Daniel Peterson and D&C 131.

[PseudoPaul]

7.There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8.We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

The above passage is an unambiguous metaphysical declaration and (to some) a divine revelation that the immaterial is non-existent and that everything on a fundamental level is comprised of matter.

Daniel Peterson has made numerous and explicit denials of materialism.

What possible strategies could Daniel Peterson use to bring his metaphysics in accordance with the revealed truth from God in D&C 131?

This is one area where Joseph Smith actually got a bullseye - ancient writers like Paul also had the same concept that Joseph Smith described, contra to DC Peterson's beliefs.

[sock puppet]

7.There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8.We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

So 'shrooms purify the body. Hmmm. Learn something new everyday.

[dastardly stem]

Peterson could be trying to use 2 different definitions of materialism. In a philosophical context he supposes Mormon spirit matter is basically immaterial since we can’t detect it. So for philosophical purposes he considers himself a non materialist but in a Mormon context he’s wholly material. He simply happens to see Mormon material as non material so he aligns his philosophy with the rest of Christian apologists. Then he can use their arguments.

[Rivendale]

Peterson could be trying to use 2 different definitions of materialism. In a philosophical context he supposes Mormon spirit matter is basically immaterial since we can’t detect it. So for philosophical purposes he considers himself a non materialist but in a Mormon context he’s wholly material. He simply happens to see Mormon material as non material so he aligns his philosophy with the rest of Christian apologists. Then he can use their arguments.

And remember Peterson thinks the core claims of physics are wrong.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Indeed. Most of Mopologetic engagement with atheists is simply to borrow argumentation from theistic philosophers and assert it applies to Mormonism. They absolutely do not. I'm sure DCP loves the cosmological argument as well (which also doesn't apply to Mormonism).

Although Blake Ostler is not a very nice individual online, he at least seems to have tried to develop a Mormon specific philosophy of sorts. Have you engaged with that? Is my limited impression correct? If so, why doesn't DCP lean more heavily on him?

I unironically believe that Blake is modern Mormonism’s most prolific and wide ranging philosophical theologian, but his actual abilities as a writer, philosopher, and theologian don’t even begin to approach a bar of “barely acceptable”.

Daniel styles himself more as a purveyor of ideas rather than someone who formulates and vigorously defends them. There is enough self awareness present in his writings over at ‘Sic et Non’ to suggest that Daniel knows philosophy and theology are not his wheelhouse and he does take certain steps to mitigate mistakes. I think that is why we see him borrow so much from Protestant and Catholic apologetics; if he cites someone else attacking materialism and then makes an application of that to the arguments of critics, it gives him a certain buffer of deniability if the criticism is ever deemed wanting. [snip]

I’ve been working on a private thesis that a fundamental and unique aspect of Mopologetics which sets it apart from other examples of religious apologetics is that the execution of Mopologetics always has an element of ineptitude present. Reading the books by Hazony, Van De Mieroop, and Rochberg, provided this backdrop to reading the Interpreter that makes me legitimately wonder what it is the Interpreter Foundation is even trying to accomplish.

Mormonism is nothing more than bricolage, as even some Modulated Mormons (such as Givens) are now admitting. Smith spent his whole life pilfering ideas from more authentic religious and philosophical traditions in an ad hoc manner. Mormonism is nothing more than a frozen-in-amber hodgepodge of 19th century Christian and scientific beliefs.

Brigham Young and some of the frontier Mormons were more original and did actually come up with some unique ideas. But they were so asinine and in such obvious conflict with current science and with traditional Christianity that those ideas had to be discarded.

There have been plenty of smart Mormons over the decades, but they knew better than to publicly articulate their beliefs in a book or lecture series. That type of thinking for yourself is forbidden. Can't have people intruding on the "stewardship" of the General Authorities. But with the growth of Mormon Studies as an academic discipline outside of Mormon-controlled universities, the long-running effort to censor dissenters just doesn't work anymore. And on the opposite side, the growth of online communities has made it so that the fundamentalist Mormons can also work to support each other.

I think it's possible for Mormonism to become philosophically richer and more interesting, but it will be in spite of the brethren rather than because of them.

[MG 2.0]

I think it's possible for Mormonism to become philosophically richer and more interesting, but it will be in spite of the brethren rather than because of them.

I think that’s already been at play for years now. I, for one, appreciate the ‘dig deep’ writings of those with a lot more training in academia than I have.

The insights of others have been important in my own faith journey.

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others. We would do well to remember that God calls on the weak to confound the wise and that the wisdom of this world will perish. God’s truth stands everlasting/supreme.

Discerning THAT truth is the challenge which ought to consume our pursuits/time. In my opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

[doubtingthomas]

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others.

General Authorities are educated. It seems the Lord doesn't call untrained/uneducated apostles and prophets like he used to in the first century. The Lord changed his ways.

[Marcus]

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others. We would do well to remember that God calls on the weak...

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?

[MG 2.0]

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others. We would do well to remember that God calls on the weak...

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?

Start here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/sea ... rue&page=1

Good reading!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?

Start here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/sea ... rue&page=1

Good reading!

No, that's a search on the lds site for "weak things of the world."

My question is about YOUR statement:

I don’t expect the Brethren to have the same degree of academic training/expertise as you and others. We would do well to remember that God calls on the weak...

Wow. Is that a typical opinion among the lds?