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

[_Morrissey]

Then you all are obliged to treat your interpretation of your spiritual experiences with requisite skepticism, which is the exact opposite of what Mormons are instructed to do in fast and testimony meeting.

I’ve had variations of this discussion more time than I can remember. I recently brought up something similar in the Fanny Alger thread, when Nevo brought up the testimonies Joseph Smith’s wives obtained of the principle. In return, I talked about the testimonies of individuals like a fundamentalist modern Mormon, and Wayne Bent’s followers. I can’t imagine any faithful LDS would accept that these people’s testimonies really mean that God is sanctioning the behavior or belief in question. Normally, in past conversations, the most common responses are that these people have been misled because the “real” testimony – the ones LDS get – is so much more powerful and real. Some people concede God may want these people to do whatever they’re doing, so maybe God did give them a good feeling about it, but it just means PARTS of what they believe is true. Of course, these are inadequate rebuttals because they could just as effectively be used against the LDS testimony. Maybe other people’s testimonies are far more powerful than what the LDS have experienced, or maybe God just wants the person to be LDS for some reason, but is just verifying that PARTS of the LDS teachings are true, but the overall system isn’t “true”. (in fact, that is what I believed about my own experience when I first left the church but remained a theist for a while)

It’s one of those dead-end conversations. I imagine that’s why DCP won’t even reply. He’s been around long enough to know that there are topics that no LDS can effectively argue, and it’s best to just avoid them.

The inevitable implication of the Mormon epistemology is that spiritual witnesses experienced by Mormon regarding their truth claims are inherently more valid than the spiritual witnesses experienced by non-Mormons regarding their truth claims. Daniel can dance around this all he wants, but from where I sit, there is simply no denying this simple and obvious observation.

[_Morrissey]

Then you all are obliged to treat your interpretation of your spiritual experiences with requisite skepticism, which is the exact opposite of what Mormons are instructed to do in fast and testimony meeting.

I’ve had variations of this discussion more time than I can remember. I recently brought up something similar in the Fanny Alger thread, when Nevo brought up the testimonies Joseph Smith’s wives obtained of the principle. In return, I talked about the testimonies of individuals like a fundamentalist modern Mormon, and Wayne Bent’s followers. I can’t imagine any faithful LDS would accept that these people’s testimonies really mean that God is sanctioning the behavior or belief in question. Normally, in past conversations, the most common responses are that these people have been misled because the “real” testimony – the ones LDS get – is so much more powerful and real. Some people concede God may want these people to do whatever they’re doing, so maybe God did give them a good feeling about it, but it just means PARTS of what they believe is true. Of course, these are inadequate rebuttals because they could just as effectively be used against the LDS testimony. Maybe other people’s testimonies are far more powerful than what the LDS have experienced, or maybe God just wants the person to be LDS for some reason, but is just verifying that PARTS of the LDS teachings are true, but the overall system isn’t “true”. (in fact, that is what I believed about my own experience when I first left the church but remained a theist for a while)

It’s one of those dead-end conversations. I imagine that’s why DCP won’t even reply. He’s been around long enough to know that there are topics that no LDS can effectively argue, and it’s best to just avoid them.

The inevitable implication of the Mormon epistemology is that spiritual witnesses experienced by Mormons regarding their truth claims are inherently more valid than the spiritual witnesses experienced by non-Mormons regarding their truth claims. Daniel can dance around this all he wants, but from where I sit, there is simply no denying this simple and obvious observation.

[_beastie]

The inevitable implication of the Mormon epistemology is that spiritual witnesses experienced by Mormons regarding their truth claims are inherently more valid than the spiritual witnesses experienced by non-Mormons regarding their truth claims. Daniel can dance around this all he wants, but from where I sit, there is simply no denying this simple and obvious observation.

I suspect DCP just won't move his feet at all, much less dance. He's been around long enough to know the inevitable pitfalls of this particular discussion.

LDS would probably quibble over "more valid", but it is a true observation. Their testimonies are "more valid" either because they are qualitatively different, or stronger, or because the testimony is about the "whole package" of LDS, and not just God assuring them that PARTS of what they believe are true. They are "more valid" because the LDS testimony really means "the church is true", while the testimonies of others might mean "well, your current religion is not true in the same way the LDS church is true, but it's where I want you for now."

It's an interesting and important discussion because so much of LDS belief hinges upon this - not just their own testimonies, but the testimonies of the founders. Once you open the door to some skepticism towards LDS testimonies overall, then that same door invites skepticism towards, say, the testimonies of the "witnesses". Was what Joseph Smith experienced, for example, in "The First Vision" so fundamentally different than what others of that time period experienced, as well? (seeing actual visions of Jesus wasn't as unusual during that period and place as it would be today)

It's a big ole' can of LDS worms, so DCP is doing the smart thing by simply refusing to discuss it at all, and labeling it an "ad hom".

