Dan Peterson: "Why I Can't Manage To Disbelieve"

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

First, I was not aware this thread was a debate.  So, not sure your point applies.

The linked article was a debate between Daniel Peterson and critics.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I guess we didn't read the same article.

Although Dr. Peterson doesn't use the word prove, he strongly infers that's what he's doing.

 

On the contrary, he never implies (you used the word "infers" improperly) that he is giving definitive proof. It is quite unlike him to do so. In fact he acknowledged at the outset such definitive proof is not available, and that defenders are only engaged in building a cumulative case. 

None of your quotes indicates Dan claims to be giving definitive, naturalistic proof. What he does do is poke holes in alternative, naturalistic theories to show why they are not compelling. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The linked article was a debate between Daniel Peterson and critics.

I was there. And I shot pictures. The only one at the podium was Dan. There were no critics present on the stage. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was there. And I shot pictures. The only one at the podium was Dan. There were no critics present on the stage. 

That's why it was so one-sided. He kept quoting the critics, but they weren't there to respond.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

That's why it was so one-sided. He kept quoting the critics, but they weren't there to respond.

Such is the nature of a speech. If the critics want to respond, they have plenty of avenues available for that, including sponsoring their own symposium and making their own speeches. 

[Thinking]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

None of your quotes indicates Dan claims to be giving definitive, naturalistic proof.

 

Quote

Now I know for some people this is impossible too. But you may remember the line from Sherlock Holmes where he explained his method of deduction. Which was simply, you have to eliminate all the things that are impossible and whatever you are left with, however improbable, must be the explanation.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

 

I don't see this as being offered as proof, only an explanation of why he can't manage to disbelieve -- which is his thesis. 

Here's the thing: The Book of Mormon exists. The witnesses'statements of having seen the plates (and, in some cases, divine visions and visitations) exist and corroborate one another. Deny them if you will, but if you intend to disprove them you have to do better than the alternative explanations that have been offered so far and found wanting. 

[Jeanne]

As for witnesses, just one question.  Would it be possible, that they were told what they would see?  Meaning...they saw what Joseph did because he said so. Who would possible disagree.?

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As for witnesses, just one question.  Would it be possible, that they were told what they would see?  Meaning...they saw what Joseph did because he said so. Who would possible disagree.?

Sure. I am pretty certain that they all had been told what they would see. Their testimonies are simply that Joseph actually had plates as he had claimed. They still had no idea what was on the plates.

Glenn

[Honorentheos]

55 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As for witnesses, just one question.  Would it be possible, that they were told what they would see?  Meaning...they saw what Joseph did because he said so. Who would possible disagree.?

The witnesses are more problematic. The witness events occur in tiers and to varying degrees of control.

For example, the three witnesses are described as having met and not actually being successful, so Harris leaves the group. Smith, Cowdery, and Wittmer are the same parties involved in the production of the bulk of what we know as the Book of Mormon, whether one takes a faithful view or a critical view. Harris is the outsider, and it's not clear what he actually experienced or how he could corroborate that he had the same experience as Cowdery and Wittmer say they had. The signed witness statement in the Book of Mormon is not exactly factual in that regard.

The testimony of the eight witnesses is generally understood to have been given for them to sign. Whether there were physical plates present of not, whether or not they were involved in composing the claims they signed is not verifiable.

There were challenges to their testimonies given later in their lives, and I've often wondered why those who place so much stock in the testimony of the witnesses regarding the Book of Mormon do not accept later testimony by many of the same men that Joseph's involvement in polygamy was not of God, for example. This, with history having supported the claim. 

With Peterson's presentation I think the simplicity of the flow chart method hits it's first decision point in the wrong place. Rather than asking if Joseph had plates or not, the first decision point is - Is there substantiated cause to believe the Book of Mormon is describing a real culture that existed in the America's sometime between 600 BCE and approximately 400 CE?" Then go from there. The question of if Joseph had plates or not should be preceded by the question of if he was capable of fraud or not. Given his involvement and conviction on charges of glass looking and treasure seeking prior to Peterson's 1830 threshold date still seems to be answered affirmatively. The man demonstrated fraudulent behavior prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. He stole his wife from her family under false statements to Emma's father. He is suspected of infidelity potentially before and after his marriage. His own statements about his nature were whitewashed by his scribes when he said of himself -

"… I was left to all kinds of temptations, and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God."

However, this statement included in every Pearl of Great Price, reflects a major change from the original words of Joseph Smith. The version members are familiar with reads: “…I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.”

