Dr. Peterson question about MormonTimes article

[_Wisdom Seeker]

From the MormonTimes article:

But there are also intellectual issues, matters of history and fact, that can weaken or destroy faith. Here, too, the Spirit is essential. However, troubled believers can't always dispose of their doubts simply by redoubling their efforts or dismiss them for the sake of believing family and friends. They must be faced and, in some sense at least, dealt with.

Why is it that the Spirit is essential in these matters, when it is generally something that a questioning member probably lacks a feeling of?

I liked the fact that you mention that these issues often must be faced and dealt with. But, you stacked the deck in favor of Mormonism with the books that you suggested.

...the "first step" of Mormonism is what's really at stake. Did God call Joseph Smith? The rest is usually just details

And here is where reading only pro-LDS type books will possibly seal a person's eternal reward or damnation. Shouldn't questioning LDS members look at all sides of the argument? What if God did call Joseph Smith and in fact, Joseph failed along the way and introduced his own belief and polygamy into what was started?

You may say that God would not allow that to happen as he would remove him if this were the case. But, the prophesy that God would remove his leader before this leader ever led the people astray, was this a prophesy from God or was it from man?

[_bcspace]

Why is it that the Spirit is essential in these matters, when it is generally something that a questioning member probably lacks a feeling of?

Why would such as lack, as you admit, not imply the need for the Spirit?

I liked the fact that you mention that these issues often must be faced and dealt with. But, you stacked the deck in favor of Mormonism with the books that you suggested.

Well sure. Does the unbelieving antiMormon not stack the deck in his favor? If a believer questions, does this not imply that they want to believe and so should seek out faithful, as opposed to unfaithful, representations?

And here is where reading only pro-LDS type books will possibly seal a person's eternal reward or damnation. Shouldn't questioning LDS members look at all sides of the argument? What if God did call Joseph Smith and in fact, Joseph failed along the way and introduced his own belief and polygamy into what was started?

You may say that God would not allow that to happen as he would remove him if this were the case. But, the prophesy that God would remove his leader before this leader ever led the people astray, was this a prophesy from God or was it from man?

Sure. The parable of the sower. But God is not a communist that He would ensure all are immediately and irrevocably convinced of His truth. That is not a refining process. Instead He draws and allows others to draw in other directions.

[Guest]

...the "first step" of Mormonism is what's really at stake. Did God call Joseph Smith? The rest is usually just details

Accepting the prophetic call of Joseph call of Joseph Smith would be an important first step, but it does not settle the matter of how he performed in that calling or whether Brigham Young was truly called to be Joseph Smith's successor. These are all very important details to address.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Why would such as lack, as you admit, not imply the need for the Spirit?

Does spirit equate to good feelings? In that case, I have the spirit in regards to many things.

Well sure. Does the unbelieving antiMormon not stack the deck in his favor? If a believer questions, does this not imply that they want to believe and so should seek out faithful, as opposed to unfaithful, representations?

Sure some antiMormon's will stack the deck in support of the antiMormon position, but many want the whole truth and have read both sides of the argument to make a better informed decision, which I would suggest is the wiser path to take.

But God is not a communist that He would ensure all are immediately and irrevocably convinced of His truth. That is not a refining process. Instead He draws and allows others to draw in other directions.

Unless perhaps you were once a part of the organization/government that is known as the church. As is the case in past and current communist countries, the desire to abandon that belief/government is not well received. China suppresses information about Tiananmen Square as the LDS church suppresses as much as it can the things that it does not want it's members to know about.

[_bcspace]

Why would such as lack, as you admit, not imply the need for the Spirit?

Does spirit equate to good feelings? In that case, I have the spirit in regards to many things.

And people who fornicate would have the Spirit with them too. So no, it does not equate to good feelings, though such may be a secondary result.

Sure some antiMormon's will stack the deck in support of the antiMormon position, but many want the whole truth and have read both sides of the argument to make a better informed decision, which I would suggest is the wiser path to take.

I've never had a problem with that. I see a lot of baptisms that way. But I've yet to see a critical work that didn't lie or omit, and that's what usually leads to baptism.

But God is not a communist that He would ensure all are immediately and irrevocably convinced of His truth. That is not a refining process. Instead He draws and allows others to draw in other directions.

Unless perhaps you were once a part of the organization/government that is known as the church. As is the case in past and current communist countries, the desire to abandon that belief/government is not well received.

Thank goodness we decided in the premortal life not to belong to scuh an organization.

