Leonard Arrington Testimony

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never been to the site. Not my cuppa... but... aren't there enough living scholars willing to add their testimony?

This appears to be a problem for MST

How so? The site has grown absolutely steadily, without even a single break, since it was founded in mid-December 2009. It has never missed a beat, and it has a queue of entries waiting to be posted.

In an earlier post on this thread, DCP admitted that he (or someone) had approached a number of Mormons who would qualify as "scholars" who had the good sense not to contribute to MST.

One of the reasons cited by DCP was that these individuals felt that going public with a testimony of the truthfulness of the LDS Church would damage their careers and reputations (a well founded concern).

When one professes belief in the truth claims of the LDS Church on MST, they are admitting in public that their judgment, ability to assess weight of evidence and critical thinking skills leave much to be desired when it comes to personal belief.

As I say, sometimes I suspect that DrW is a fiendishly good satirist.

Individuals who take for themselves the designation of scholar are claiming to the world that they have the ability to discern fact from fancy, science from pseudoscience, and reality from fantasy. Why would any individual for whom such ability is a stock in trade of their profession admit in public that they held strong belief in the unfounded, internally inconsistent, fantastical and demonstrably false truth claims of the LDS Church?

For those at BYU, and for others who live in an LDS saturated environment, such admissions are expected, I suppose. For those who don't, I simply cannot understand why they would expose themselves.

Apparently at least some candidates have had the good sense not to do so.

You commit the error, DrW, of forgetting how unique your splendid gifts are, of peerless intellect and supreme rationality.

Believers in theism in general, and in Mormonism in particular, plainly don't possess that combination of intellectual brilliance and logical rigor. And, for that very reason, it seems improbable that they would recognize their lack. These poor souls, afflicted (unlike you) with some combination or other of mental defect, psychological deficiency, and irrationality, presumably think that they're reasonably bright people and reasonably clear thinkers. (Seriously. I'm not making this up. They probably do!) They very likely don't realize that they're inferior, blithering idiots.

But neither do the vast majority of those who would graduate them, hire them, or promote them! The overwhelming majority of teachers and bosses in the United States and even beyond are theists, or at least more or less tolerant of theists. In other words, they too are inferior human specimens, incapable of clear reasoning and/or more or less stupid.

You are a rarity, and you should not sell yourself short. You are Random Chance's gift to humanity.

The run-of-the-mill executive who might turn down the job application of an openly Mormon Ph.D. is considerably more likely to be some sort of (necessarily stupid and irrational) evangelical or Jew or Catholic or even mainstream Protestant or even Muslim than to be a remarkably rational fact-lover like yourself. Heck, it's more likely that an academic department will fail to hire a Mormon because of "political correctness" (e.g., in connection with Proposition 8) than because its hiring committee is offended by the candidate's inability to share your peerlessly rational and sublimely brilliant worldview.

Sometimes, I'm tempted to think that DrW is a sockpuppet for a satirically-minded believer who wants to make dogmatic atheism look ridiculous.

I don't think it's likely to be true, but I don't rule it out, either.

If you don't think it is true then why say it?

I don't think it's likely to be true, but I also don't rule it out.

I note that one of your diversionary tactics is to pick out a handle for those of us who value facts

There's your trademark self-congratulation again.

mine appears to be "arrogant dogmatic atheist"

That's not a handle or a name. It's simply part of my evaluation of you.

others include "Chips"

No no no. That's Chip. As in Buffalo.

And you seriously think that Buffalo's posts are typically concerned with fact?

Most of the ones I see tend to be snide jabs and empty insults, and usually quite brief.

Maybe we're talking about a different Buffalo.

and "Cracker"

I don't think I've ever used that one. It's somebody else's epithet for Kevin Graham -- I don't recall who uses it -- but it's not mine.

You then substitute the use of that handle for any semblance of substantive response.

You're wrong on two of the three, and, in the third case, there's very rarely any actual substance to which one might respond.

Wanna try again?

Don't feel any pressure to do so; I'm actually, to be perfectly candid, not all that interested, and I'm going to be out all evening.

If none of the individuals you approached about being on MST stated that going public might damage them professionally, just say so (oh wait - you have already stated that some of them raised this concern).

As I said, a few have told me that.

If the truth claims of the LDS Church are not unfounded, internally inconsistent, and in many cases demonstrably false, just say so (oops, couldn't defend that position with facts either).

As you might have noticed had you taken a break from patting yourself on the back, I don't agree with you.

So if you just can't help yourself in terms of calling people names, then at least be accurate about it. Rather than "arrogant dogmatic atheist", perhaps you would be willing to call me a "concerned extremely low-probability agnostic scientist" ("agnostic scientist", or "apostate" would also be accurate).

As noted above, I haven't actually come up with a name for you. I haven't tried. Not interested.

This would allow you to emphasize to believers on the board how faithless and diabolically inclined I am while still providing an accurate personal description with which I would have no argument.

I haven't tried to paint you as faithless -- you've been sufficiently clear on that point yourself, I believe -- let alone as "diabolically inclined." (You seem to enjoy melodrama.)
__________

ETA: Perhaps you have not noted that I have never called you names or referred to you, or addressed you directly, using any designation other than your full initials or "Dr. Peterson".

I haven't called you any name that I can recall.