The edit, supposedly conducted by Willard Richards acting as Joseph’s biographer, occurred while Joseph was still alive. It’s possible, maybe probable that Joseph knew of this change. Yet it is hard to read the phrase, “to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God” and feel it is only a slight editorial change to arrive at “I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company.”

In my opinion, Dr. Peterson is correct in beginning his presentation by noting it's not falsifiable and essentially a song meant for the believing choir. As a reasonable assessment of the state of the debate, it's clearly and significantly lacking.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Honorentheos

[PeterPear]

17 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Sure. I am pretty certain that they all had been told what they would see. Their testimonies are simply that Joseph actually had plates as he had claimed. They still had no idea what was on the plates.

Glenn

What? What do you mean they had no idea? Don't you know your own religion? Or you enjoy making stuff up?

They were involved with the translation. It was mentioned in 2 Nephi & Ether that there would be three witnesses who would see the plates by the Power of God. D&C 5 records the Lord's promise to show them to Martin Harris, as well as D&C 17 naming the three. That was June 1829. The Book of Mormon was first published in March 1830 including the Witnesses testimonies and the testimony of the eight.

I doubt they thought that an angel from the presence of God would appear to them and the voice of God declaring the translation to be accurate and commanding them to bear testimony of it.

"They didn't know what was on the plates". For crying out loud. How could they have testified of it, if they didn't know what was on it?

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The witnesses are more problematic. The witness events occur in tiers and to varying degrees of control.

For example, the three witnesses are described as having met and not actually being successful, so Harris leaves the group. Smith, Cowdery, and Wittmer are the same parties involved in the production of the bulk of what we know as the Book of Mormon, whether one takes a faithful view or a critical view. Harris is the outsider, and it's not clear what he actually experienced or how he could corroborate that he had the same experience as Cowdery and Wittmer say they had. The signed witness statement in the Book of Mormon is not exactly factual in that regard.

The testimony of the eight witnesses is generally understood to have been given for them to sign. Whether there were physical plates present of not, whether or not they were involved in composing the claims they signed is not verifiable.

There were challenges to their testimonies given later in their lives, and I've often wondered why those who place so much stock in the testimony of the witnesses regarding the Book of Mormon do not accept later testimony by many of the same men that Joseph's involvement in polygamy was not of God, for example. This, with history having supported the claim. 

With Peterson's presentation I think the simplicity of the flow chart method hits it's first decision point in the wrong place. Rather than asking if Joseph had plates or not, the first decision point is - Is there substantiated cause to believe the Book of Mormon is describing a real culture that existed in the America's sometime between 600 BCE and approximately 400 CE?" Then go from there. The question of if Joseph had plates or not should be preceded by the question of if he was capable of fraud or not. Given his involvement and conviction on charges of glass looking and treasure seeking prior to Peterson's 1830 threshold date still seems to be answered affirmatively. The man demonstrated fraudulent behavior prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. He stole his wife from her family under false statements to Emma's father. He is suspected of infidelity potentially before and after his marriage. His own statements about his nature were whitewashed by his scribes when he said of himself -

"… I was left to all kinds of temptations, and mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the corruption of human nature, which I am sorry to say led me into divers temptations, to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God."

However, this statement included in every Pearl of Great Price, reflects a major change from the original words of Joseph Smith. The version members are familiar with reads: “…I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.”

 

In my opinion, Dr. Peterson is correct in beginning his presentation by noting it's not falsifiable and essentially a song meant for the believing choir. As a reasonable assessment of the state of the debate, it's clearly and significantly lacking.

Thank you so much for your thoughts here.  I have always had a problem with the witnesses and could never pin point what it really is that bothers me.  I have never thought about the witnesses as also the ones who were honest about Joseph/polygamy..you have given me many things to think about.  Thanks again

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

1. because some critics are irrational 

2. you said you respect Van Vogel. I haven't seen anyone respond to Van Vogel's presentation on the Book of Mormon Witnesses. 

3. It is not like faith promoting accounts don't contradict each other. I don't like double standards. 

There was a thread some time ago which concerning that very presentation. It is beyond the scope of this thread to deal with that. Dan's presentation covered the different scenarios. One of them was  "Joseph Smith did not have the plates" and his conclusions about the probabilities.

One of the main points I got from the presentation is that none of the theories advanced by critics of the Book of Mormon account for all of the data that has been accumulated by scholars supporting the Book of Mormon.

