I Snuck over to Sic et Non Again...

[_Philo Sofee]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ative.html

What interests me the very most now that I am no longer an apologist is simply this about John Turner, whom Peterson apparently feels is an ace in the hole for the Interpreter's study of the Book of Mormon witnesses. John Turner is not your ordinary nose pickin Mormon here mind you! In fact, John Turner isn't even a Mormon, but is being used in discussions because of his expertise in Mormon History. Now, gaining a non-Mormon historian for a major production demonstrating the truthfulness of serious historical inquiry into the Book of Mormon witnesses is a feather in Interpreter's cap, make no mistake about it, and hence, the reason Peterson is lauding him so greatly. This is objective investigation! This ain't no whitewashing, fath promotin gun totin slap dash amateur production being worked up folks, this is the real deal because we have a non-Mormon historian expert on Mormonism siding with us! Notice he makes absolutely no mention, let alone production of having real living witnesses, such as Apostles and Prophets of Mormonism being in the production. Prophets and Apostles? Meh, we have something vastly superior! A real living non-Mormon historian helping us!

This is patently obvious how Peterson is thinking, otherwise why all the confetti, hoo-horah, and excitement about professionalism and careful historical inquiry? It's almost as if he is taking a victory lap ahead of the race.

But what I would like to know, and I may very well email him to ask him, is, why aren't you a member yet? What is it precisely that keeps you from joining Mormonism as the one true church and literal Kingdom of God on earth? Sure, you've read some books, perhaps an article or two, published a little on Mormonism, but so what, so has Jan Shipps. Why is it professional Historians are not falling all over themselves joining in droves once they see the impeccable logic, the spiritual truth, and historical truth of the witnesses power for demonstrating the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as a record of Ancient American history? Because, I can already prophecy in the name of any God, or all the Gods ever revealed, that the production is going to end with the conclusion that the witnesses are one of the most powerful evidence for the truthfulness, and reality of the Book of Mormon as ancient history. But why doesn't John Turner think so? That is what I am most interested in these days.

[_Jersey Girl]

A non-Mormon contributor as asset? Well you learn something new every day around here.

Stop snucking. ;-)

[_Kishkumen]

I don’t get any sense from this post that Turner argued that the witnesses were qualified experts on ancient America. All I can see is that the Interpreter crew interviewed Turner. It remains to be seen what he said, and I would want a thorough verbatim transcription of the interview. A lot can be done to bend a statement in a particular direction by framing and editing someone’s statements.

[_Philo Sofee]

I don’t get any sense from this post that Turner argued that the witnesses were qualified experts on ancient America. All I can see is that the Interpreter crew interviewed Turner. It remains to be seen what he said, and I would want a thorough verbatim transcription of the interview. A lot can be done to bend a statement in a particular direction by framing and editing someone’s statements.

Agreed, I was mind reading Peterson because I understand how he thinks when it comes to non-Mormon scholars who comment on Mormon themes. To him it gives concrete reality, more plausibility, greater objectivity, and hence what they say adds weight to Mormon testimony. The manner in which I posted, I predict, will be precisely the manner in which they edit his comments. They seem to more often than not edit non-Mormon scholars words into such a way as to be supportive of Mormonism, yet when those scholars are asked they are dismayed their words, thoughts, and conclusions are being misused.

[_mentalgymnast]

A non-Mormon contributor as asset? Well you learn something new every day around here.

You could also point out and/or include Margaret Barker.

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

A non-Mormon contributor as asset? Well you learn something new every day around here.

You could also point out and/or include Margaret Barker.

Regards,
MG

Yes, thanks MG, she makes my case even stronger. Here is an historian who is very proMormon friendly, but is unconvinced by the evidence enough to actually join the church. When it comes to the rubber meeting the road, the professionals shows there just isn't enough grab there to be significant. In fact, their action shows there is no grab there at all. You are born into it and raised believing, which is the reason why you find it convincing. Sure there are exceptions such as Robert F. Smith, but for every exception, there are at least 10,000 against. That is simply not a satisfying state of affairs based on apologetic claims to the power of evidence. Is that really acceptable?

[_Chap]

You are born into it and raised believing, which is the reason why you find it convincing.

Yup.

And except in a tiny minority of cases, that is true of believers in all religions. Pretty well all of them sound ludicrous if you explain their core tenets to somebody who has never heard of them before.

Of course most people in real life are like me - too polite to say so to anybody's face.

[_candygal]

Well, gee whiz people...ask these non Mormons what keeps them away?!

[_mentalgymnast]

Pretty well all of them sound ludicrous if you explain their core tenets to somebody who has never heard of them before.

This may be at least part of the reason that Turner and Barker...possibly Shipp...haven't fully investigated and/or moved along the path of conversion. There is a LOT riding on baptism and moving forward in faith in the church. It is not an easy thing to do for anyone. That is, if they're really serious about it.

Those in the academy would find it even more difficult, I would think, to be seen as attaching themselves to an organization that to some appears "ludicrous" at the outset of even starting to investigate with the intent of finding out if it is actually 'true'.

What? You mean these folks practice polygamy? God lives near a physical object/planet named Kolob? Human beings can progress and actually become more like God is? They don't drink coffee or drink? Jesus actually rose from the dead and not only that, visited folks on the other side of the ocean after He did? Etc.

Pretty heavy stuff. Especially for someone that is intellectually committed to certain propositions, used to a certain lifestyle, etc.

Regards,
MG

[_Johannes]

A non-Mormon contributor as asset? Well you learn something new every day around here.

You could also point out and/or include Margaret Barker.

Regards,
MG

Is Margaret Barker considered to be an ally of the LDS Church? Are we talking "honorary Mormon" here, like C S Lewis?