DiscussMormonism.com

Well, given the unfortunate turn of board events as of late, I thought it would be cheery to pay a visit to the aptly named MADboard. Indeed, much has been afoot! Specifically, I was interested in a thread titled, "On Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus", a thread begun by Professor Peterson as a kind of "plug" for a project he is working on. (This may have been announced here on this board as well.)

According to the thread, DCP was all set to give a talk on (as the title would suggest) evidence proving that Christ was resurrected. Obviously, this is a rather provocative, clearly problematic, argument to make. Here is The Good Professor's opening salvo:

DCP wrote: Some might be interested in a fireside that I'll be giving in Mesa, Arizona, this coming Friday, 6 March, at 7 PM.

My topic will be a new one on which I’ve never before spoken: I’m drawing up the notes for it right now, and I think I’ll title it (at least temporarily) “A Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”

The precise address is

3344 E McDowell Rd
Mesa , AZ 85213

I assume that it's a new LDS chapel there.

A perfectly innocuous opener, right? Well, almost immediately, the criticism sets in:

John Larsen wrote:I'm sure your presentation will be interesting and engaging, but with all due respect, from a secular evidentiary point of view, you would first have to establish that it is even possible to live again after ones own death. This has not been established. Similarly if I wanted to prove that Mark Twain had a perpetual motion machine, I would first have to prove the existence of the machine.

However, I doubt the intended audience will take issue with this point. I would attend if in Mesa.

Yes; a good point. Here is DCP's reply:

The Good Professor wrote:I don't agree. That's one possible approach, but it's not the only one and, in this case, not at all the best one. (However, I would recommend to you the Claremont philosopher Stephen Davis's fine book Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection, in which he considers not only the historical evidence but the intelligibility of the claim itself. This was the book that got me thinking along the lines that I'll briefly touch upon in Mesa, although there won't be much if any of Davis in this particular fireside.)

From the other side, though, if convincing proof could be given that Jesus rose from the dead -- if, say, you had actually seen him dead and then, three days later, conversed with him alive -- that would settle the question of whether it's possible to survive one's death.

This is nicely illustrated in the ancient Christian pseudo-Clementine literature, in which Clement, a young student of philosophy in Rome, having despaired of any meaningful resolution of the endless back-and-forth about whether life after death is possible, encounters an apostolic eyewitness of Christ's resurrection at a street meeting near his home. A reliable eyewitness, he decides, is worth much more than any number of theoretical disputes.

Pretty good, right? And then Mighty Curelom steps into the ring:

Mighty Curelom wrote:Be sure to stick around for the presentations immediately following Brother Peterson's fireside:

Romulus and Remus--Actually Raised by a She-Wolf?

The Twelve Labors of Hercules--Fact of Fable?

How Did Noah Fit Two of Every Animal on the Ark? Bible Secrets Revealed.

Can a Man Live for Three Days and Three Nights in the Belly of a Whale? Science Says "Yes!"

Quite a biting parody, this! Can you imagine the Mopologists' response?

DCP wrote:A cheap and stupid post, MC.

Bill Hamblin wrote:No, a quite typical post. Oh, right; same thing.

Hermes--a moderator wrote:here's some evidence that people can get away once in a while with lame cracks at daniel petersen. had you tossed this snark out at someone else you would've earned two days suspension from the board. daniel can handle himself, though, and we'll save your supsension for another day.~hermes

Wow, it's sure is a good thing that MC narrowly escaped a supsension! Why, you ask? Because this was his reply:

MC wrote:A cheap shot? Are you implying that the twins Romulus and Remus were, in fact, NOT raised by a wolf? Perhaps you dismiss the possibility out of hand, based on a superficial analysis and concluding that the story is, on its face, preposterous. And you feel that, by comparing the resurrection of Jesus to something as obviously made-up and mythological as ancient Roman religion, I'm assigning equal plausibility to both "historical" evets, and thus mocking the feasibility of an event held sacred by many.

Well, I can assure you that ancient Romans took their religion very seriously--at least as seriously as any Mormon. Why is the resurrection of a man any less preposterous than a pair of twins sired by a God and raised by wolves? Why is it considered a "cheap shot" to compare Jesus's resurrection with Hercule's twelve labors?

