Hammer Away!

[Guest]

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.

In your view, are there any religions that are susceptible to the same sort of historical evaluation?

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.

Fair enough. In this case it looks like you and I differ enough in the relevant respects to assess the best available evidence differently. I think it'd be fascinating, to the extent possible, to investigate the precise nature of those differences.

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

I've read the essay before, and I just quickly skimmed through it again. The take home message seems to be that secular evidence is at least consistent with belief and in many cases supports, and in fact is in some sense necessary for a healthy and robust faith. However, there's a sort of presupposition of faith in the first instance. So, first there’s faith, then we find that secular evidence can strengthen faith. Please let me know if you think I’m misreading Welch. My worry is that faith in the first instance influences assessment of the evidence. Maybe not. Is there a way to rule that out? If there is, how? If not, should that fact (if it is one) at least temper confidence?

I think this thought from Welch's essay is interesting:

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith likewise affirmed that evidence, as convincing as in any court in the land, proves "beyond the possibility of doubt that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery spoke the truth."

This seems either very close or identical to your view, and here’s what I want to know. Proves beyond the possibility of doubt to whom? In other words, to what sort of person? To a person with the sort of background beliefs as Joseph Fielding Smith and possibly you and Jack Welch (and lots of others as you've said)? Or, to a reasonable person? By ‘reasonable person’ I mean something along the lines of the legal notion of a reasonable person. It’s difficult to tell whether you, or Joseph Feilding Smith, or Jack Welch are appealing to a special sort of person - a person with background beliefs sufficiently similar to your own - or whether you're appealing to something like the legal notion of a reasonable person. Each appeal brings about a very different claim. The former being much weaker than the latter.

Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts on this. I’d love to talk more about Welch’s essay and your views in particular, but I should stop here for now because work is calling.

---

Edited for clarity.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?

[/quote]
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.[/quote]

No not really. Perhaps I would partially agree when it comes to a corporate financial statement and sales literature. But a prospectus gives details about an investment vehicles history, management, risk level, what types of companies it invests in if it is a mutual fund, what commissions and fees are being charged and so on. There is an abundance of information that is required by law to be disclosed and it goes far beyond an A level type program. And guess what else. People who sale you investment products that don't give you all the nitty gritty up front, or purposefully withhold information from you that may persuade you not to invest can be sued and go to jail for such actions. More on that below.

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.

If you are talking sales literature I would agree. But not the detailed prospectuses that and other such information that is required to be given to you. Let's look at it this way. As a side business to what I do with most my day I hold a series 7 license. So I am what is called a registered representative. I can sell you insurance, IRAs, 401ks, annuities, stocks and so on. Acting as registered rep I am like a missionary for financial investment products. If you are a prospective customer I first have to make sure you are someone I want to do business with. I I suspect you involved in criminal activity, money laundering or the such I have obligations and procedure to follow to report such activity.

But once I decide you are a swell guy then we can do business. To do business with you I have to know you, know your goals, your health, your financial needs and so on. I have to do a risk tolerance analysis on you and then look at products that meet your suitability tests. Once I find them I have to explain them so you understand them. If you cannot understand them I am not supposed to recommend them to you. Then I have to give you all the disclosure as to my fees, commissions, investment vehicle fees, surrender charges, loads and so on.

This is not level A stuff. Not at all. if I fail to do this you can sue me, I can lose my license and if I really do bad things I can go to jail.

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.

But that does not mean the disclosures are not provided to you. They are. You don't have to look on your own, seek other sources, go to the library, buy books that are not produced by the fund in order to find out the details of the funds activity. It is given to you and you don't have to ask for it.

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.

The Church puts out what is the equivalent of a sales brochure the say Fidelity Investments might produce. It does not offer a prospectus or someone to explain the prospectus like Fidelity Investments does.

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.

Great. Teach it then in missionary discussing as well as seminary and institute classes. And I do think you could add it into a Sunday or priesthood/RD school course as well. It would be far better than the mind numbing Gospel Principles Manual we are using now.


Edited to add:

Another thought. If indeed financial investments were made by the company selling the investment only providing and offering A level type information (which again I strongly disagree that this is the case as stated above) then what do you do if your investment tanks and had you had details about the risks and such of the investment you would not have made it? Are you angry? Do you get rid of the investment? Are you much more careful in the futures about what you will invest in? Do you make sure you get the information that was not provided next time around? Would you perhaps sue? How do the Bernie Madoff investors feel? How about those who got caught up in the dishonesty peddled in the mortgage backed security debacle.

See this is why the regulators force investment companies to provide much more than A type information. And what happens when the regulations lapse, as they did in the late 90s and early 2000s then bad people sell bad stuff with A level only information. And that results in disaster.

I am typically for less regulation in most of our economic life. But I am all for it in the financial security arena because time and time again it seems like the dark side of human nature raises its ugly head and sells products that are highly risky and even fraudulent unless someone is watching. And people even do it when someone is watching.

[_brade]

I'm re-posting my last post and bumping this thread. Daniel, when you find the time I would love to continue this discussion. Also, I PM'ed you.

---

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.

In your view, are there any religions that are susceptible to the same sort of historical evaluation?

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.

Fair enough. In this case it looks like you and I differ enough in the relevant respects to assess the best available evidence differently. I think it'd be fascinating, to the extent possible, to investigate the precise nature of those differences.

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

I've read the essay before, and I just quickly skimmed through it again. The take home message seems to be that secular evidence is at least consistent with belief and in many cases supports, and in fact is in some sense necessary for a healthy and robust faith. However, there's a sort of presupposition of faith in the first instance. So, first there’s faith, then we find that secular evidence can strengthen faith. Please let me know if you think I’m misreading Welch. My worry is that faith in the first instance influences assessment of the evidence. Maybe not. Is there a way to rule that out? If there is, how? If not, should that fact (if it is one) at least temper confidence?

I think this thought from Welch's essay is interesting:

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith likewise affirmed that evidence, as convincing as in any court in the land, proves "beyond the possibility of doubt that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery spoke the truth."

This seems either very close or identical to your view, and here’s what I want to know. Proves beyond the possibility of doubt to whom? In other words, to what sort of person? To a person with the sort of background beliefs as Joseph Fielding Smith and possibly you and Jack Welch (and lots of others as you've said)? Or, to a reasonable person? By ‘reasonable person’ I mean something along the lines of the legal notion of a reasonable person. It’s difficult to tell whether you, or Joseph Feilding Smith, or Jack Welch are appealing to a special sort of person - a person with background beliefs sufficiently similar to your own - or whether you're appealing to something like the legal notion of a reasonable person. Each appeal brings about a very different claim. The former being much weaker than the latter.