Mormon History and Mormon Belief

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's a nice entry, just up today on Mormon Scholars Testify, from Paul Reeve at the University of Utah, about the relationship between his work as a historian and his faith in Mormonism:

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2699/w-paul-reeve

Since certain critics claim that honest history and Mormon belief are antithetical, Professor Reeve's statement might be of some interest to a few here.

[Guest]

Reading his testimony I see that Professor Reeves has the same problems with critical thinking and distinction between fact and fiction that you do, Dr. Peterson. He is just better at trying to justify his unfounded and irrational beliefs than you are.

Reeves insists that he does not "just believe". Then he proceeds to convince us that this is exactly what he does.

He describes how he maintains belief in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. He accounts his reason for continued belief to some event in early life, some miracle, which he interprets to be of the divine. Rather than be a bit skeptical in retrospect and seek rational explanations, he continues in his unfounded and irrational belief as to the supernatural provenance of the event.

This while making statements such as:

The rational mind is correct to be skeptical.

And yet we read:

I had my own otherworldly encounter which continues to speak to my soul and nourish me when spiritually weak.

In other words, when rationality starts to creep in, he thinks about the emotions elicited by this miraculous event and can feel better about a return to irrationality. He says as much.

In the intervening years I have learned a significant amount of Church history, more academic than devotional: polygamy, polyandry, treasure digging, first vision narratives, race, blood atonement, Mormonism and women, Mountain Meadows Massacre, curse of Cain/Ham, blacks and the priesthood, blacks and the temple, post-manifesto polygamy, correlation, and other topics that were unknown to me when I was nineteen.

It would appear that Prof. Reeves is not skeptical enough if he truly believes that these are hallmarks of the one and only true church on the face of the Earth.

Did he never ask himself why he did not know this when he was 19?

Did he ask why those leaders who profess belief in an eternal gospel were so embarrassed about these doctrines and beliefs that they saw to it that these truths were not taught to Bro. Reeves?

As scientist, I find that if data come to light that clearly falsify a certain hypothesis, it is best to develop a new hypothesis that is consistent with all of the data, rather than to pretend that the new contrary and disconfirming data actually support the old hypothesis. To do the latter, as Reeves readily admits he has done, demonstrates a great deal of intellectual dishonesty.

Reeves has provided a description of his faith that is exactly analogous to the situation I have just described. He continues in irrational belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, which he even cites himself.

If this is the best argument for belief in Mormonism that the educated in the Church can make, is it any wonder that educated people are leaving in droves and that conversion rates among the educated are in a downward spiral?

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's interesting how the entries seem to be getting more and more frankly apologetic in nature. With this guy, it seems almost as if you asked him to (a) respond to the Book of Mormon musical, and to (b) type up something that would stick it to critics who've dared to say anything about belief and history.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If such a trend really exists -- which is possible, but I doubt it -- it's by pure coincidence.

I didn't, as a matter of fact, ask him to (a) respond to the Book of Mormon musical, and to (b) type up something that would stick it to critics who've dared to say anything about belief and history.

Beyond the most broad general guidelines, which are sent to everybody, I don't dictate or attempt to influence what people say in their submissions to Mormon Scholars Testify.

(Perhaps the sinister mopologetic overlord "Mitchell" does, though. Who knows?)

[Guest]

From Paul Reeve’s testimony:

The rational mind is correct to be skeptical. Yet it is in that very moment of skepticism that the Book of Mormon (the scripture, not the play) encourages empiricism of an otherworldly kind and suggests a different way of “knowing.” The book’s last author presents all readers with an experiment in which he promises that God will actually answer prayers that are offered “with a sincere heart, with real intent” and that He will confirm the “truth of all things” unto the seeker.

J. Reuben Clark maintained a fervent testimony of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the day he died. He testified of the truthfulness of The Protocols to all who would listen, including Erenest L. Wilkinson (in Feb. 1949) and Ezra Taft Benson (in Dec. 1957). So fervent was his testimony of The Protocols that he would have proclaimed its merits from the pulpit if he could have done so without incurring the legal wrath of prominent Jewish Americans. (Henry Ford, another vocal proponent of The Protocols, was forced, under threat of legal action, to issue a public apology for printing lengthy excerpts of The Protocols in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent.)

Did J. Reuben Clark enquire of the Lord as to the truthfulness of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Is that how he gained his testimony of this intellectual ancestor of Mine Kampf?

Dan, would you agree that Clark’s belief in The Protocols influenced his thoughts and actions during his tenure as an Apostle? And would you agree that those who defend his Apostleship are guilty of, if not overt anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism by proxy?

[_gramps]

It sure is a pleasure to see believing Mormons reject Elder Packer's thoughtful message in "The Mantle...."

Gives me goose bumps. ;)

Heil, Mitchell!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Beyond the most broad general guidelines, which are sent to everybody, I don't dictate or attempt to influence what people say in their submissions to Mormon Scholars Testify.

Tell that to Leonard Arrington (or his family, for that matter), or to any of the other Mormons whose words you plundered for the site.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I sometimes quote the published words of deceased people, and, when I do, I do it in proper context.

How horrible.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I sometimes quote the published words of deceased people, and, when I do, I do it in proper context.

Lol. Does Mr. Stak need to bump his thread again for you? Or do you not understand what "proper context" means?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Typical Scratchian diversion.

You haven't come up with a genuinely new defamatory maneuver or sophistry in quite a few months now.

As to your question: He can bump it all he likes, as far as I'm concerned.