Regardless of the so-called evidences Brother Peterson intends to set forth, there is no qualitative difference. The reason ancient Greek and Roman mythologies aren't accepted as literal history is because they are implausible--they relate events which are universally understood to be impossible. No number of alleged witnesses or recorded statements from contemporaries sources can prove the existence of a race of 100 foot tall cyclopes, or a snake haired woman whose gaze can turn men to stone. We know these stories are myths because they are impossible. The same can be said for the resurrection of Jesus.

Of course, the response to such a claim will be that I'm a dogmatic materialist whose a priori assumptions nullify my opinions on the subject. Alright. Fine. So why do you reject the historicity of ancient Greek or Roman religion? Why do you find the comparison between two religions so inapt as to be insulting--a "cheap shot"?

Bill Hamblin, now free of his "Christodoulos" sockpuppet, offers up some familiar complaints:

Professor Hamblin wrote:With contemporary medical science we raise people from the dead all the time. Imagine what we will be able to do with medical science 1000 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years from now. And you have trouble believing that God could do it? Really?

The real issue is, of course, that you don't believe in God, not that you don't believe that God could raise someone from the dead.

Fascinating. Indeed, as interesting as all this was, it does not get at the heart of my OP. Really, I am far more interested in the reception that DCP's presentation received. Before getting to that, though, I think it's important to underscore the importance of this impending "project' of DCP's:

DCP wrote:On Friday night, I intend to examine some of the New Testament reports for date and plausibility.

Those who have already resolved to ignore whatever I say and to hold to their preconceived notions "regardless of the so-called evidences Brother Peterson intends to set forth" will be well-advised to stay home on Friday night and watch re-runs of Friends.

DCP wrote:My presentation on Friday night will involve the sifting and evaluation of ancient historical documents. (In fact, to be candid, I'm concerned that my presentation will savor too much of a graduate historiography seminar to work as a successful fireside. We shall see.)

DCP wrote:What could be the possible use of attempting to discuss this question with somebody who has already announced that he intends to hold to his dogmatic viewpoint "regardless of the so-called evidences Brother Peterson intends to set forth"?

But I think I may use MC's post in my opening remarks on Friday. They'll allow me to set up my topic rather nicely.

DCP wrote: This is the trial run of the absolutely first stage of a work just now beginning to be in progress.

Well, I suppose we can all take some solace in the fact that this project is merely in the "absolutely first stage." Certainly, we can admire Professor Peterson's ambition here. It's not just anybody who undertakes to prove that the Resurrection was an empirical fact!

Sadly, it seems that Professor P.'s message is far too complicated for the flock, and almost immediately, the complaints---whether explicit or otherwise--begin filing in:

JL Fuller wrote:I remember the Know Your Religion traveling firesides from a while back. We would travel 50 miles to hear some presenters. Mostly we went to partake of the spirit even if the topic was beyond our understanding. I think those who know of you feel the same way. Learning is a process. You will open another door to understanding regardless of whether everyone is able to follow along. That is what makes your talk important. It broadens the audiences horizons, to use an old cliché'. We need more of that. Our kids need more of that. Our kids need to see their parents attending this event. Parents need to model the behavior they want their children to adopt. The topic is less important.

As long as you go through the motions, everything will be okay. For example, there is no need to have an actual testimony; so long as you pay your tithing, go to the temple, partake of the sacrament, and attend to your other duties, you'll be just fine.

This next "review," though, from the posted called "Widow's Son," is far more interesting:

Widow's Son wrote: I attended the fireside. It actually had its roots in a Stake institute class that my wife regularly attends. I knew about 20% of the people there. The Chapel was comfortably full with another two or three rows into the overflow.

Brother Peterson is a wonderful speaker and his gravitas on the subject matter was quickly apparent.

I looked around as several listeners started taking copious notes, but by the middle point or so, most had given up as there were too many details to note and it was much more comfortable to just listen.

An intriguing detail. Perhaps DCP's lecture was too complicated for them? Or, was something else at play here? Widow's Son continues:

It did bring back memories of college days. I was just glad there was no quiz on the topic the next day.

Several times during the meeting, I sat thinking of people that I wished were in attendance, none of whom are members of the Church. It would have been a fantastic opportunity for either non-Christians or Non-Mormon Christians to see that Mormons can hold their own in scholarly Biblical studies.