[_DrW]

Dr. Peterson,

I trust you realize that your above response did not refute with fact any of my assertions regarding the irrationality of belief in LDS truth claims, but instead simply pointed out that such irrationality should be (and usually is) tolerated in society.

However, allowing the fantastical claims and assertion of Mormonism to go unchallenged does a great disservice to those to whom real harm is done by the irrational claims and the compulsive need of the Church to impose its views and irrational beliefs on others. (Before you protest, please consider some 50,000 unpaid full-time missionaries and Prop8 as two well known examples of this compulsion.)

As to "Chips" vs. "Chip" and "Cracker" for Kevin Graham, I will take you at your word and stand corrected.

[_Simon Belmont]

Dr. Peterson,

I trust you realize that your above response did not refute with fact any of my assertions regarding the irrationality of belief in LDS truth claims, but instead simply pointed out that such irrationality should be (and usually is) tolerated in society.

It seems like you believe that you alone are the holder of truth and knowledge.

However, allowing the fantastical claims and assertion of Mormonism to go unchallenged does a great disservice to those to whom real harm is done by the irrational claims and the compulsive need of the Church to impose its views and irrational beliefs on others. (Before you protest, please consider some 50,000 unpaid full-time missionaries and Prop8 as two well known examples of this compulsion.)

Mormonism hurts exactly no one. In fact, it helps many. There are unpaid people doing all sorts of things they believe in, but that you might not believe in. It's their choice, and if they find happiness in it (and it doesn't harm others) then there is no harm done to anyone.

[_Hades]

Mormonism hurts exactly no one. In fact, it helps many. There are unpaid people doing all sorts of things they believe in, but that you might not believe in. It's their choice, and if they find happiness in it (and it doesn't harm others) then there is no harm done to anyone.

Hurts exactly no one? That's debatable. My good mother is wasting her golden years in Nauvoo right now and she is spending her retirement to do so.

[Guest]

Dr. Peterson,

I trust you realize that your above response did not refute with fact any of my assertions regarding the irrationality of belief in LDS truth claims, but instead simply pointed out that such irrationality should be (and usually is) tolerated in society.

It seems like you believe that you alone are the holder of truth and knowledge.

However, allowing the fantastical claims and assertion of Mormonism to go unchallenged does a great disservice to those to whom real harm is done by the irrational claims and the compulsive need of the Church to impose its views and irrational beliefs on others. (Before you protest, please consider some 50,000 unpaid full-time missionaries and Prop8 as two well known examples of this compulsion.)

Mormonism hurts exactly no one. In fact, it helps many. There are unpaid people doing all sorts of things they believe in, but that you might not believe in. It's their choice, and if they find happiness in it (and it doesn't harm others) then there is no harm done to anyone.

Simon,

You really should know better than to take such a position on a public forum. You are either naïve or a real glutton for punishment

It's late so I will just mention in passing the many dozens of gay young Mormon men who have committed suicide because aging, out of touch, willfully ignorant and uninformed individuals with megalomaniacal tendencies have told them that they are unworthy and broken and that the Mormon god would never intentionally make anyone like them.

After these I will mention the hundreds (thousands?) who have been alienated from their families because the Church told them and their families that the these young men would not be worthy to inherit the celestial kingdom.

If you just can't believe that this is the case, or if you need details, I would be more than happy to oblige you with a few blow by blow accounts of the process in Mormon families with which I am all too familiar.

And please don't come back with the tired "other Churches do it so it must be okay" response. The LDS said the same things about Blacks not being worthy to receive the priesthood until they found that they were essentially alone in this stance and decided to receive a revelation to change it.

More to follow.

[_The Nehor]

Hurts exactly no one? That's debatable. My good mother is wasting her golden years in Nauvoo right now and she is spending her retirement to do so.

This just makes her an idiot so she deserves it. Read DrW above.

[_Morley]

Hurts exactly no one? That's debatable. My good mother is wasting her golden years in Nauvoo right now and she is spending her retirement to do so.

This just makes her an idiot so she deserves it. Read DrW above.

Wow. Just above, DrW was writing about gay, young men who were alienated from their families because of the Church. I would never have guessed that Hades' mom fit that description.

[_jon]

The site has grown absolutely steadily, without even a single break, since it was founded in mid-December 2009. It has never missed a beat, and it has a queue of entries waiting to be posted.

Ehmm...how many in the queue are...well...you know...dead?

[_harmony]

Hurts exactly no one? That's debatable. My good mother is wasting her golden years in Nauvoo right now and she is spending her retirement to do so.

Who is she hurting? Nauvoo is a pleasant place, nice weather, good restaurants. Would you rather she spent her retirement doing something else? If she's happy there, what difference does it make?

[_Hades]

Hurts exactly no one? That's debatable. My good mother is wasting her golden years in Nauvoo right now and she is spending her retirement to do so.

Who is she hurting? Nauvoo is a pleasant place, nice weather, good restaurants. Would you rather she spent her retirement doing something else? If she's happy there, what difference does it make?

I just find it hard to swallow that people actually pay a billion dollar corporation to work for it. She paid the church 10% of her income her whole life and now she's giving her retirement too.

I'm sure Nauvoo would be a cool place to pass through on your way to someplace that really is cool, as you spend your retirement on yourself.