Mormon History and Mormon Belief

[_Doctor Scratch]

There's nothing "defamatory" in pointing out that MST is a part of your Mopologetic crusade, nor it it really "diversionary." This latest entry is frankly apologetic in nature; you are guilty of taking things out of context; you are guilty of manipulating the words of deceased LDS scholars on MST.

Why not bail out of the thread now, Dan, so that you can go back to MAD, high-fiving Bill Hamblin and making anti-semitic jokes?

[_Patriarchal gripe]

I love this quote from Professor Reeves' testimony:

“Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5: 21) or as Paul puts it in an epistle to the Romans, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1: 21-23)."

Perfect council for all Mormon scholars to remember.

[_Willy Law]

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.

Dan, what is your stance in regards to those who are later on record as saying that they do not believe in the faith claims of the church? I speak specifically of Joanna Brooks (who I love by the way). She has alluded to the fact many time on Mormon Matters that she does not have a belief in the faith claims of the church, yet you proudly display her "testimony" on your site.
It's your site, you can run it as you see fit, just wondering how you come down on uncorrelated Mormons being lumped in with the rest.

[_moksha]

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.)

Wow, you would have to really be into such a subject to have a ferverent testimony of it. Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, J. Reuben Clark all got really excited over this. Perhaps it fulfilled some inner desire or was in answer to a goat-horned call from Asgard.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, what is your stance in regards to those who are later on record as saying that they do not believe in the faith claims of the church? I speak specifically of Joanna Brooks (who I love by the way). She has alluded to the fact many time on Mormon Matters that she does not have a belief in the faith claims of the church, yet you proudly display her "testimony" on your site.
It's your site, you can run it as you see fit, just wondering how you come down on uncorrelated Mormons being lumped in with the rest.

I haven't, on the whole, paid much attention to Joanna Brooks and her opinions, and what you offer above roughly doubles what I know about her views.

I was and am perfectly happy with what she wrote for Mormon Scholars Testify, and I don't research into the backgrounds of those who contribute.

She probably represents about the "leftward" limit of what I would be looking for with regard to Mormon Scholars Testify, but I'm happy to have a range of statements and a variety of approaches represented on the site.

[_thews]

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.

Note that Dr. Peterson didn't respond to this... there's a reason. Challenge to any of Dr. Peterson's students - ask him why? Critical thought and the scientific method aren't built on arguments from silence, but rather facts. When the facts don't support your hypothesis, and an argument from silence is the crux of your new hypothesis, then how does one logically discount the facts that disproved the original hypothesis?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Note that Dr. Peterson didn't respond to this... there's a reason.

Yes, there is a reason:

I don't find DrW's hyperdogmatic scientism very interesting. Nor do I find his understanding of Mormon belief or of theism generally insightful.

And he believes me to be a dishonest and irrational obscurantist.

Accordingly, there's not much to discuss between us.

But you're free to discuss anything you want with him, as many hours in the day as you care to do so.

The joys of message boards!

[_thews]

Note that Dr. Peterson didn't respond to this... there's a reason.

Yes, there is a reason:

I don't find DrW's hyperdogmatic scientism very interesting. Nor do I find his understanding of Mormon belief or of theism generally insightful.

What you actually mean Dr. Peterson, is that you have no retort and therefore chose to ignore his response and instead chose to shoot the messenger. Intellectual honesty requires one to acknowledge the argument and avoid insulting the person making the argument you have no answer for. For example:

And he believes me to be a dishonest and irrational obscurantist.

You are putting words in his mouth that have nothing to do with the argument.

Accordingly, there's not much to discuss between us.

Again, this is ignorance of the point made. You deciding there is nothing to discuss is merely a failed attempt to imply it's true... it is not true. Dr. Wilson is a brilliant man and made a valid point... one you have to retort to, so you must again attack him instead of just engaging in intellectual conversation.

But you're free to discuss anything you want with him, as many hours in the day as you care to do so.

I'm not the one posting something Dr. Wilson disagrees with... you are. Why not respond to the argument made on a discussion board? Is this too complicated?

The joys of message boards!

I find your lack of civility defines your intellectual stance... checkmate, as you simply resort to childish insults instead of responding to the points made, but that's because you don't have a response isn't it? It's understandable, as you have no logical response and need to follow this empty charade yet again, because if you had a response, you'd (in theory) acknowledge the argument wouldn't you?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What you actually mean Dr. Peterson, is that you have no retort and therefore chose to ignore his response and instead chose to shoot the messenger.

No, as a matter of fact, that is not what I actually mean.

I said what I meant.

You are putting words in his mouth that have nothing to do with the argument.

LOL.

See above.

Intellectual honesty requires one to acknowledge the argument and avoid insulting the person making the argument you have no answer for.

This has nothing to do with either intellectual honesty or intellectual dishonesty.

I simply find engagement with DrW uninteresting and fruitless -- we've been the rounds, and the last several have been merely repetitious -- and, for that reason, prefer not to spend my time on it.

This is entirely legitimate: I don't read most books, ignore most articles, don't converse with most people, don't watch most television shows, don't listen to most radio programs, don't even glance at most newspaper and magazine articles.:

You deciding there is nothing to discuss is merely a failed attempt to imply it's true...

You are putting words in his mouth that have nothing to do with the argument.

Dr. Wilson is a brilliant man

I know. He's told me that numerous times.

and made a valid point... one you have to retort to, so you must again attack him instead of just engaging in intellectual conversation.

You are putting words in his mouth that have nothing to do with the argument.

Why not respond to the argument made on a discussion board? Is this too complicated?

It's not complicated at all. It just doesn't interest me.

Do you find that hard to grasp?

I find your lack of civility defines your intellectual stance...

While I, by contrast, find your boundless charity and never-failing kindness deeply moving.

checkmate, as you simply resort to childish insults instead of responding to the points made, but that's because you don't have a response isn't it?

Actually, no.

It's understandable, as you have no logical response and need to follow this empty charade yet again, because if you had a response, you'd (in theory) acknowledge the argument wouldn't you?

In theory, yes. In practice, in this particular case, no.

I'm perfectly content for you to apply your rule to yourself (that you must respond to every challenge, everywhere, from everybody, however uninteresting you may find it, and however many times you've seen it before, and whatever your history with the challenger may have been). It's your life, and your time. But that's not my rule, and I'm not interested.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Moksha wrote:

Wow, you would have to really be into such a subject to have a ferverent testimony of it. Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, J. Reuben Clark all got really excited over this. Perhaps it fulfilled some inner desire or was in answer to a goat-horned call from Asgard.

I vote for the goat-horned call from Asgard. :)

From Paul Reeve’s testimony:

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.

Did J. Reuben Clark subject The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to this “experiment”?

Did Joseph Smith subject the Kinderhook Plates to this “experiment”?

Did Ezra Taft Benson, Gorden B. Hinckly, Hugh Pinnock & etc. subject the Salamander Letter to this “experiment”?

Regarding J. Reuben Clark, “fervent testimony” is really the only way to describe his attitude toward The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He kept multiple copies of The Protocols in his library. He gave copies of The Protocols to anyone he judged to be receptive to the subject matter. He donated copies of The Protocols to local schools. J. Reuben Clark was--literally--a missionary for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion…and a racist, and a Nazi-sympathizer. The fact that The Protocols was exposed as a forgery in 1921 didn't seem to bother him at all.

J. Reuben Clark was also the founding father of the Brethren’s ultraconservative kook faction…but that deserves a thread of its own.