Peterson and faith - No Scholarship, just truthiness

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Peterson and faith - No Scholarship, just truthiness

Post by Mercury »

d like to speak with you today about some of the evidences for the Book of Mormon. I think the primary evidence for the Book of Mormon will always be what it always has been, namely the spiritual witness that people receive when they pray sincerely and in faith about the Book of Mormon. But there are other things that can be said about it, and I'd like to talk about some of the more recent evidences and interesting scholarly developments on the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, it seems to me also, is one of the chief evidences of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, perhaps with the temple. There is a great deal that is happening with Book of Mormon studies right now that I think is of interest, or should be of interest, to members of the Church and those investigating the Church.


This first paragraph on petersons "evidence" for the book of Mormon contains a striking admission. The strongest evidence he proposes for the Book of Mormon is, get ready for it, "because he says so".

I have spoken at length on Truthiness a year or more ago.

Essentially peterson believes that praying to a nonexistant god is good enough evidence for things countered by simple historical documentation and clear character issues with the original "witnesses". Supposed Spiritual eyes aside, what if anything does this prove?

If I were to say that the Satanic Bible is a correct document because I prayed to satan and I recieved a witness, what if anything does this prove?

Yes this is something that has been hashed over many times but I still cannot see why this man is taken seriously as an academic. What, if anything does this display of truthiness teach us besides the laughable assertion that a con man and his cronies were telling the truth and therefore you too should consider the Book of Mormon a correct account of the american continent and its history?

Dannyboy, your a shill for MormonCorp.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

rcrocket

Re: Peterson and faith - No Scholarship, just truthiness

Post by rcrocket »

VegasRefugee wrote:Dannyboy, your a shill for MormonCorp.


I think that the word is "you're," which is a contraction of "you" and "are."

A common error.

rcrocket

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Re: Peterson and faith - No Scholarship, just truthiness

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:
VegasRefugee wrote:Dannyboy, your a shill for MormonCorp.


I think that the word is "you're," which is a contraction of "you" and "are."

A common error.

rcrocket


Wow, no response. Wassamatter? pissed that you have no integrity or character?
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22020
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Peterson and faith - No Scholarship, just truthiness

Post by moksha »

rcrocket wrote:
VegasRefugee wrote:Dannyboy, your a shill for MormonCorp.


I think that the word is "you're," which is a contraction of "you" and "are."

A common error.

rcrocket

Sorry, I hit the submit key from the link for Fortigum's post, just to see what it would do http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=23366
Last edited by moksha on Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

Gotcha moksha.

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

Vegas,

Can you provide a link to Peterson's article?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
Gazelam
Lightbearer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:06 pm

vegas

Post by Gazelam »

Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


I got two people to pray about it. One got the "Right" answer, joined (and became inactive in a couple of months), the other got a "no" answer.

My sister also got a "no" answer. I got a "yes" answer.

The FLDSers who practice polygamy have testimonies of that. I just finished reading a book about Joseph Smith's youngest son David, and learned about the strong testimony he and his brother Joseph had of the RLDS.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Re: vegas

Post by Mercury »

Gazelam wrote:Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


You are assuming this is a proper test of truth.

Its not.

Its a function of truthiness. Look it up.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

beastie wrote:Vegas,

Can you provide a link to Peterson's article?


Its off his main site. Click on evidences for the Book of Mormon
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

Found it.

http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=1

This was also amusing:

One thing that needs to be said about the Book of Mormon from the beginning is that the very existence of the book is an astonishing thing. The sheer speed with which it was produced is a miracle. Many probably already know that it was produced in a little over two months. Now that may not seem as impressive to some people as it actually is. A few years ago, I was invited to prepare a book for a company that wanted a book on the Near East. They wanted it fairly quickly, in fact, they wanted it remarkably quickly. I asked them how much time I would have to produce the book if I accepted the offer, and they said a little over two months. Well, I accepted. One of the reasons I accepted was because I wanted to see if I could actually do that. Well, I did. I produced a book of about 140,000 words in a little over two months. I was pretty pleased with myself and other people commented that I wrote very rapidly and so on.


It amazes me that apologists use this canard. The fact is that Joseph Smith had far more than two months to produce the Book of Mormon. He publicly – ie, in front of friends and family – produced it in two months, but the idea of the Book of Mormon had been germinated YEARS beforehand.

