Hammer Away!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Joey, your questions have essentially nothing to do with anything I said.

Speaking of talking to grownups. I hope I fall into that category (there is some doubt),

You do. The contrast is clear.

and in keeping with the title of this thread, do you think your analogy of the car crash vs opinions on cars as it applies to David Whitmer's testimonies excludes the spiritual aspect of his knowledge? Isn't the spirit necessary to both testimonies?

What I have in mind with the comparison is simply a secular, conventional, ordinary evaluation of witness testimony.

I'm not considering the question of spiritual witness at all.

I am not phrasing the question very well but I think you understand what I am asking. I see you car analogy as an attempt to defend Whitmer's testimony of the plates without having to defend his testimony (or attack if you will) of Joseph Smith's theology later on. I am not sure they are that simply divided as I believe Whitmer would say he was guided by the spirit in both.

See above.

Best wishes.

[_Joey]

Joey, your questions have essentially nothing to do with anything I said.

Nice "Millet"! Seems to always work in Provo and on message boards for you guys. Do you ever wonder why the secular world still ignores your stuff???

[_brade]

In other words, do you believe that, setting aside the evidence of personal mystical experience, the evidence tips in favor of Mormon claims being true?

I believe that it does, and I'm not alone in this.

Others will see the situation differently.

Thank you for the response. Do you believe that's a feature unique to the Mormon story? If we performed the same sort of survey of other religions, do you believe that the evidence would tip in favor of those religions' claims being true?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you for the response. Do you believe that's a feature unique to the Mormon story? If we performed the same sort of survey of other religions, do you believe that the evidence would tip in favor of those religions' claims being true?

I believe that the evidence tips in favor of theism, and thus of all theisms, and in favor of the resurrection of Christ, and thus (to that extent) of all forms of Christianity.

In the case of some religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, the role of historical evidence -- the kind, roughly, that I have in mind here -- is minimal because their historical claims are relatively minimal.

[_brade]

In the case of some religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, the role of historical evidence -- the kind, roughly, that I have in mind here -- is minimal because their historical claims are relatively minimal.

Sure. I think we ought to set those aside as special cases for the purposes of this discussion.

I believe that the evidence tips in favor of theism, and thus of all theisms, and in favor of the resurrection of Christ, and thus (to that extent) of all forms of Christianity.

Hmmm, well, is that the extent to which you think the evidence tips in favor of Mormonism? So, to narrow it a bit more, say we perform this survey of the best available evidence of all of the major restorationist movements (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Adventist, Mormonism, etc.). And, what is of interest is whether each religions' official, foundational, and orthodox teachings are true. Do you believe that the evidence will tip in favor of each one's such teachings being true? Will this sort of secular assessment of the evidence favor one over the others?

Edit: And I just want to say that I'm not setting up some tricky gotcha argument here. I'm sincerely interested in what you believe about this sort of thing. As you've already noted, we disagree. I'm just really curious about the extent and precise nature of our disagreement. Presumably we have looked at much of the same evidence, but we assess it very differently. Why? Are there principles underwriting our different assessments? If so, what are those principles, and why do each of us operate on different principles?

In the interest of full disclosure, I recently decided to step away from the Church. At the very least I intend not to be active for a few months, but perhaps permanently. My problem essentially boils down to this. I don't find the notion of truth-via-spiritual-experience compelling, and I've come to distrust spiritual experience as a method of truth-getting. I also think that the best available evidence with respect to Mormonism at best leaves it an open question whether the foundational claims and orthodox teachings are true. Without trust in spiritual experience, that's the best I can say in favor of the relevant Church teachings. But, I think the situation is worse than that because I happen to think that the best available evidence is not suggestive of the truth of the relevant foundational claims and teachings.

I'd like to think I'm not alone in this way of thinking, and I've actually come to think that the sort of historical apologetics that's predominate ought to be replaced by a more philosophical apologetics focused on defending the needed sort of religious epistemology.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I believe that the evidence tips in favor of theism, and thus of all theisms, and in favor of the resurrection of Christ, and thus (to that extent) of all forms of Christianity.

Hmmm, well, is that the extent to which you think the evidence tips in favor of Mormonism?

No. I was responding very specifically to your question about "other religions."

So, to narrow it a bit more, say we perform this survey of the best available evidence of all of the major restorationist movements (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Adventist, Mormonism, etc.).

I don't see the non-Mormon religions in your list as making the same kind of historical claims as Mormonism does. Thus, they are not susceptible to the same sort of historical evaluation.

Will this sort of secular assessment of the evidence favor one over the others?

I believe that it favors Mormonism.

Presumably we have looked at much of the same evidence, but we assess it very differently. Why? Are there principles underwriting our different assessments? If so, what are those principles, and why do each of us operate on different principles?

It's possible but not certain that we've looked at the same evidence.

In any event, in fields quite apart from religion (e.g., economics, politics, philosophy, literary criticism, international relations, etc.) people look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions. Everybody differs in terms of overall worldview, psychology, personal history, educational background, prior assumptions, precommitments, and so on and so forth, and so we come to different evaluations of the evidence.

