Calling Daniel Peterson

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jersey Girl...

I'll share my experience which may be typical.

I trusted those who I should not have trusted.

I seriously believed those, like Nibley, who had an argument for basically everything that did not seem right. I trusted them.

And I had faith that the church was true. I thought the reason things did not make sense were because there was something wrong with me. This is the teaching.

If you believe something, and people you trust and who seem to know, tell you something that helps you to believe, it is easy to continue to believe.

~dancer~

[_beastie]

Would you say that is because folks are more likely to (1) buy into what is presented to them by FARMS because they believe that what is produced by active Mormons must be accurate (2) because they have been conditioned to believe that critics (be they ex-LDS or other) are influenced by the Adversary?

Or is it a case of the paths never crossing to begin with?

I would guess that the vast majority of Mormons have never heard of FARMs (although I believe lds.org links it now so that may change - going by memory on that, I may be wrong). Most Mormons, like members of any other faith, are really uninterested in the details of their faith or church history, and just too busy trying to survive and feel good about life.

For those who have read FARMS, I would say that if FARMS apologia works for them it is likely due to the fact that they were determined to keep believing what they believed for spiritual reasons (and have too much hubris to imagine being mistaken about the meaning of a spiritual experience), and were simply looking for reasons to feel good about what they already believe, and are determined to keep believing. That Nibley worked so well and was so respected for so long, despite the problems with his research and seeming tendency to engage in wild parallelomania, is a testament to this. Many LDS who have read enough to feel slightly troubled about their beliefs really want someone with academic expertise, someone really smart, to give them lots of good sounding reasons to feel good about those beliefs. They have no inclination to probe the claims and assertions (which is why MADdites often offer "evidence" that can be debunked with a two minute google search). They are eager for these proofs and evidences, so accept them gladly without taking the time to investigate more thoroughly.

And of course they've been taught that critics are liars and have evil agendas. That goes without saying.

[Guest]

And again it all comes down to this: FARMS exists to reassure chapel Mormons, not to convince critics. For every critic on this board frustrated by the lack of apologetic integrity, there are many thousands of chapel Mormons out there saying, "There is all kinds of evidence for the Book of Mormon. Haven't you ever heard of FARMS?" Good job, Peterson!

Funny you say that. I just recently rode next to a chapel Mormon lady who was going on and on about the mountains of evidence they were discovering every day in South America that confirms the Book of Mormon. It was all I could do to bite my tounge and just nod and say, "Yep..."

As Tal says, the first question to ask is "would you even want to know if it wasn't true?" I could tell she wouldn't want to, so I kept my mouth shut.

Many LDS who have read enough to feel slightly troubled about their beliefs really want someone with academic expertise, someone really smart, to give them lots of good sounding reasons to feel good about those beliefs. They have no inclination to probe the claims and assertions (which is why MADdites often offer "evidence" that can be debunked with a two minute google search). They are eager for these proofs and evidences, so accept them gladly without taking the time to investigate more thoroughly.

This is one I've heard a lot too. "There are a LOT of REALLY smart men that still believe in Mormonism. They are smarter than YOU, so obviously it must be true!!"

[_Runtu]

Funny you say that. I just recently rode next to a chapel Mormon lady who was going on and on about the mountains of evidence they were discovering every day in South America that confirms the Book of Mormon. It was all I could do to bite my tounge and just nod and say, "Yep..."

Maybe she read Dr. Peterson's "latest evidence" for pre-Columbian horses. ;-)

[_beastie]

Maybe she read Dr. Peterson's "latest evidence" for pre-Columbian horses. ;-)

Or maybe she just heard someone who sounded smart on a radio show say "you should read the latest research".

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Maybe she read Dr. Peterson's "latest evidence" for pre-Columbian horses. ;-)

Or maybe she just heard someone who sounded smart on a radio show say "you should read the latest research".

That's exactly what I was saying. That's all it takes to convince the typical Mormon that there IS a lot of research and that it PROVES the church is true.

My sister once sent a link to Nibley that she thought supported the notion of "reformed egyptian." It was many pages long and had lots of big words and citations, but she obviously hadn't bothered to actually read it herself, the thinking had been done in her opinion, no need for her to study or question. There was nothing at all in that link that even began to validate "reformed egyptian."

All the Mormons I know are aware of FARMS, but I doubt they've read very much. Just knowing it is there assures them that there is all kinds of evidence available so their testimonies remain secure with no need to actually know the facts for themselves. They are too busy to mess with it themselves, but if I would read FARMS it would bring me right back into the faith. You gotta love 'em.

[_Mister Scratch]

Horses in the Book of Mormon are not a particular interest of mine. I've invited Scratch One to contact the Maxwell Institute, where people who actually follow this question reside. Anybody else is just as free to do that.

Good luck!

You promised to "look into" this issue. Have you done that? Or were you lying to me?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I was lying to you, of course. You already knew that. Why do you bother to ask?

Actually, here's how I recall it: I invited you to contact the Maxwell Institute regarding the horse issue. You showed little interest in making the attempt. I said that, if you didn't get an answer from them, I would intervene to make sure that you did. Eventually, you confessed that you weren't even really interested in the topic of horses at all, but were actually interested in trying to figure out the internal structure of the Institute. I told you that you could do that on your own.

[_Mister Scratch]

I was lying to you, of course. You already knew that. Why do you bother to ask?

Actually, here's how I recall it: I invited you to contact the Maxwell Institute regarding the horse issue. You showed little interest in making the attempt. I said that, if you didn't get an answer from them, I would intervene to make sure that you did. Eventually, you confessed that you weren't even really interested in the topic of horses at all, but were actually interested in trying to figure out the internal structure of the Institute. I told you that you could do that on your own.

I didn't get an answer from them, Prof. P. Quit fiddling around and live up to your word. Go on ahead and get me my answer. I will be waiting.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I didn't get an answer from them

Did you contact them?

Quit fiddling around and live up to your word.

I'm not fiddling. Nor am I waiting around for commands from you. I'm writing a book.

I don't recall your ever actually saying that you had sent a question to them. If you did, and received no answer, I'm happy to put the question to somebody there myself.

Please send your question to me. If it's a substantive one, I'll pass it on.

(Of course, if it's just an attempt to figure out who's who at the Institute so that you can compile some more of your silly dossiers and do some more sniffing for imagined dirt, I won't.)

Go on ahead and get me my answer. I will be waiting.

Please recall that I'm not your servant or errand boy.