We are changing the site in a way

[_ExMormonScholar]

We divided the testimonies page into two sections, one says 'scholars' and the second says 'other testimonies'. This is for intellectuals, authors and other ex-members who have held prominent callings or who have dedicated themselves to studying church history. For example, Sandra Tanner may not be a 'scholar' but she knows Mormonism better then pretty much anyone. So we could have her under 'other testimonies'.

I created the site to provide balance. In my opinion Dan Peterson created the site mormonscholarstestify.org because the average TBM member who reads the site might think to themselves, "Wow, this Phd still believes? Maybe I can't comprehend the Book Of Abraham issue, but Dr. John Gee can, and he's and Egyptologist." Its as if a 'scholars' testimony is more valid or valuable than a janitors testimony. The internet is destroying the church and Dan's site is an effort to keep the average thinking members in the fold.

[_Malcolm]

That's an interesting line "the Internet is destroying the church".

I suppose that is true in a round about way. The truth is coming out now on the Internet, and the LDS church is frightened when truth is revealed.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I wonder if you can get Eliza Dushku's mother to contribute. She is a true scholar instead of those idiots you've assembled.

[_Joseph Antley]

Its as if a 'scholars' testimony is more valid or valuable than a janitors testimony.

So that explains the recent Mormon Athletes Testify website!

[_lostindc]

We divided the testimonies page into two sections, one says 'scholars' and the second says 'other testimonies'. This is for intellectuals, authors and other ex-members who have held prominent callings or who have dedicated themselves to studying church history. For example, Sandra Tanner may not be a 'scholar' but she knows Mormonism better then pretty much anyone. So we could have her under 'other testimonies'.

I created the site to provide balance. In my opinion Dan Peterson created the site mormonscholarstestify.org because the average TBM member who reads the site might think to themselves, "Wow, this Phd still believes? Maybe I can't comprehend the Book Of Abraham issue, but Dr. John Gee can, and he's and Egyptologist." Its as if a 'scholars' testimony is more valid or valuable than a janitors testimony. The internet is destroying the church and Dan's site is an effort to keep the average thinking members in the fold.

Best way to improve your site is to delete it. If I were an apologist I would be thrilled with your efforts. You make the opposite side of LDS apologists look rather mundane and outdated.

[_why me]

Wonderful. I look forward to reading testimonies from exmormons who now claim that the church is not true. I would like to have some proof however.

[_mfbukowski]

Wonderful. I look forward to reading testimonies from exmormons who now claim that the church is not true. I would like to have some proof however.

It appears that anyone with a BS degree qualifies.

The site is a joke.

How do you prove a negative? I have a testimony that Hinduism is not true.

Boy, that will get them Hindus runnin' for cover!

Yawn.

The whole premise of a "negative testimony" is absurd. I will be more than glad to give you a list of everything I do not believe in.

[_lostindc]

The least that site can do is make it comical. For instance, have someone dress and act as DCP or some other apologist. There is a lot of funny parody that can be played out.

[_mfbukowski]

I've got it!

How about a site for Mormons who became ex-Mormons who decided the church was true after all?

It's enough to leave the church for! Then I could get my picture on the internet!

Could I be on an ex-atheist site? Why not!!

Edit:

I love it! A site for ex-atheists who became Mormon! I know a ton of them.... you know how those postmodernist Mormons are.....

[_Runtu]

I don't know what to think of the MST site. On the one hand, it's fine to have a little web site for people to bear their testimonies. But I don't think that's all there is to it. In my ban-worthy top ten list, I said I thought the main point was that smart people still believe, that these scholars have wrestled with the tough issues and emerged with their faith intact. The unspoken corollary seemed to be that if they worked things out, you should be able to do so as well.

Dan told me that such wasn't the intent of his site. Instead, he meant to express that one shouldn't dismiss the church and the gospel as shallow and unworthy of attention. The faith of these scholars suggests a depth and richness of knowledge involved in Mormonism.

That seemed reasonable enough to me, but then on Sunday while sitting in the foyer at church (we just missed the sacrament), I picked up the copy of MormonTimes that was on the table and read Dan's piece "Solidly credentialed scientists can still have faith," which seems to me a restatement of what I said in my top ten list. The difference, apparently, is that I got raked over the coals for saying it, whereas Dan got published in a semiofficial outlet.

That said, I'm really not sure what the point of Ex-Mormon Scholars Testify is. Does it attempt to counter the argument that some smart, educated people are believing Mormons? I guess I don't understand.

And in the interest of full disclosure, a friend asked me last week if I would contribute to Ex-Mormon Scholars Testify. I declined.