There can be no evidence that Mormonism is false

[drumdude]

I regard challenges to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon as misguided. I think they're mistaken. I really do believe it's kind of an either/or, that either the Book of Mormon is historical, or if it's not, all the founding narratives of the church become ... problematized, to use the intellectual word for it. If there were no Nephites, who was Moroni? Where did the plates come from? ... Is God using deception? Is Joseph Smith using deception? Then what happens to all the claims of the church? It seems to me very hard to maintain a consistent middle ground there, and so I'm troubled by those sorts of arguments.

On the other hand I know people who are active, faithful members of the church who don't believe in the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. ... I'm not in a hurry to throw them out. I would like to convince them otherwise, but as long as they're doing their home teaching and doing the things they should be doing and raising their children well, I see no reason to take action against them, unless they begin to teach and advocate that in church meetings. ...

I haven’t been to church in a few years. Is it still unthinkable to give a testimony during testimony meeting that you don’t think the Book of Mormon is historical without any blowback?

[Rivendale]

I regard challenges to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon as misguided. I think they're mistaken. I really do believe it's kind of an either/or, that either the Book of Mormon is historical, or if it's not, all the founding narratives of the church become ... problematized, to use the intellectual word for it. If there were no Nephites, who was Moroni? Where did the plates come from? ... Is God using deception? Is Joseph Smith using deception? Then what happens to all the claims of the church? It seems to me very hard to maintain a consistent middle ground there, and so I'm troubled by those sorts of arguments.

On the other hand I know people who are active, faithful members of the church who don't believe in the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. ... I'm not in a hurry to throw them out. I would like to convince them otherwise, but as long as they're doing their home teaching and doing the things they should be doing and raising their children well, I see no reason to take action against them, unless they begin to teach and advocate that in church meetings. ...

I haven’t been to church in a few years. Is it still unthinkable to give a testimony during testimony meeting that you don’t think the Book of Mormon is historical without any blowback?

It does not end well here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=092o_pYO7Sg

[Doctor Scratch]

Up through around 2015, I couldn't imagine that the Church might not be true. Then I found the essays, and could not ignore what I found in terms of the obvious deceptions being presented to me. It was just too much, so I gave myself permission to question that 40+ year presupposition of truth. By the way, that's easy to say now, but giving myself the permission to question if the Church might not be true, was the hardest thing I have ever done, hands down. After that, my experience in studying and reading, including the most intense scripture study of my life, was that the evidence of "not true" fell into place with such overwhelming elegance and simplicity, there was no way to go back. Not without lying to myself.

Dr. Peterson is minimizing your experience, Dr. Moore:

People are different. Others -- including others who know as much as the person to whom you refer, if not more (and sometimes much more) -- have reported precisely the opposite experience. I have many friends who have spent their lives studying the history of the Church, ancient history, and the like, whose faith is very strong.

[Dr Moore]

Huh. I am fascinated that he is so certain about how much I know, relative to his friends. How is that measured, exactly? Advanced degrees? (hint, I am certain that I have more). Breadth of training? Or Mopologetic articles and books consumed? Degrees in Egyptian or Arabic Studies perhaps? Sheesh.

That’s some serious quantum mind reading, in any case. At the same time, I just have to insert a BKP mention here. Not all information is useful.

Is it so threatening that someone with a different type of lived experience would come to an overwhelming conclusion that the evidence at face value says “not true?” So threatening that every single instance must be bullied and dismissed with prejudice? How insecure is that?

[Gadianton]

To level the playing field, you'd really need to throw out all of his "friends" with big degrees who were born into the Church and had firmly committed to the Peterson "it can't be false" assumption long before entering their fields.

If he has friends who obtained their big degrees and then discovered Mormonism and were overwhelmed by the evidence and converted, then those are the interesting examples.

True, the secular world is biased against religion and Mormonism. But is it biased against Mormonism more fervently than TBMs growing up in Mormonism are biased towards Mormonism? I don't think it's even close. As biased as Richard Dawkins and the like may be, none of them hold that it's impossible for there to be a God or Mormonism to be true. Not even in the most extremely anti-religious types will say that it's impossible for Mormonism to be true. And the average non-religious academic is far less biased than Richard Dawkins. While on the other hand, as Peterson has admitted, it's a firm assumption by any member with a testimony that Mormonism can't be false. This is not a proposition of the most fanatical believers, Peterson is candidly sharing the rote of a typical faithful member. Dr. Moore as well as myself and many others on this board saw it the same way for a good part of our lives.