From the transcript of Dan's presentation:

"Now, years ago I had a fellow who was arguing for a thesis of an unknown conspiracy that had created the plates … the Book of Mormon, rather, not the plates; he didn’t think there were any plates. But this group had created the Book of Mormon at some time. I asked him if he could specify the time. No he couldn’t; it could have been any time within the previous three hundred years. Was there any particular place that they had done it? No he didn’t know that. I said, well, you know, of course you don’t because there’s no evidence for this. You’re just making this up. I called them the Illuminati. Because it’s the idea that there is a conspiracy out there that is so secret that there is no evidence for it at all. We don’t who they are. We don’t know when they did it. We don’t know why they did it. We don’t know how they did it, why they chose Joseph Smith, nothing. You just assume they’re out there. This is a case of being thesis-driven to the point of absurdity, that you need somebody else to do it because you know Joseph Smith didn’t do it, so some mythical person did it, or persons. How many? He didn’t know."

So, the Illuminati produced the Book of Mormon.'

Oh well...

Glenn

[Glenn101]

8 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

What? What do you mean they had no idea? Don't you know your own religion? Or you enjoy making stuff up?

They were involved with the translation. It was mentioned in 2 Nephi & Ether that there would be three witnesses who would see the plates by the Power of God. D&C 5 records the Lord's promise to show them to Martin Harris, as well as D&C 17 naming the three. That was June 1829. The Book of Mormon was first published in March 1830 including the Witnesses testimonies and the testimony of the eight.

I doubt they thought that an angel from the presence of God would appear to them and the voice of God declaring the translation to be accurate and commanding them to bear testimony of it.

"They didn't know what was on the plates". For crying out loud. How could they have testified of it, if they didn't know what was on it?

Peter, how could they know what was actually on the plates? They did not know how to translate. They could only testify that they had felt, hefted, or seen the plates. They were taking the word of Joseph Smith concerning the content. I am taking them at their word that they actually hefted, or saw the plates.

Glenn

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is there any one prevailing theory among critics as to how the Book of Mormon came about?

Yes, the prevailing theory among critics appears to be the same as the prevailing theory among believers.  It's "I don't know, but maybe (this)..."

For example, believers invoke a supernatural explanation, but ask even the most basic question about the supernatural process and the answer quickly routes to "I don't know, but maybe (this)..."

Was the translation loose or tight?  "I don't know, but maybe (this)..."

Were the horses referred to actually "horses", or a different animal?  "I don't know, but maybe (this)..."

Where did any of the new world events (other than the burial of the plates) take place?  "I don't know, but maybe (this)..."

And so on.

The idea that believers have some suitable, logical theory based on supernatural origin while critics are floundering about is absurd.  Once you get past "God did it", there is no agreement, proof, certainty or testability.

So while believers in the supernatural theory of origin may be slightly more aligned at the most basic level, in practice they all believe in a mishmash of contradictory theories on numerous aspects of the content and creation of The Book of Mormon.  This doesn't make it less true (one of them may actually be correct), but the lack of unity on the part of disbelievers isn't an indicator of anything other than the lack of suitable data for any single theory to prevail (including the theory of supernatural origin).

Edited August 27, 2016 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Another sign of a weak theory is when the exact same argument can be used to support different (and supposedly false or contradictory) claims.

So on that level, believers should be wary of "Joseph Smith couldn't have written it" arguments.

Because, in the words of Oscar Hammerstien, "impossible things are happening everyday."

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

2. you said you respect Van Vogel. I haven't seen anyone respond to Van Vogel's presentation on the Book of Mormon Witnesses.  

"anyone"

I am puzzled.  May I suggest that you go back to the video and carefully look at the posts, and you discover that "anyone" did indeed respond, multiple times.

See also part 2 of the video  and see additional responses by "anyone".

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

52 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you so much for your thoughts here.  I have always had a problem with the witnesses and could never pin point what it really is that bothers me.  I have never thought about the witnesses as also the ones who were honest about Joseph/polygamy..you have given me many things to think about.  Thanks again

Jeanne, There is a huge difference in witnessing an event in person, i.e. the physical plates as opposed to obtaining (or not obtaining) a spiritual confirmation of polygamy. Martin Harris was the only one of the witnesses to ever join the Saints in Utah. Whether he ever accepted the practice is debatable, but early on was opposed to it. It probably is fair to say that just about all of the witnesses were opposed to the practice, that they never had a spiritual confirmation.

To me, it makes it more remarkable that none of those witnesses denied that experience, although it probably would have made them heroes to many people had any done so.

People have gone to strenuous efforts to impeach their testimonies and what you decide to believe is up to you.

