Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

[_Morrissey]

Ok, what I am trying to get at is whether you believe that the preconceptions/beliefs held by Mormons (related to, say, the veracity of the Book of Mormon) are equally valid or more valid (I doubt you'd say less valid) than the beliefs/preconceptions held by others.

I thought I'd answered that.

Obviously, I'm a believing Mormon. I'm not, as it happens, a communicant Marxist or Freudian. So, although I believe that Marxists and Freudians can offer some valuable insights, I believe that the Mormon worldview is superior to the Marxist and Freudian worldviews where they conflict.

And, since I do believe in revelation, I believe that revealed "preconceptions" will be at least as valid as any others, possibly more so, never less so.


.

Thanks for the answer.

Well if they are "at least as valid as others" this does not say much for the value-added of revelation, does it? For revelation to have real value added, it should produce beliefs that are systematically more valid than beliefs derived from other sources. From where I sit, this is clearly what Mormonism claims for itself.

One typically only holds ideas that he/she are superior to others', otherwise it would not make sense to hold them. If, however, one believes that their ideas are superior because of some pipeline to an all-knowing and powerful deity, then this appears to me, all else equal, to imply a greater degree of intractability relative to ideas derived from other sources. I think this is what Beastie was trying to get at (she can confirm or disconfirm).

Have a good day Dan

[_beastie]

One typically only holds ideas that he/she are superior to others', otherwise it would not make sense to hold them. If, however, one believes that their ideas are superior because of some pipeline to an all-knowing and powerful deity, then this appears to me, all else equal, to imply a greater degree of intractability relative to ideas derived from other sources. I think this is what Beastie was trying to get at (she can confirm or disconfirm).

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you.

In these conversations, I sometimes wonder if I'm speaking English. It's nice, now and then, to "hear" that I was, indeed, speaking English, and someone understood quite clearly.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

… provide the sources that demonstrate the existence of the bow and arrow during the Book of Mormon time period, in the specified Mesoamerican region.

I guess it’s true: you don’t “get it” at all that a responsible and learned Mesoamerican expert would never reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon on the basis of something like your assertion that “the bow and arrow” are not attested by archaeological evidence. You see, a “responsible and learned Mesoamerican expert” would readily recognize the fact that the ability of archaeology to speak to such a question is minimal, at best. Evidence of bows and arrows is inherently unlikely to survive for long, and therefore a “responsible and learned Mesoamerican expert” would never base his conclusions on such unreliable data elements.

Duh!

Your ability to simultaneously employ ignorance and arrogance continues to be marvelous in my eyes.

[_Daniel Peterson]

If you’re like most LDS, the “possibly more so” is the real answer.

Thank you. Since I can't be trusted to give the real answer for myself, it's very helpful for you to step in and offer it on my behalf.

I actually don't completely agree with you, but I grant your superior right to speak for me, and will remain modestly silent on the point.

that same person may feel perfectly justified ignoring contradictory data from Mesoamerica, feeling certain that eventually evidence will be found supporting the Book of Mormon eventually.

And, as Thomas Kuhn has famously pointed out, nobody else thinks this way, and there are no paradigms.

Perhaps believers can appreciate the concerns of those not as persuaded that revelation is “possibly more so” valid than other preconceptions, who may not view the ignoring of data as justified at all.

As anybody versed in the history of science knows, anomalies are never put on the shelf, and theories are never adopted until they've been proven.

In fact, those same people may wonder if apologists are being deliberately misleading, when they make assertions about bows and arrows that contradict the accepted conclusions of the vast majority of professional Mesoamericanists, to use just one example.

Although, of course, you would be very reluctant to wonder such a thing, and would only do so as a last resort.

Why did Dr. Miller ignore the well accepted premise that while the EARLIEST horses were in North America, they went extinct approximately 11,000 years ago, and were re-introduced by Europeans many years past the Book of Mormon time period?

Although, like all believing Mormons, Dr. Miller and I are Siamese twins, we were separated at birth and, to the best of my knowledge, haven't actually met each other since that time. So I feel just a tad reluctant to speak for him on this or any other issue.

