Some comments on the essay:
The essay represents the most carefully edited paper published to date in IJMS. I would credit this to the fact that it was written by an exceedingly polished writer, rather than crediting the editorial work of others associated with IJMS (see, for example, here and here).
Errors I identified:
Page vi: "you" in the line "the one gate to the faith which you believe" should be italicized
Page ix: a period should follow "in Latter-day Saint scripture"
Page xi: a comma should probably follow "for Ibn Rushd"
The essay examines some arguments made by al-Ghazālī (Abū Ḥāmid) and Ibn Rushd (Averroës or Abū al-Walīd), who, according to Peterson, are "among the very greatest thinkers ever produced by the Islamic intellectual tradition" and who "thought long and hard, and wrote extensively, about the relationship between reason and revelation." In the course of his examination of the writings of these two men on this subject, Peterson draws several comparisons to scripture and the thoughts of Latter-day Saints ranging from Henry Eyring to Brigham Young to Stanley Kimball.
Peterson describes al-Ghazālī as a "theologian, jurist, philosopher, and mystic" who "has sometimes been characterized as the single most influential Muslim besides the Prophet Muḥammad himself" (compare the Wikipedia entry's characterization of al-Ghazālī as "a Muslim theologian, jurist, philosopher, and mystic of Persian descent" who "has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential Muslim after the Islamic prophet Muhammad"). He describes Ibn Rushd as "an Andalusian philosopher and jurist" who "is generally considered to be the greatest medieval commentator—whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim—on the works of Aristotle" (compare the Wikipedia entry's description of Averroes as "an Andalusian Muslim polymath, a master of Aristotelian philosophy, Islamic philosophy, Islamic theology, Maliki law and jurisprudence, logic, psychology, politics and Arabic music theory, and the sciences of medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics, physics and celestial mechanics").
For Ibn Rushd's thought, Peterson looks at an essay titled The Book of the Decisive Treatise. (Peterson uses Charles Butterworth's translation, The Book of the Decisive Treatise Determining the Connection between the Law and Wisdom, and Epistle Dedicatory, translated with introduction and notes by Charles E. Butterworth [Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2001].) Mirroring the BYU edition's front flap language (which I assume he wrote as the executive editor), Peterson indicates that "[t]he essay can be viewed as a plea before a tribunal in which the divinely revealed Law of Islam (whether the sharī‘ah or the Qur’an itself) is the sole acknowledged authority. Together with its explanatory Epistle Dedicatory, it provides an impassioned defense of the legitimacy and proper role of reason in a community of faith." (The BYU edition's front flap states: "The Decisive Treatise can be viewed as a plea before a tribunal in which the divinely revealed Law of Islam is the sole acknowledged authority…. Averroës's Decisive Treatise and its explanatory Epistle Dedicatory form a clear and even impassioned defense of the legitimacy and proper role of reason in a community of faith.")
Some passages of note in Peterson's essay:
Peterson notes that Ibn Rushd identified
several factors that might lead people to "go astray" and "stumble" in reflection on religious or theological matters. They might simply be incapable of handling difficult subjects—perhaps because they lack intelligence or maturity. (We seldom try to teach algebra or calculus to six-year-olds, no matter how great their native intelligence. Latter-day Saints do indeed have a reasonable notion of “milk before meat.”) Or they might have gone about their reflections in a disorderly way, failing to grasp the basics before trying to go on to more advanced topics. (This is perhaps related to another of the factors he lists: “not finding a teacher to guide him to an understanding.” Think, perhaps, of the historically uninformed Mormon who suddenly stumbles upon some troubling and previously unknown historical claim on the Internet.) Finally, the aspiring student might be “overwhelmed by his passions,” which would prevent him from acquiring a proper understanding of divine things. (Latter-day Saints are very familiar with this kind of caution; we’re frequently told that unworthiness, or lack of personal preparation, can interfere with our ability to grasp spiritual things or maintain our testimonies of religious truth.)
Citing al-Ghazālī's argument that "[a] grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by the man who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical sciences," Peterson observes that
In connection with this line of thought, Peterson quotes Henry Eyring's maxim that "in this Church you don't have to believe anything that isn’t true."Latter-day Saints can likewise damage the reputation of their faith or put at risk the testimonies of young minds and inquisitive older ones, if we take the position that being a faithful member of the Church entails a rejection of either science or historical scholarship. We needn’t be slaves of the latest scientific doctrines—the history of science abundantly illustrates how many consensus views have been overturned by new discoveries—but we should be appropriately humble as well about how accurately we understand the mind of God and even the ultimate meaning of the scriptures. All truth, we’re told, ultimately belongs to one great, harmonious whole, even if we sometimes can’t quite see how that will be so.
Peterson goes on to examine an unpublished speech given by Stanley Kimball decades ago regarding the "'three levels' of Mormon history," which Kimball labeled Levels A, B, and C and which Peterson prefers to describe as "thesis," "antithesis," and "synthesis." (Peterson has discussed the same speech here and here in print.) Level A represents the simplistic, Sunday-School version of Mormon history, Level B represents the anti-Mormon version of Mormon history, and Level C represents a "richer but more complicated version of [Mormon] history." Peterson says that members need not consult anti-Mormon sources to find elements of Level B. Indeed, he writes, "[e]very maturing member of the Church will eventually discover that other Saints, including leaders, are fallible and sometimes even disappointing mortals. There are areas of ambiguity, even unresolved problems, in Church history; there have been disagreements about certain doctrines; some questions don’t have immediately satisfying answers."
At the same time, Kimball and Peterson admit, the Church "isn't eager to expose its members to such problems." "Why?" Peterson asks. "Because souls can be and are lost on Level B. And, anyway, the Church isn’t some sort of floating seminar in historiography. Regrettably, perhaps, most Latter-day Saints—many of them far better people than I—aren’t deeply interested in history, and, more importantly, many other very important priorities demand attention, including training the youth and giving service. Were he in a leadership position, Kimball said, he would probably make the same decision."
Nevertheless, Peterson observes, Kimball
said that, as a historian, he would love it if everybody were to reach Level C, which he regarded (and I concur) as far more nourishing and more deeply satisfying. Very importantly, he contended (and, again, I agree) that Level C—what I call the “synthesis”—turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The gospel is, in fact, true. Church leaders at all levels have, overwhelmingly, been good and sincere people, doing the best that they can with imperfect human materials (including themselves) under often very difficult circumstances.
Peterson quotes Professor Steven Harper's view of some of those who lose their belief on level B (as expressed in Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012], 11):
Having visited with many of them, I believe that they are generally sincere but poorly-informed souls who assumed they were well-informed and then found themselves in a crisis of faith when they encountered evidence that overturned their assumptions.
Peterson does not address questions surrounding the source(s) of these assumptions and responsibilities for such. "This is obviously regrettable from the standpoint of a believing Latter-day Saint," Peterson says, "[b]ut what is to be done about such cases?"
Peterson points out that Ibn Rushd "would forbid deeper knowledge to those who seem unable to handle it" and called upon members of the general community (whom he compared to patients) to simply trust the "Lawgiver" (the Prophet or imam, whom he compared to a physician). In our case, Peterson argues, "Church leaders plainly want all members to know the scriptures well. Accordingly, counsel from a Latter-day Saint point of view might be to take responsibility for your own health, but in conjunction with, and with the help of, trusted authorities." He adds, "Or, to put it another way, if you intend to swim to the other side of the river—and you really should—learn to swim first. And don’t swim without a buddy. And then, when you’re in the water and the current is strong, swim for all you’re worth."