Glenn

[Five Solas]

Seems to me Peterson lifted C.S. Lewis's trilemma (Lord, Liar or Lunatic) & applied it to Joseph Smith with the added dimension of with-plates/without-plates.  Can't explain why exactly, but I find Lewis's version from Mere Christianity a bit more compelling...

;0)

--Erik

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Jeanne, There is a huge difference in witnessing an event in person, i.e. the physical plates as opposed to obtaining (or not obtaining) a spiritual confirmation of polygamy. Martin Harris was the only one of the witnesses to ever join the Saints in Utah. Whether he ever accepted the practice is debatable, but early on was opposed to it. It probably is fair to say that just about all of the witnesses were opposed to the practice, that they never had a spiritual confirmation.

To me, it makes it more remarkable that none of those witnesses denied that experience, although it probably would have made them heroes to many people had any done so.

People have gone to strenuous efforts to impeach their testimonies and what you decide to believe is up to you.

Glenn

I realize a lot of this also.  I guess my puzzlement is because if I had any witness of something so miraculous..I will fully support the prophet and a lot of these witnesses left the church ..some came back..this goes for Joseph Smith too..to be able to claim that he saw God the Father and others should have put him on the road to where there was no way he could have done some of the things he did.  I am still learning..open to what others think and to any new records or documents that tell the story.  Thank you for you thoughts.

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I realize a lot of this also.  I guess my puzzlement is because if I had any witness of something so miraculous..I will fully support the prophet and a lot of these witnesses left the church ..some came back..this goes for Joseph Smith too..to be able to claim that he saw God the Father and others should have put him on the road to where there was no way he could have done some of the things he did.  I am still learning..open to what others think and to any new records or documents that tell the story.  Thank you for you thoughts.

Jeanne,  I imagine that you are speaking of the polygamy question when you said "to be able to claim that he saw God the Father and others should have put him on the road to where there was no way he could have done some of the things he did." That is a question that you will have to take up with God because He is the only one besides Joseph Smith whether the plural marriage was a commandment from God. There are no documents unearthed or yet to be that can answer that question. But that is not really on topic for this thread.

I read a blog by Michael R. Ash, the author of "Shaken Faith Syndrome" that may have some bearing upon this thread though.

In summary, it seems that a big bullet list of problems that a critic has with the church, with short, pointed descriptions is effective in swaying people with doubts. Efforts to combat that list are usually not as effective as the list because the explanation or refutation will most often be complex and multifaceted. Ash provides references (scholarly) for this phenomena.

  It seem's that apologetics is in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" type of situation. If the LDS scholars leave the field of apologetics in the light of this information, the critics win by default. If LDS scholars continue to do the legwork, to fill in whatever gaps that can be filled in the realm of secular knowledge, the critics still have the edge, because the answers are too complex for most people housing a serious doubt to grapple with. Most people seem to want simple, hard and fast answers, which just are not available. Often the answers also require specialized knowledge which most people do not have.

The final, definitive answer still has to come from God. And this is another problem for those harboring doubts, because often those doubts involve whether an answer can be obtained spiritually.

Glenn

[churchistrue]

Dr. Peterson's presentation was good.  It's the kind of talk that members that are firm believers will enjoy, and possibly cement them further in the church.  I don't think it goes very far to address the concerns of the huge amount of members struggling intellectually with CES Letter type issues.  But it wasn't a bad talk. 

[Calm]

Quote

And this is another problem for those harboring doubts, because often those doubts involve whether an answer can be obtained spiritually.

Which is a perfectly reasonable question, imo, since we can't transfer our own personal experiences of the Spirit any more than we can transfer our own personal feelings of love or despair, but just try to communicate a description of them somehow that presents them as believable.  Plus there are only so many ways we experience things in our lives and most overlap with each other in some way, for example the physical feelings of love can overlap with excitement, lust, peace, fear, and probably a dozen other experiences at the very least.  Just think of how many different things will start the heart pounding.

[Honorentheos]

34 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Jeanne, There is a huge difference in witnessing an event in person, i.e. the physical plates as opposed to obtaining (or not obtaining) a spiritual confirmation of polygamy. Martin Harris was the only one of the witnesses to ever join the Saints in Utah. Whether he ever accepted the practice is debatable, but early on was opposed to it. It probably is fair to say that just about all of the witnesses were opposed to the practice, that they never had a spiritual confirmation.

To me, it makes it more remarkable that none of those witnesses denied that experience, although it probably would have made them heroes to many people had any done so.

People have gone to strenuous efforts to impeach their testimonies and what you decide to believe is up to you.

