Dr. Peterson question about MormonTimes article

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it is a good analogy, however I would change a few things, You approach the driver asking why he is not braking and picking up speed down the long hill. You discover that what you thought was a licensed driver was simply a mannequin. You can either jump off, stay and hope for the best or try and take control. I think most people here are trying to take control.

In the analogy, the driver is gone. You can't ask him. And there's no mannequin. But that's not the point. The driver doesn't stand for God, or anything of that sort.

The fact is that the carriage is headed for a crash at the bottom of the hill. The analogue is that we're going to die.

Taking charge of the carriage isn't the point, either. Given the sense in which the analogy is to be taken, getting control of the carriage would be the equivalent of avoiding death. But, barring some really revolutionary medical breakthroughs really soon, that simply isn't going to be possible for any of us on this board. (Except, perhaps, for Eric. He's many, many, many years younger than I am.)

[_Wisdom Seeker]

But, I like my analogy!!

And we really are talking apples and oranges here.

[_Jason Bourne]

Dr Peterson

I am interested in reading any comments you may have about some things I said in my post above:

This is certainly true and also it can be problematic. Joseph Smith is the only witness to his vision. According to the Church whether or not Joseph Smith really was a prophet and whether the Church is true all hinge on that. There are two points I would like to make about this.

1: When I was a missionary we were told to teach the FV account, teach people that the spirit would tell the investigator that it was true, they would feel the spirit while we taught and they would know that they should be part of the Church that came from that. If they had issues as we continued to teach we would point out if they know Joseph Smith saw God and was called as a prophet that nothing else mattered. The Church was true and all that came from Joseph Smith was true and that is how they could resolve their issues.

But this approach is too simplistic. Even if Joseph Smith did see God do we know God wanted him to start a Church? Do we know the other claims Joseph Smith made of supernatural interventions are true? Could he have had direction to start a Church and strayed from it? Could he have been a true prophet that was a fallen prophet as many of those who followed and then became disaffected believed? Could he have been a prophet and introduced false ideas later on in his career?

When I was a about 28 I home taught a lovely new convert family. They were a few years older than me. They were a great family and we grew very close. A few years after they joined the wife started running into issues that bothered her. Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, women not having a chance to lead like men and so on. I used the if Joseph Smith saw God he was a prophet and all else was true. And in my immaturity I told her that it did not matter what she thought if this was true, she just needed to get her thinking in line with God and move on. This did not quite work for her. I now understand why.

The approach is really to simplistic. And this leads to my next point.

2: If we are to trust Joseph Smith and conclude that what he claimed was true then how are we to do so? Certainly with spiritual matters one needs to pray and include God in the decision making process. But one needs to look the to the evidence as well. What evidence do we have from Joseph Smith? Well we have the Book of Mormon, the revelations, the organization and so on. We also have his life and the way he behaved and acted. Theses things weigh heavily on whether or not we can trust his claims of fantastic intervention by God and angels.

And this is where I as a missionary as well as the Church I think falls short. To make a life altering commitment I think requires more than what the Church typically offers when it tells its members or prospective members to pray and act on the feelings they get based on those prayers. Feelings are fickle and can betray one often. We can get warm feelings that are that are like what the Church teaches is the spirit witnessing of truth by watching a good movie or reading a good book. I felt as powerful an emotion when I finished reading the Lord of the Rings the first time as I did when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.

I am not sure I have an answer for all of this. Maybe this is why I look more the the evidence now and sadly for me at least, it makes it hard for me to trust JSs claims in their entirety.

As for your carriage running amok down the hill, yes of course we all need to decide whether to have faith in God or live atheistically or even in some other system of belief (agnostic, ingonstic, Deistic, Hinduism or Buddhism). And time is not unlimited. Still that does not mean we need to make the decision with little or limited knowledge based primarily upon feelings which is how the LDS Church wants us to decided to commit. Again, why not take a more measured approach and have a chance for more full disclosure before say a non member takes the plunge?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Jason:

I take you and your questions seriously, and want to do them justice. Unfortunately, it's likely not going to happen tonight. I have a couple of people coming to dinner at my house in less than half an hour -- representatives of Saudi Arabia, of all things -- and then they're going with me to a fireside that I'm doing tonight.

If I don't get back to you soon, feel free to pester me.

The nonsense on some of the other threads is pretty much worthless, but the matters you raise actually matter.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Jason:

I take you and your questions seriously, and want to do them justice. Unfortunately, it's likely not going to happen tonight. I have a couple of people coming to dinner at my house in less than half an hour -- representatives of Saudi Arabia, of all things -- and then they're going with me to a fireside that I'm doing tonight.

If I don't get back to you soon, feel free to pester me.

The nonsense on some of the other threads is pretty much worthless, but the matters you raise actually matter.

Just a bump in the night.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sorry. Not tonight, either. I've had a very long day, and just finished writing my column for this week. I'm tired.

