one would assume you believe there is conclusive evidence it is round. I believe there is conclusive evidence against crop circles being the handiwork of aliens and against, say, the kinderhook plates being an ancient record. For both of these beliefs of mine, there are people out there who believe the opposite. By your reckoning one cannot say the evidence is conclusive because someone out there denies it, and I can guarantee they think they are being totally reasonable.

As for me, I never speak of proof one way or the other, just the preponderance of evidence, and for me, the evidence regarding, say, the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham is pretty overwhelming in one direction, such that it would be crazy for me to choose to believe otherwise.

 

 

Well, there is cause to wonder. (See above about choice playing a part.)

Of course choice plays a part, but somethings things really are that obvious. And as I said, we often don't have a choice in what kinds of evidence we find convincing. I am utterly unpersuaded by UFO evidence, for example, even though I've never made a conscious choice to deny it. It just doesn't convince me. On the other hand, you are utterly unconvinced by evidence I find overwhelming where the church is concerned. I suspect choice isn't as big a factor as we might think.

[stemelbow]

Again, I think you misunderstood what he was calling for, but that's not really on topic here.

hm...I thought he was looking for evidence found in the "new World" that supports the ancient history found in the BoM. Or something like that.

[stemelbow]

"The witnesses is impressive to Dan because he believes supernatural took place for the witnesses to receive witness"

No, actually if I understand Dan properly, what is impressive to Dan are that when one looks at all of them, the witnesses provided two forms of experience, one spiritual in that it involved an angelic visit and the other a very practical, no supernatural claims experience. He has related that one of his favourite witnesses' account was John Whitmer, who is very 'down to earth' in his description of his experience.

See here:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700218869/John-Whitmer-left-church-but-kept-testimony-of-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=all

What I meant to suggest is that Dan finds it impressive because he believes the divine inspired the Book. Others don't find the witnesses impressive, I've had many say it's not evidence at all, because they don't believe the divine had anything to do with it. to them, ti seems, it's a bunch of men collaborating, or mistaking the mundane with something impressive.

[Analytics]

You seem habituated to personalizing these discussions. Well, as a counter to your anecdotal evidence, I'll offer myself as an example of one who, having already received a spiritual witness by the power of the Holy Ghost of the divinity of Jospeh Smith's calling, has been helped toward greater understanding by sources such as the Gospel Topics essay I quoted.

 

I'm not disparaging the honesty of anyone who is troubled by the issues, only suggesting that the available information is not sufficient to justify abandoning the faith over them, especially when someone has received personal revelation about the truthfulness of the Restoration.

 

And I stand by my observation that Analytics gave us a textbook example of quick-and-dirty, bumper-sticker, sound-bite style argumentation.

 

Just to summarize then, some people believe that the universal moral principal, “don’t enter in secret marriages behind your wife’s back” applies to everyone, including Joseph Smith. 

 

In response to me pointing this fact out, you dismiss such people as engaging in bumper-sticker/sound bite argumentation,  that mentioning this is sniping, and exploiting "troubling" and fragmentary information [scare quotes yours, as if there really isn’t anything the least bit troubling about your religious leader engaging in secret marriages behind his wife’s back], and that if you don’t think the Gospel Topics essay adequately resolves the concern, it’s your own fault for not being sufficiently disposed to believe in the divinity of Joseph Smith's call, and that the whole issue is really nothing more than sound-bite criticism, and that if a doubting member isn’t persuaded by all of this, apologists shouldn’t talk to him about it because he is a dirty pig.

 

But you’re not disparaging the honesty of anyone who is troubled by the issues.  And you are certain that when you explain all of this to somebody who is troubled, there is absolutely no reason your words and attitude could make him feel a lack of empathy that could further drive him from your religion.