It is indeed unfortunate that Dr. Peterson was unable to fully hold Widow's Son's attention. It seems that he was periodically drifting off, thinking of how great of an opportunity it would have been to have "non-Christians or Non-Mormon Christians" listen to a presentation which he himself has difficulty paying attention to. The review goes on:

With all due respect to Brother Peterson, my biggest concern was simply matching the subject matter to the audience. Since he mentioned a couple of times that this was a "tuneup" for some future works, perhaps matching the subject to the audience may not have been that important in the grand scheme of things.

Yes; maybe so. (I shall return to this later, though, as it is quite important in lieu of a certain detail.) On the other hand, does it seem fair to use all these innocent LDS as "guinea pigs" for his big "project"?

Nevertheless, the best analogy that I can think of is offering someone a drink from a firehose when they aren't all that thirsty to begin with.

Again: maybe so. Also again: stay tuned. There is more to this than meets the eye. The post keeps going:

The presentation was brilliantly prepared and wonderfully presented. I just don't think that there were many in attendance who had ever questioned or doubted for one moment that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. I think that the question at hand is an important and relevant one in the realm of the routine associates and contemporaries of Brother Peterson, but not so much in the everyday world of the LDS community in Mesa AZ.

Ouch. In essence, Widow's Son is saying that DCP was basically preaching to the choir. Why, one wonders, is it even necessary to try and persuade believing LDS that Jesus rose from the dead? What was DCP thinking? In any event, Widow's Son was still able to extract some "value" (and yes: there is a clear reason why I am placing the word "value" in scare quotes) from this presentation:

My favorite part was the tie-in at the end with LDS scripture and modern day revelation and the powerful and heartfelt testimony that he closed with.

I am very glad that I went. I will take an active interest in the future works of Brother Peterson.

Well, perhaps DCP ought to start charging fees for people to hear his testimony, then? If his scholarly presentations fly right over the heads of the bulk of listeners, then perhaps it would be better if he stuck to simpler, easier-to-digest material, such as testimony bearing?

In addition to Widow's Son, it seems that other attendees found the presentation lacking in certain regards:

Emam wrote:Bro Peterson --

(I am new to this forum for please forgive any mistakes)

I was able to attend your fireside Friday night. I waited for a minute to speak to you afterward, but then decided my comments might now be right for the setting and timing. I have a few thoughts and suggestions if you don't mind.

Eman

But, here's *real* kicker:

bethabaras wrote:I also attended and found the material quite accessible. I hope you continue to develop the topic.

The remarks raised a couple of side issues for me. Perhaps you care to speak to the following.

Seeing Paul's upbringing show up in his exclusion of female testimonies to the resurrection, what other ways can we see the Pharisiac training and mindset in the way Paul establishes the verity of Christ's resurrection, as a way of understanding and validating Paul's witness?

In speaking of James' (Jesus' brother) conversion , how might his experience in seeing Christ have impacted his ability to accepted by and reconciled to the saints at Jerusalem in order to serve as their file leader? And is there a similar situation in the case of Alma the Younger? (This in addition to the effect the experiences had on their own conversions.)

Last, Joseph Smith does not seem to have published his experiences with Heavenly visitors in full bloom from the beginning. Perhaps he came to understand them better as he went along. Perhaps he simply found them too sacred to share openly. How do you compare the record and style of witnesses after Christ's time, and the way they developed over time, with Joseph's witness and the way it developed?

Thanks again. My wife and I enjoyed it very much. And after the entrance fee, we still had enough for a very nice dinner afterwards.

(emphasis added)

I have to confess, this made me do a double-take. Is bethabaras just joking? Surely, people were allowed to attend this event for free. Right? Or, were the FARMS people charging admission to a presentation which was really only "the trial run of the absolutely first stage of a work just now beginning to be in progress." If so, it raises a number of questions. I hope DCP is along shortly to clarify whether or not these folks--a few of whom seemed to be dissatisfied in some regards with their experience--were charged for attending, and whether or not they'll have the opportunity to demand a refund.

Scratch wrote:I hope DCP is along shortly to clarify whether or not these folks--a few of whom seemed to be dissatisfied in some regards with their experience--were charged for attending, and whether or not they'll have the opportunity to demand a refund.