[_Jason Bourne]

Bumping for Dr Peterson.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sigh. I'm not going to get the big chunk of time that I was hoping for -- not today and not tomorrow -- so I might as well give this a hasty and necessarily inadequate stab.

My point, of course, was that, since the publicly available evidence is insufficient to definitively prove or disprove fundamental religious claims, any conclusion regarding them necessarily goes beyond the publicly available evidence.

This is certainly true and also it can be problematic.

It's inevitably problematic. I think it's meant to be problematic.

In this life, we "see through a glass, darkly." That's simply the way it is. For believers and unbelievers. And I don't think anybody really disagrees. It's the universal mortal condition.

Joseph Smith is the only witness to his vision.

To his First Vision, yes. But not to most of his other visions, which he shares with Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, etc.

1: When I was a missionary we were told to teach the FV account, teach people that the spirit would tell the investigator that it was true, they would feel the spirit while we taught and they would know that they should be part of the Church that came from that. If they had issues as we continued to teach we would point out if they know Joseph Smith saw God and was called as a prophet that nothing else mattered. The Church was true and all that came from Joseph Smith was true and that is how they could resolve their issues.

But this approach is too simplistic.

Perhaps. But Joseph's and the Church's other claims become much more probable once it is granted.

Even if Joseph Smith did see God do we know God wanted him to start a Church?

His continuance as a prophet, his reception of subsequent revelations, argues that his path was acceptable to God.

Do we know the other claims Joseph Smith made of supernatural interventions are true?

They tend to be better supported by additional witnesses than the First Vision is.

Could he have had direction to start a Church and strayed from it? Could he have been a true prophet that was a fallen prophet as many of those who followed and then became disaffected believed? Could he have been a prophet and introduced false ideas later on in his career?

It's certainly logically possible. I'm aware of nothing that would convince me of that, though, and am to the contrary, aware of much that, to me, points to his subsequent actions as divinely approved.

When I was a about 28 I home taught a lovely new convert family. They were a few years older than me. They were a great family and we grew very close. A few years after they joined the wife started running into issues that bothered her. Blacks and the priesthood, polygamy, women not having a chance to lead like men and so on. I used the if Joseph Smith saw God he was a prophet and all else was true. And in my immaturity I told her that it did not matter what she thought if this was true, she just needed to get her thinking in line with God and move on. This did not quite work for her. I now understand why.

Some people need extra help on specific issues. Perhaps a branch needs to be worked on. But the root is fundamental. If it's diseased, there's no hope for the plant at all, no matter what is done to the branches.

2: If we are to trust Joseph Smith and conclude that what he claimed was true then how are we to do so? Certainly with spiritual matters one needs to pray and include God in the decision making process. But one needs to look the to the evidence as well. What evidence do we have from Joseph Smith? Well we have the Book of Mormon, the revelations, the organization and so on. We also have his life and the way he behaved and acted. Theses things weigh heavily on whether or not we can trust his claims of fantastic intervention by God and angels.

And this is where I as a missionary as well as the Church I think falls short. To make a life altering commitment I think requires more than what the Church typically offers when it tells its members or prospective members to pray and act on the feelings they get based on those prayers.

The trouble is that the information is always more or less ambiguous, and yet the decision has to be pretty much absolute. One either commits oneself or, if the commitment is less than full, doesn't. Practically speaking, agnosticism usually ends up looking very much atheism.

Ultimate decisions have to, must, transcend the publicly available data. This isn't true only for Mormonism. It's true for any world-orientational decision.

Feelings are fickle and can betray one often. We can get warm feelings that are that are like what the Church teaches is the spirit witnessing of truth by watching a good movie or reading a good book. I felt as powerful an emotion when I finished reading the Lord of the Rings the first time as I did when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.

As I say, we see "through a glass, darkly." Yet we must decide.

I believe that spiritual promptings can indeed be distinguished from aesthetic reactions and mere emotions, but it's difficult, and each person must work on doing this, and there are no publicly available objective rules for doing so.

Incidentally, I believe that there is much in The Lord of the Rings to which the Spirit can, in fact, bear witness. (I've been a "fan" of Tolkien -- that's really too weak a word -- since long before he became really fashionable.)

I am not sure I have an answer for all of this. Maybe this is why I look more the the evidence now and sadly for me at least, it makes it hard for me to trust JSs claims in their entirety.

And that illustrates my point. The evidence is not decisive, and can be read different ways. I look at the evidence (I've been deeply immersed in it for decades now), and, in my judgment, though not without problems and perplexities, it points powerfully to the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith.

Do you really think God wants us to make a decision about the truth of the LDS Church in the same way we would have to make a decision to jump out of the carriage? Does God want us to act under circumstances that would be a urgent life or death situation? Or would he rather have us be able to examine, pray and take a reasonable approach?

I don't think there's any alternative. We're all dying. We all have a finite amount of time in which to act and in which to decide. But there is no alternative to deciding. Not to decide is, in fact, to decide. This is a classic instance of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

As for your carriage running amok down the hill, yes of course we all need to decide whether to have faith in God or live atheistically or even in some other system of belief (agnostic, ingonstic, Deistic, Hinduism or Buddhism). And time is not unlimited. Still that does not mean we need to make the decision with little or limited knowledge based primarily upon feelings which is how the LDS Church wants us to decided to commit.