In other words, the bias of a typical secular academic against Mormonism is far less than the bias of the typical believer in Mormonism is in favor of Mormonism, but the odds of the typical believer leaving when encountering non-whitewashed information about the Church is pretty high, and the odds of a run-of-the-mill secular academic converting to Mormonism through the same information + any missionary lessons is about nil.

This should tell DCP to enjoy all the free meals and pats on the back, because there isn't going an infinite number of cows lined up to be his personal meat source for the rest of eternity.

[Doctor Scratch]

Great points, Dr. Robbers, though as the B. H. Roberts Chair, I feel obliged to remind you of the self-crafted mythology re: having come from an only marginally TBM household, where there was no priesthood holder in the home, and Professor Peterson’s full conversion coincided with his aggressive reading of “difficult” authors like Kant, Marx, and Ayn Rand. He points to his own personal story as an example of how “convincing” the restored gospel allegedly is.

Still, you’re right: How many of the folks on Interpreter’s board are post-PhD converts?

[Doctor Scratch]

Here’s something, though, that I’ve long found, well, striking: My small group of obsessive detractors are certain, of course, that I’m a very bad person. It’s not so much that they’ve exaggerated my villainy, though they have. It’s that, while they’ve almost entirely missed my actual flaws, they’ve attributed a whole host of desperately evil qualities to me that are overwhelmingly fictional. Weird.

Huh. I wonder which criticisms are “fictional” in his eyes? And does this interpretive lens go in both directions? Are all the criticisms of Jonathan Neville “fictional”?

[drumdude]

There is a tendency among many people these days to hold on to beliefs with little evidence, or even massive evidence against them.

I am thinking of supporters of Trump. People who think vaccines are a conspiracy. People who think we never went to the moon. That the New World Order is listening in on their conversations.

People who believe Hebrews built a civilization in the Americas in 600BC are identical to these crackpots. That it happens to be a religious belief does not give it any more credibility and should not shield it from equal ridicule and criticism to any other crackpot idea.

Daniel says that one day there may, no there must be evidence for the Nephites, because it really happened. That will be the same day that we discover the earth is flat, Atlantis exists, aliens built the pyramids, and the government has been poisoning all of us with chemtrails.

Daniel is a conspiracy theorist masquerading as merely a pious believer.

[Gadianton]

Great points, Dr. Robbers, though as the B. H. Roberts Chair, I feel obliged to remind you of the self-crafted mythology re: having come from an only marginally TBM household, where there was no priesthood holder in the home, and Professor Peterson’s full conversion coincided with his aggressive reading of “difficult” authors like Kant, Marx, and Ayn Rand. He points to his own personal story as an example of how “convincing” the restored gospel allegedly is.

Still, you’re right: How many of the folks on Interpreter’s board are post-PhD converts?

Interesting. You’re right that I was unaware of this, I thought he just discovered Added Upon and everything was turning out to be exactly as he was hoping and all was good news.

I didn’t know these other authors were so difficult. I remember as a teen I was a member of some book club a friend of mine got me into because then he got some free books because I joined. I recall getting the manifesto and the social contract for like a dollar; and they were very small books.

Because they weren’t very long, it felt like an accomplishment to get through them pretty fast. I don’t understand how that could possibly be so challenging. Didn’t he read the Old Man and the Sea in school or Of Mice and Men? None of this stuff talked about Nephites and horses roaming the Americas. I mean, that’s a small challenge because how could something aside from the scriptures and Hugh Nibley have any meaning?

But how do you have the frame of mind this it’s directly competing with the Gosp l

Granted, he was a more gifted student than I was. Maybe he read Marx and it struck him to the core with its sheer logic? But then didn’t that mean he had doubts?

[Marcus]

Here’s something, though, that I’ve long found, well, striking: My small group of obsessive detractors are certain, of course, that I’m a very bad person. It’s not so much that they’ve exaggerated my villainy, though they have. It’s that, while they’ve almost entirely missed my actual flaws, they’ve attributed a whole host of desperately evil qualities to me that are overwhelmingly fictional. Weird.

Huh. I wonder which criticisms are “fictional” in his eyes? And does this interpretive lens go in both directions? Are all the criticisms of Jonathan Neville “fictional”?

Peterson's problem with plagiarism isn't fictional.