[_William Schryver]

LessUsee:

Well if they are "at least as valid as others" this does not say much for the value-added of revelation, does it? For revelation to have real value added, it should produce beliefs that are systematically more valid than beliefs derived from other sources. From where I sit, this is clearly what Mormonism claims for itself.

Once again confirming my long-asserted claim that the first thing to malfunction when an exmormon walks out the chapel doors is the irony chip.

Are you people really as incapable of comprehension as it often appears? I simply have got to believe that you are pretending, but it is certainly a convincing act.

[_Morrissey]

LessUsee:

Well if they are "at least as valid as others" this does not say much for the value-added of revelation, does it? For revelation to have real value added, it should produce beliefs that are systematically more valid than beliefs derived from other sources. From where I sit, this is clearly what Mormonism claims for itself.

Once again confirming my long-asserted claim that the first thing to malfunction when an exmormon walks out the chapel doors is the irony chip.

Are you people really as incapable of comprehension as it often appears? I simply have got to believe that you are pretending, but it is certainly a convincing act.

Ok, I'll bite. What the hell are you talking about?

[_beastie]

I guess it’s true: you don’t “get it” at all that a responsible and learned Mesoamerican expert would never reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon on the basis of something like your assertion that “the bow and arrow” are not attested by archaeological evidence. You see, a “responsible and learned Mesoamerican expert” would readily recognize the fact that the ability of archaeology to speak to such a question is minimal, at best. Evidence of bows and arrows is inherently unlikely to survive for long, and therefore a “responsible and learned Mesoamerican expert” would never base his conclusions on such unreliable data elements.

Duh!

Your ability to simultaneously employ ignorance and arrogance continues to be marvelous in my eyes.

It is irrelevant whether or not scholars would reject the Book of Mormon based on bows and arrows alone. You asked for an example of Clark or Hansen ignoring Mesoamerican data in favor of their preformed "knowledge" that the Book of Mormon is true. I provided two such examples. There are others, I assure you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well if they are "at least as valid as others" this does not say much for the value-added of revelation, does it? For revelation to have real value added, it should produce beliefs that are systematically more valid than beliefs derived from other sources. From where I sit, this is clearly what Mormonism claims for itself.

I disagree. Some of the beliefs that I hold are derived from everyday experience and from logic (e.g., that, if x is greater than y, and y is greater than z, x is necessarily greater than z), and I see no reason to believe that beliefs derived from revelation are surer than the absolutely unambiguous deliverances of my senses or of logic.

That's what I meant.

[_Morrissey]

Well if they are "at least as valid as others" this does not say much for the value-added of revelation, does it? For revelation to have real value added, it should produce beliefs that are systematically more valid than beliefs derived from other sources. From where I sit, this is clearly what Mormonism claims for itself.

I disagree. Some of the beliefs that I hold are derived from everyday experience and from logic (e.g., that, if x is greater than y, and y is greater than z, x is necessarily greater than z), and I see no reason to believe that beliefs derived from revelation are surer than the absolutely unambiguous deliverances of my senses or of logic.

That's what I meant.

Ok, I can accept that is how you function. This is not, however, what LDS doctrine emphasizes, nor how, I think, the common active member understands this issue.

But then one thing I think we've established pretty conclusively is that apologists approach the 'gospel' quite a bit differently than the common member.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Thanks for the answer.

Well if they are "at least as valid as others" this does not say much for the value-added of revelation, does it? For revelation to have real value added, it should produce beliefs that are systematically more valid than beliefs derived from other sources. From where I sit, this is clearly what Mormonism claims for itself.

One typically only holds ideas that he/she are superior to others', otherwise it would not make sense to hold them. If, however, one believes that their ideas are superior because of some pipeline to an all-knowing and powerful deity, then this appears to me, all else equal, to imply a greater degree of intractability relative to ideas derived from other sources. I think this is what Beastie was trying to get at (she can confirm or disconfirm).

Have a good day Dan

You're wrong, Morrissey. Clearly, the apologists are correct when they self-servingly equate a worldview won by hundreds of years of rigorous experiments and philosophical grappling with one that supports itself by appealing to emotions.