We must make the decision with little or limited knowledge. That's the only kind of knowledge to which we have access. Mormon or non-Mormon, theist or atheist or agnostic, Hindu or Buddhist or Sikh or Muslim or Jew, we must go beyond what the evidence strictly entails.

And, frankly, most people must make their life-orientational decisions without the benefits of higher education or even literacy.

When Jesus called the disciples on the shore of the sea of Galilee, he said "Come, follow me," and they followed him "immediately." They didn't undergo a year-long catechism, let alone do several years of graduate study.

Again, why not take a more measured approach and have a chance for more full disclosure before say a non member takes the plunge?

I'm fine with taking whatever time and/or effort an investigator needs in order to make a decision.

Most people really don't study history or philosophy, and it's unrealistic to expect that they'll want to do so before deciding on a church. But even if they did, there are believing theistic historians and atheistic historians, faithful Latter-day Saint historians and unbelieving historians of Mormonism, Christian philosopher and atheistic philosophers, Mormon philosophers and non-Mormon philosophers. Evidence and logic don't compel any particular position. Bright, rational, and well-informed people can be found on every side of every major worldview.

[_harmony]

Joseph Smith is the only witness to his vision.

To his First Vision, yes. But not to most of his other visions, which he shares with Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, etc.

So sorry to butt in, but... if we are to rank the hierarchy of the importance of all of Joseph's visions/revelations, it seems like the most important ones are the ones that have no witnesses. In addition to the lack thereof at the First Vision, who was the witness to the revelation on plural marriage? and where is the revelation that restored the higher priesthood?

Thanks and my apologies in advance.

But this approach is too simplistic.

Perhaps. But Joseph's and the Church's other claims become much more probable once it is granted.

Simplistic = more probable? Isn't that assumption pretty... presumptious? I mean people have been studying God and all the accompanying layers for eons... simplistic just seems kinda weak and lame, perhaps what might be expected from a 19th century farm boy?

Even if Joseph Smith did see God do we know God wanted him to start a Church?

His continuance as a prophet, his reception of subsequent revelations, argues that his path was acceptable to God.

He was the only LDS prophet who died as a young man. I don't think "continuance" is a word that could be applied to him, once he made decisions that arguably put him off the "acceptable to God" path (Fanny entered the picture).

Do we know the other claims Joseph Smith made of supernatural interventions are true?

They tend to be better supported by additional witnesses than the First Vision is.

But wasn't the First Vision the most important?

Could he have had direction to start a Church and strayed from it? Could he have been a true prophet that was a fallen prophet as many of those who followed and then became disaffected believed? Could he have been a prophet and introduced false ideas later on in his career?

It's certainly logically possible.

I'm going to frame this.

I'm aware of nothing that would convince me of that, though, and am to the contrary, aware of much that, to me, points to his subsequent actions as divinely approved.

Oh, don't spoil my fantasy!

Some people need extra help on specific issues. Perhaps a branch needs to be worked on. But the root is fundamental. If it's diseased, there's no hope for the plant at all, no matter what is done to the branches.

I'm not following this. Branch = ? Root = ? Plant = ?

I believe that spiritual promptings can indeed be distinguished from aesthetic reactions and mere emotions, but it's difficult, and each person must work on doing this, and there are no publicly available objective rules for doing so.

So all opinions are valid?

I look at the evidence (I've been deeply immersed in it for decades now), and, in my judgment, though not without problems and perplexities, it points powerfully to the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith.

And they go about, two by two, witnesses for each other.

Except when they don't.

The lack of witnesses to the most important revelations is problematic.

My mileage and judgment varies, of course.

We're all dying. We all have a finite amount of time in which to act and in which to decide. But there is no alternative to deciding. Not to decide is, in fact, to decide. This is a classic instance of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

The wrong decision, while not life-threatening, can cause major problems though.

We must make the decision with little or limited knowledge. That's the only kind of knowledge to which we have access. Mormon or non-Mormon, theist or atheist or agnostic, Hindu or Buddhist or Sikh or Muslim or Jew, we must go beyond what the evidence strictly entails.

Trust self first.

When Jesus called the disciples on the shore of the sea of Galilee, he said "Come, follow me," and they followed him "immediately." They didn't undergo a year-long catechism, let alone do several years of graduate study.

The Christ had witnesses to his divinity... hundreds, thousands.

Evidence and logic don't compel any particular position. Bright, rational, and well-informed people can be found on every side of every major worldview.

I'm going to print this one out too.

[_Kishkumen]

It was my understanding that the First Vision was less emphasized in the early LDS Church than it came to be after the abandonment of the practice of polygamy. So I am not really sure that one could necessarily say that it was, without a doubt, the most important of Joseph Smith's revelations. Some might counter that the Book of Mormon is instead.