[_Morrissey]

The inevitable implication of the Mormon epistemology is that spiritual witnesses experienced by Mormons regarding their truth claims are inherently more valid than the spiritual witnesses experienced by non-Mormons regarding their truth claims. Daniel can dance around this all he wants, but from where I sit, there is simply no denying this simple and obvious observation.

I suspect DCP just won't move his feet at all, much less dance. He's been around long enough to know the inevitable pitfalls of this particular discussion.

LDS would probably quibble over "more valid", but it is a true observation. Their testimonies are "more valid" either because they are qualitatively different, or stronger, or because the testimony is about the "whole package" of LDS, and not just God assuring them that PARTS of what they believe are true. They are "more valid" because the LDS testimony really means "the church is true", while the testimonies of others might mean "well, your current religion is not true in the same way the LDS church is true, but it's where I want you for now."

It's an interesting and important discussion because so much of LDS belief hinges upon this - not just their own testimonies, but the testimonies of the founders. Once you open the door to some skepticism towards LDS testimonies overall, then that same door invites skepticism towards, say, the testimonies of the "witnesses". Was what Joseph Smith experienced, for example, in "The First Vision" so fundamentally different than what others of that time period experienced, as well? (seeing actual visions of Jesus wasn't as unusual during that period and place as it would be today)

It's a big ole' can of LDS worms, so DCP is doing the smart thing by simply refusing to discuss it at all, and labeling it an "ad hom".

I find it interesting that when in mixed company, LDS faithful hem and haw around this point. Whether they don't want to give offense, whether they intuitively sense it's a bit arrogant or off, or maybe they intuitively sense the actual implausibility of it when confronted with people of similarly strong convictions, or for whatever reason, I'm not sure. Or maybe they just do not understand the implications of their beliefs and bold pronouncements.

I confess that I didn't understand how the ad hom accusation applied.

[_Ray A]

I confess that I didn't understand how the ad hom accusation applied.

If you're talking about JSM's comments to DCP, then to be fair I also believe it was an ad hom.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

If you go back over the exchanges you'll see this verified, and to quote DCP, "classical ad hom".

Having said that, I've done this more times than I can count, but it's best to try to avoid it where possible. You can't establish the truth or falsity of a concept by questioning one person, examining their character and childhood, questioning their motives, etc.

[_JohnStuartMill]

That's not quite correct, Ray. The term ad hominem only applies to the logical fallacy of attacking the arguer as a means of attacking the argument, when the two are irrelevant to each other. It doesn't apply to every attempt to undermine the credibility of a person's testimony. From the Wikipedia article on the ad hominem fallacy:

In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.[2]

Example:
"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."

This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility.

If Dr. Peterson had offered a historical argument or a cosmological argument for Mormonism, and I attacked his credibility instead of his argument, then I would have been engaging in an ad hominem attack. But he didn't do that: he offered his personal experience as evidence for the truth of Mormonism. It's entirely proper for me to impugn the reliability of his personal experiences when his argument relies on them. As such, it's not an ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, I think Dr. Peterson himself understands this now.

[_Ray A]

he offered his personal experience as evidence for the truth of Mormonism.

He offered it because you probed him (at least a couple of times) and it was clear he didn't want to go there. Here is the first exchange (unless you can correct me):

Do you deny that you were taught to believe in the Mormon interpretation of "the Holy Ghost" as a child, or is my characterization more or less accurate

I don't remember either of my parents ever saying a word about the subject.

[_JohnStuartMill]

he offered his personal experience as evidence for the truth of Mormonism.

He offered it because you probed him (at least a couple of times) and it was clear he didn't want to go there. Here is the first exchange (unless you can correct me):

I don't remember either of my parents ever saying a word about the subject.

By "personal experience," I'm talking about the "promptings of the Holy Ghost," not about Dr. Peterson's upbringing. I brought that up to undermine his implicit assertion that his interpretation of spiritual experiences was reliable. As noted in the article referenced above, that's not an ad hominem, because it actually addresses the argument.

[_Morrissey]

I confess that I didn't understand how the ad hom accusation applied.

If you're talking about JSM's comments to DCP, then to be fair I also believe it was an ad hom.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

If you go back over the exchanges you'll see this verified, and to quote DCP, "classical ad hom".

Having said that, I've done this more times than I can count, but it's best to try to avoid it where possible. You can't establish the truth or falsity of a concept by questioning one person, examining their character and childhood, questioning their motives, etc.

I agree.

I have neither time or am inclined to read back over the exchange. I confess I may have overlooked what Dan was referring to, though from what I recall reading when skimming, I incline toward JSM on this issue, though I would not bet the farm on it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

he offered his personal experience as evidence for the truth of Mormonism.

Did I? I don't recall that. Could you provide a quotation?

I typically decline to discuss my own personal spiritual experiences on any message board. I don't remember doing so here.

I'm not interested in making such things an issue, and I don't care to discuss them.




.