I have to admit, it does seem unusual that a lecture, particularly one being held at an LDS chapel, would charge admission. I wonder if there was some type of optional donation? That type of thing is pretty common-place for educational symposiums.

Maybe Daniel can shed some light on what the funds are used for, if that is the case. Normally, when optional donations are taken, the organizations are pretty straight-forward with what the money is used for... reimbursement in travel, printing of materials, etc.

liz3564 wrote:

Scratch wrote:I hope DCP is along shortly to clarify whether or not these folks--a few of whom seemed to be dissatisfied in some regards with their experience--were charged for attending, and whether or not they'll have the opportunity to demand a refund.

I have to admit, it does seem unusual that a lecture, particularly one being held at an LDS chapel, would charge admission.

Yes, I agree, Liz, and it makes me wonder if the poster was just joking.

Mister Scratch wrote:

MC wrote:A cheap shot? Are you implying that the twins Romulus and Remus were, in fact, NOT raised by a wolf? Perhaps you dismiss the possibility out of hand, based on a superficial analysis and concluding that the story is, on its face, preposterous. And you feel that, by comparing the resurrection of Jesus to something as obviously made-up and mythological as ancient Roman religion, I'm assigning equal plausibility to both "historical" evets, and thus mocking the feasibility of an event held sacred by many.

Well, I can assure you that ancient Romans took their religion very seriously--at least as seriously as any Mormon. Why is the resurrection of a man any less preposterous than a pair of twins sired by a God and raised by wolves? Why is it considered a "cheap shot" to compare Jesus's resurrection with Hercule's twelve labors?

Regardless of the so-called evidences Brother Peterson intends to set forth, there is no qualitative difference. The reason ancient Greek and Roman mythologies aren't accepted as literal history is because they are implausible--they relate events which are universally understood to be impossible. No number of alleged witnesses or recorded statements from contemporaries sources can prove the existence of a race of 100 foot tall cyclopes, or a snake haired woman whose gaze can turn men to stone. We know these stories are myths because they are impossible. The same can be said for the resurrection of Jesus.

Of course, the response to such a claim will be that I'm a dogmatic materialist whose a priori assumptions nullify my opinions on the subject. all right. Fine. So why do you reject the historicity of ancient Greek or Roman religion? Why do you find the comparison between two religions so inapt as to be insulting--a "cheap shot"?

Oh man, I forgot what an excellent poster MC was. He is certainly one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dreary place. That guy's brilliant.

I also have to say that I had a good laugh seeing danny boy tell people to stay home if they disagree with his point of view. That's pretty much little danny in a nutshell, isn't it? If you aren't there to feed his perpetually starving ego, you are of no use to him. In fact, you aren't even welcome. The only way to get civility out of danny is to fall all over yourself stuffing the hole in his soul.

So christ-like, don'cha think? LOL

As I've said before, this kind of stuff almost makes me pity him, but then he opens his mouth, and I'm over it right away.

Scratch, this may be an odd idea but why not go to the lecture if you're this interested?

There was no charge.

Her Dr. Peterson, if you haven't already read it, you should check out this book:

The Christ Commission by Og Mandino.

Mandino is a writer of "motivational" books in a christian vein, and "The Christ Commission" is a fun little story about someone who claims he will prove Christ wasn't resurrected, and then gets taken back in time (I forget how...no DeLoreans though), and investigates in Jerusalem circa 33AD.

It's more of an inspirational/motivational type book than anything scholarly, but it's short and fun, and worth an hour or two for anyone interested in the "proof" of Jesus' resurrection.

I, of course, have no illusions that I can "prove" the resurrection of Christ.

I am repelled and disgusted.

Not at DCP, mind you, but at his audience--assuming those MA&D responders were a representative sample.

For once in their dreary lives, they get treated to a speaker who plainly appealed the the highest common denominator--and then they complain that he hadn't appealed to the lowest common denominator, like all the rest of their correlated lessons do?

Not only that, but he offered them something brand-new, by their own admission, but they chose to complain that it wasn't the same ol' drivel that they hear every week anyway?

And to top it all off, they complian that DCP gave them too much information, as opposed to the on-and-on droning over a single principle or two like they're used to?

Geez. What sheep. If Mormonism is true, then DCP is wasted on them.

Daniel, did you discuss the Talpiot find at all?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrjebody4.htm

Mary