And this:

Well, it's not only the speed of the book's production that I think is impressive, it's also the plausibility of the book as history. I spent a lot of my time reading ancient and medieval history by ancient and medieval writers, and this book reads plausibly as history. The people in it behave the way historical people did. The societies and civilizations in the Book of Mormon behave in the way ancient societies and civilizations did behave. This is impressive. This is something that I think was beyond the capacity of someone like Joseph Smith to prepare. I'll try to give you some examples of that as we go on.


The people in the Book of Mormon did not behave at all like the people in ancient Mesoamerica, with the exception of the most generic human traits.

I would also say that the details of the Book of Mormon, the complexity of the book, are also impressive. John Sorenson published what I think is a classic book a few years ago called An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon in which he produces plausible correlations for the Book of Mormon with features and locations in Mesoamerica. That is, I think, impressive, and I'm struck by many of the correlations he adduces. I would go beyond that and say that the first and primary impressive thing about that is the fact that a plausible and coherent geography can be deduced from the book that was produced so rapidly—so plausible and coherent that a little tiny town mentioned at one point in the Book of Mormon would show up two hundred pages later in the same place. Now this is beyond the capacity of my students to do. It's beyond my capacity to do in two months without a lot of aid and assistance from electronic gadgets and so on.


Sorenson's book is riddled with errors, and yet this, apparently, is still the best the apologists have. That, in and of itself, is telling, as well as pathetic.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

It seems to me that it is very, very difficult for critics to dismiss the testimony of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon.


Well, we'll just let the LDS themselves dismiss the witnesses.

"Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." (History of the Church, Joseph Smith, 2nd edition revised, 1978, vol. 3, page 232)


Somehow, Peterson isn't so eager to accept Whitmer's testimony in this case, I'll warrant:

Now in 1849 the Lord saw fit to manifest unto John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself nearly all the remaining errors in doctrine into which we had been led by the heads of the old church. We were shown that the Book of Doctrine and Covenants contained many doctrines of error, and that it must be laid aside; also that when God's own due time came for building up the waste places of Zion, that the Church of Christ must be established upon the teachings of Christ in the two sacred books.


address to believers

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/whitmer1.htm
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

Polygamy Porter
God
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:04 am

Post by Polygamy Porter »

And dolts like Peterson wonder why secular academia pays no attention to the so-called work of FARMS?

User avatar
Sam Harris
God
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:35 pm

Re: vegas

Post by Sam Harris »

Gazelam wrote:Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


Um, I got an answer to. And so did many others who have now left the church. It's called the power of suggestion.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi

Polygamy Porter
God
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:04 am

Re: vegas

Post by Polygamy Porter »

GIMR wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


Um, I got an answer to. And so did many others who have now left the church. It's called the power of suggestion.
A self induced emotional epiphany.

When I was a stake missionary and would go on splits with the full time missionaries once a week I saw the power of coercion on more than one occasion. They would basically "teach" them how to feel the right feelings about the Book of Mormon... At times It was like watching a palm reader.. start with wide general feelings then narrow it down to the desired feeling and then spring on them like a cat pounces a mouse and TELL them that's IT!! YOU HAVE RECEIVED YOUR ANSWER AND IT IS YESS!!

*cue puking sounds*

rcrocket

Re: vegas

Post by rcrocket »

GIMR wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


Um, I got an answer to. And so did many others who have now left the church. It's called the power of suggestion.


Hey, GIMR: You've been hiding from me!

How is this any different than the eunuch's experience in Acts 8:27-39? Was this the power of suggestion?

The power with your formulation is that it also cuts directly against the New Testament's model of requiring a "preacher" to explain the spirit and the message of the Sacrifice that is Christ Jesus. There are very few to no examples of people being converted by the Spirit without somebody else's presence prompting things . See Acs 2:12.

In His Name,
rcrocket

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Re: vegas

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:Hey, GIMR: You've been hiding from me!

How is this any different than the eunuch's experience in Acts 8:27-39? Was this the power of suggestion?

The power with your formulation is that it also cuts directly against the New Testament's model of requiring a "preacher" to explain the spirit and the message of the Sacrifice that is Christ Jesus. There are very few to no examples of people being converted by the Spirit without somebody else's presence prompting things . See Acs 2:12.

In His Name,
rcrocket


Foul!

Offense: Quoting a work of fiction as source material.
Offense: Doing something in the name of a revolutionary durring irrelevant political context.

Preliminary Judgment: Report to the telestial forum for in-game suspension.

Officers Note: Offender was quoting the bible as realistic account of corporeal events. Source material used has been flagged by Historians to be inaccurate. Physicists report the lack of evidence for its own reported time line and even its crass and objectionable morality plays are used to make somewhat valid but ultimately flawed arguments.

side note:
I had another dream about my mission last night. I am going to get you bastards. I am trying to show the way not for the stalwarts. Their lost causes. The only way we can ever bring this corrupt system down is through those who have been victimized and knew they were being screwed.