China suppresses information about Tiananmen Square as the LDS church suppresses as much as it can the things that it does not want it's members to know about.

Apples and oranges. In the LDS case, while it does (and not unreasonably) put it's best foot forward, information ostensibly critical of the Church is readily available and often quoted in antiMormon works.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I've never had a problem with that. I see a lot of baptisms that way. But I've yet to see a critical work that didn't lie or omit, and that's what usually leads to baptism.

I did not know that the critical things written were so effective in leading people to baptism. Perhaps the best missionaries of the church are those who are trying to tear it down. Dr. Peterson, did you hear that? You may want to include these critical works in your MormonTimes articles.

[_Pollypinks]

God would remove a prophet before damage is done? Did I catch the drift of that somehow? How come he left Ezra Taft Benson in place, after he claimed that all good Mormons were undoubtedly republicans. Or all the prophets from Joseph Smith who proclaimed women needed to be at home. Don't get me wrong. I liked being home with my kids. But economically things have really changed, so why demonize those who choose to pay all the bills instead of hang out with the kids, or, hang out without the kids?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why is it that the Spirit is essential in these matters, when it is generally something that a questioning member probably lacks a feeling of?

Because the back-and-forth and methodical tentativeness of scholarly argument will never, by itself, supply a solid basis for spiritual life.

I liked the fact that you mention that these issues often must be faced and dealt with. But, you stacked the deck in favor of Mormonism with the books that you suggested.

I make no pretense of being neutral as to the claims of the Church. I'm a believer.

I was recommending books that I thought would be helpful for strengthening or rebuilding faith, not creating a reading list for a graduate seminar. My approach to the latter would be appropriately different.

And here is where reading only pro-LDS type books will possibly seal a person's eternal reward or damnation. Shouldn't questioning LDS members look at all sides of the argument?

Again, I make no pretense of neutrality here. I was writing as an advocate. I was writing for people who, quite commonly, want to believe but have experienced some challenge that makes belief difficult for them.

What if God did call Joseph Smith and in fact, Joseph failed along the way and introduced his own belief and polygamy into what was started?

That's one of those "further step" issues for which, if it exists in a particular person's case, other resources are available and might very possibly be helpful. But if one has become convinced that God didn't call Joseph Smith in the first place, those derivative questions are existentially moot.

In the case of early Mormon polygamy, in particular, I would have several things to say, and would recommend several readings, including the recent book edited by Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster.

You may say that God would not allow that to happen as he would remove him if this were the case. But, the prophesy that God would remove his leader before this leader ever led the people astray, was this a prophesy from God or was it from man?

If I ever made that argument at all, it would be far down the list.

...the "first step" of Mormonism is what's really at stake. Did God call Joseph Smith? The rest is usually just details

Accepting the prophetic call of Joseph call of Joseph Smith would be an important first step, but it does not settle the matter of how he performed in that calling or whether Brigham Young was truly called to be Joseph Smith's successor. These are all very important details to address.

And, as I said in the article, those issues, if they were important to the doubter or the investigator, would have to be addressed in their own way. (The Jack Welch anthology Opening the Heavens, incidentally, has a good piece on the succession of Brigham Young.) But if the investigator or doubter rejected the prophetic call of Joseph Smith altogether, they would be of no more than antiquarian concern.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Again, I make no pretense of neutrality here. I was writing as an advocate. I was writing for people who, quite commonly, want to believe but have experienced some challenge that makes belief difficult for them.

I guess that is an important point in all of this. People often do lose their spiritual bearings and often desperately want to believe. This is much different than someone who lost their spiritual bearings and desperately want to know the truth. Learning the truth is going to be much harder and requires much more research and often breaks people's hearts in the process. Wanting to believe often requires more simplistic faith promoting reading and activities to get to what one truly desires. Is it no wonder that many critics of the church are angry and saddened, they chose not to reinforce something they desired, but chose to find out what is truth.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I guess that is an important point in all of this. People often do lose their spiritual bearings and often desperately want to believe. This is much different than someone who lost their spiritual bearings and desperately want to know the truth. Learning the truth is going to be much harder and requires much more research and often breaks people's hearts in the process. Wanting to believe often requires more simplistic faith promoting reading and activities to get to what one truly desires. Is it no wonder that many critics of the church are angry and saddened, they chose not to reinforce something they desired, but chose to find out what is truth.

You believe that Mormon faith and the truth fundamentally diverge. I don't.

Incidentally, the books I recommended in the article cannot justly be dismissed as merely "simplistic faith-promoting reading."