Glenn

David Whitmer and his brother John both left the church by being chased out around the same time as Cowdery. The Church was more like the Roman empire after the Western/Eastern split leading up to this, with Smith and his latest muse Sidney Rigdon in Kirtland, Ohio, while Cowdery and the Whitmers were essentially doing their thing in Missouri. Though the saints had serious problems in Missouri until the creation of Caldwell County in 1836, the economic catastrophe caused by the Kirtland Anti-bank collapse and subsequent legal attempts to hold Smith accountable in 1837-38 led to his and many of the saints making for Missouri to abandon Ohio. The relationship between Smith/Rigdon and Cowdery/Whitmers was soured by many factors but probably as much by there being too many chiefs now that the collective of Saints had been consolidated. It didn't help that this also reignited the problems in Missouri over the belief the Mormons were crowding out the non-Mormons and a threat to them.

So, the charges against Cowdery and the Whitmers had more to do with property and power than anything else though both were clearly opposed to Smith's nasty affairs.

Subsequently, the Whitmers seem to have had the best success outside of the Church. When overtures were made to the witnesses to come back to the Church during the succession crisis (Young's brother in law having reached out to Cowdery, who in turn reached out to Whitmer), Cowdery was favorable but not Whitmer. Cowdery, being in declining health and fortunes, was in a different position than Whitmer. 

One isn't in a position to look at their testimonies in a vacuum. Instead, we have to contextualize it and their sustaining it or otherwise. It's telling that both Oliver and Harris may have reason to believe they may have denied or qualified their testimonies as they also spent a good deal of their lives outside of Mormonism attempting to distance themselves. David Whitmer, on the other hand, used it to continue to claim religious privilege including leading a church of his own. 

Whatever one's position, I don't think it's fair to view their support or opposition to the Saints as defining of anything other than their character as people. And I'd say it's suspect based on the evidence of their lives in retrospect.

[Jeanne]

35 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Jeanne,  I imagine that you are speaking of the polygamy question when you said "to be able to claim that he saw God the Father and others should have put him on the road to where there was no way he could have done some of the things he did." That is a question that you will have to take up with God because He is the only one besides Joseph Smith whether the plural marriage was a commandment from God. There are no documents unearthed or yet to be that can answer that question. But that is not really on topic for this thread.

I read a blog by Michael R. Ash, the author of "Shaken Faith Syndrome" that may have some bearing upon this thread though.

In summary, it seems that a big bullet list of problems that a critic has with the church, with short, pointed descriptions is effective in swaying people with doubts. Efforts to combat that list are usually not as effective as the list because the explanation or refutation will most often be complex and multifaceted. Ash provides references (scholarly) for this phenomena.

  It seem's that apologetics is in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" type of situation. If the LDS scholars leave the field of apologetics in the light of this information, the critics win by default. If LDS scholars continue to do the legwork, to fill in whatever gaps that can be filled in the realm of secular knowledge, the critics still have the edge, because the answers are too complex for most people housing a serious doubt to grapple with. Most people seem to want simple, hard and fast answers, which just are not available. Often the answers also require specialized knowledge which most people do not have.

The final, definitive answer still has to come from God. And this is another problem for those harboring doubts, because often those doubts involve whether an answer can be obtained spiritually.

Glenn

30 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Jeanne,  I imagine that you are speaking of the polygamy question when you said "to be able to claim that he saw God the Father and others should have put him on the road to where there was no way he could have done some of the things he did." That is a question that you will have to take up with God because He is the only one besides Joseph Smith whether the plural marriage was a commandment from God. There are no documents unearthed or yet to be that can answer that question. But that is not really on topic for this thread.

I read a blog by Michael R. Ash, the author of "Shaken Faith Syndrome" that may have some bearing upon this thread though.

In summary, it seems that a big bullet list of problems that a critic has with the church, with short, pointed descriptions is effective in swaying people with doubts. Efforts to combat that list are usually not as effective as the list because the explanation or refutation will most often be complex and multifaceted. Ash provides references (scholarly) for this phenomena.

  It seem's that apologetics is in a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" type of situation. If the LDS scholars leave the field of apologetics in the light of this information, the critics win by default. If LDS scholars continue to do the legwork, to fill in whatever gaps that can be filled in the realm of secular knowledge, the critics still have the edge, because the answers are too complex for most people housing a serious doubt to grapple with. Most people seem to want simple, hard and fast answers, which just are not available. Often the answers also require specialized knowledge which most people do not have.

The final, definitive answer still has to come from God. And this is another problem for those harboring doubts, because often those doubts involve whether an answer can be obtained spiritually.

Glenn

I