Life, it seems is looking up for me.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

Vegas: I get your point of view. However, GIMR is one of the few persons on this board who admits to being a Christian. Let's see what she has to say.

rcrocket

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Re: vegas

Post by Fortigurn »

rcrocket wrote:
GIMR wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


Um, I got an answer to. And so did many others who have now left the church. It's called the power of suggestion.


Hey, GIMR: You've been hiding from me!

How is this any different than the eunuch's experience in Acts 8:27-39?


The difference is that the eunuch was persuaded from the Scriptures, not persuaded by a warm fuzzy feeling which suddenly came on him.

The power with your formulation is that it also cuts directly against the New Testament's model of requiring a "preacher" to explain the spirit and the message of the Sacrifice that is Christ Jesus. There are very few to no examples of people being converted by the Spirit without somebody else's presence prompting things . See Acs 2:12.


Actually I see the LDS conversion experience as being directly against the New Testament model of requiring a preacher to explain the gospel. In the New Testament, conviction is the product of hearing the gospel and being convinced. There's no hint of conviction being the product of a 'burning bosom'.

rcrocket

Re: vegas

Post by rcrocket »

Fortigurn wrote:
rcrocket wrote:
GIMR wrote:
Gazelam wrote:Did you ever get anyone to pray about the Book of Mormon on your mision? I did, and each of them who actually tried to pray got an answer.


Um, I got an answer to. And so did many others who have now left the church. It's called the power of suggestion.


Hey, GIMR: You've been hiding from me!

How is this any different than the eunuch's experience in Acts 8:27-39?


The difference is that the eunuch was persuaded from the Scriptures, not persuaded by a warm fuzzy feeling which suddenly came on him.

The power with your formulation is that it also cuts directly against the New Testament's model of requiring a "preacher" to explain the spirit and the message of the Sacrifice that is Christ Jesus. There are very few to no examples of people being converted by the Spirit without somebody else's presence prompting things . See Acs 2:12.


Actually I see the LDS conversion experience as being directly against the New Testament model of requiring a preacher to explain the gospel. In the New Testament, conviction is the product of hearing the gospel and being convinced. There's no hint of conviction being the product of a 'burning bosom'.


No hint? Absolutely none? (I know this is the EV view.) In my particular case, it did not initially come with a burning bosom. But, I point you to Luke 24:32 which is a lot more than a non-hint.

In 1 Thess 1:5-6, Paul writes: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for yours sake. You became imitators of us . . . ."

Thus, Paul himself says that a conviction of the Gospel is not necessarily conveyed with words (i.e., the scriptures) but with power, the Holy Spirit and deep conviction, and seeing the apostles in action.

Augustine writes that, in his conversion, he was "slain spiritually." Confessions, bk. 5. He writes that he "opened my heart" to admit the things spoken to him by St. Ambrose, and that things "came also into my mind."

I think it is incorrect to characterize conversion to the Gospel being based simply upon a "warm and fuzzy feeling."

In His Name,
rcrocket

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Re: vegas

Post by Fortigurn »

rcrocket wrote:No hint? Absolutely none? (I know this is the EV view.) In my particular case, it did not initially come with a burning bosom. But, I point you to Luke 24:32 which is a lot more than a non-hint.


All that says is that while the disciples were talking with Jesus, they experienced a strong emotional sensation. They had absolutely no idea what it was or why they were experiencing it until after Jesus had revealed himself to them, and it certainly did not convict them of anything. In fact they couldn't explain it until Jesus had revealed himself openly. This is the opposite of the 'burning bosom' of Mormonism.

In 1 Thess 1:5-6, Paul writes: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for yours sake. You became imitators of us . . . ."

Thus, Paul himself says that a conviction of the Gospel is not necessarily conveyed with words (i.e., the scriptures) but with power, the Holy Spirit and deep conviction, and seeing the apostles in action.


Paul is saying, that the gospel was not merely presented to the Thessalonians by word, but by the visible signs provided by the Holy Spirit and by the conviction of the apostles themselves. He says nothing of the Thessalonians being convicted of the truth by a 'burning bosom'.

Augustine writes that...


I don't care for the writings of apostates 300 years after the New Testament era.

I think it is incorrect to characterize conversion to the Gospel being based simply upon a "warm and fuzzy feeling."


I agree. That's why I object to the LDS 'burning bosom'.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], msnobody and 12 guests