In the interest of full disclosure, I recently decided to step away from the Church. At the very least I intend not to be active for a few months, but perhaps permanently.

I'm sorry to hear it.

I also think that the best available evidence with respect to Mormonism at best leaves it an open question whether the foundational claims and orthodox teachings are true.

I think it's true that the evidence leaves these things "open questions." I don't believe that it was ever intended that there be compelling proof.

But, I think the situation is worse than that because I happen to think that the best available evidence is not suggestive of the truth of the relevant foundational claims and teachings.

On that point, we do indeed disagree very profoundly.

I'd like to think I'm not alone in this way of thinking, and I've actually come to think that the sort of historical apologetics that's predominant ought to be replaced by a more philosophical apologetics focused on defending the needed sort of religious epistemology.

I think the epistemological question is an interesting one, but I think the others are interesting and profitable, as well.

Are you, incidentally, aware of Jack Welch's essay "The Power of Evidence in the Nurturing of Faith"?

[_Jason Bourne]

Dr Peterson,

Perhaps you missed this post but I am honestly curious as to your thoughts.

But your insinuation that my choice was dishonest is unfair and deeply unjust. I believe that Level A history is true. (Haven't I said that enough yet?) I believe that Level C history is merely a more nuanced version of Level A. Teaching Level A is not dishonest.

Dr Peterson,

How would you feel if I were asking you to invest a large sum of money, or even just your annual retirement contributions into an investment vehicle but I only provided to you level A information about how wonderful this investment opportunity is?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dr Peterson,
Perhaps you missed this post but I am honestly curious as to your thoughts.

But your insinuation that my choice was dishonest is unfair and deeply unjust. I believe that Level A history is true. (Haven't I said that enough yet?) I believe that Level C history is merely a more nuanced version of Level A. Teaching Level A is not dishonest.

Dr Peterson,
How would you feel if I were asking you to invest a large sum of money, or even just your annual retirement contributions into an investment vehicle but I only provided to you level A information about how wonderful this investment opportunity is?

But that's precisely the kind of investment information that firms routinely give out in their annual reports, prospectuses, etc. It's the kind of information on the basis of which the overwhelming majority of us routinely make our investment decisions.

Such publications don't tell all the details of the story, and they're designed to put the company or fund in the best possible light. But they are truthful. If they are not, in some clear and fundamental way, they are subject to harsh legal penalty.

On the other hand, I regularly receive large legally-required financial reports from various bond and stock funds in which I have -- owing to my enormous ill-gotten Mopologist wealth -- massive stakes. They are chock full of very precise legalese and scads of numerical data, and I, like virtually everybody else, regularly place them in the recycling bin unread because they are essentially unreadable by ordinary mortals.

The first sort of item must tell a story that a close reading of the second sort of item would actually sustain.

In my judgment, the materials put out by the Church tell a story that is sustained by a close reading of the more detailed and nuanced sources. In other words, Level A is essentially the same as Level C.

Moreover, while there have been glitches and some disagreements along the path, the Church has supported historians for several generations now who have been far and away the foremost narrators of Level C history. The Church need not be ashamed of its remarkable commitment to solid Mormon historiography.

[_Buffalo]

But that's precisely the kind of investment information that firms routinely give out in their annual reports, prospectuses, etc. It's the kind of information on the basis of which the overwhelming majority of us routinely make our investment decisions.

Such publications don't tell all the details of the story, and they're designed to put the company or fund in the best possible light. But they are truthful. If they are not, in some clear and fundamental way, they are subject to harsh legal penalty.

On the other hand, I regularly receive large legally-required financial reports from various bond and stock funds in which I have -- owing to my enormous ill-gotten Mopologist wealth -- massive stakes. They are chock full of very precise legalese and scads of numerical data, and I, like virtually everybody else, regularly place them in the recycling bin unread because they are essentially unreadable by ordinary mortals.

The first sort of item must tell a story that a close reading of the second sort of item would actually sustain.

In my judgment, the materials put out by the Church tell a story that is sustained by a close reading of the more detailed and nuanced sources. In other words, Level A is essentially the same as Level C.

Moreover, while there have been glitches and some disagreements along the path, the Church has supported historians for several generations now who have been far and away the foremost narrators of Level C history. The Church need not be ashamed of its remarkable commitment to solid Mormon historiography.

Are you claiming that it is regular practice for firms to deliberately omit any and all negative information about themselves in their annual reports?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

They're just his opinions. But, as a witness, he speaks with far more authority regarding what he saw and experienced than does anybody who was not a witness.

This might be true if we were sure that Whitmer was a credible witness and that we were talking about witnessing something in the ordinary sense. I'm not going to comment about his credibility, but from his testimony, it isn't clear what he is claiming to have witnessed. It certainly wasn't a case of JSJr leading him to the plates and telling him take a long thorough look at them. In fact, it wasn't an ordinary case of witnessing the plates at all.

To use your own analogy, if I claim to have seen Bobby shoot someone, that is one thing. But what if I said that an angel showed me that Bobby killed someone? What court is going to accept that as valid testimony or consider me a proper witness?