Peterson Misleading Again

[_guy sajer]

I don't even know your name, let alone what your inmost thoughts, your fundamental worldview, your presuppositions, and your intellectual habits and extra-intellectual predispositions are. I merely expressed my "suspicion."

Well, I gave you a list of questions that sum up quite nicely why I do not, as of yet, accept the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, so now you know something about it.

The plain fact is that there are plenty of believing Latter-day Saints out there with training in matters related to antiquity (from schools like Oxford, the Catholic University of America, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Duke, UCLA, Berkeley, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Chicago, Yale, London, Brandeis, Stanford, etc.) who don't experience the same difficulty you do in picturing the Book of Mormon as ancient. Their training is roughly comparable to yours. They know the relevant facts as well as you do, and perhaps even better. What explains the difference? Unless you want to go down the path favored by several of the lesser lights here and simply dismiss them as dishonest and/or insane, it must reside in something like presuppositions, prior assumptions, and worldview.

It's called indoctrination, Dan. As much as all of us like to think we're too smart, rational, educated, etc. to succumb to indoctrination, we are not. Culture, upbringing, family & social expectations, repetitive messages told time after time and year after year, etc. are all powerful--very powerful--factors in determining what we believe. Frequently, if not more often than otherwise, more powerful that education, intellect, rationality, etc.

You believe what you believe, Dan, because you were born into it. Had you been born Jehova's Witness or Evangelical, odds are that you'd be on some discussion board pimping for those beliefs instead. You believe what you were born, conditioned, and indoctrinated to believe. At least demonstrate the intellectual honesty to admit the role that birth and indoctrination play in your belief.

I know, because I was once indoctrinated just like you. I broke programming, you have not.

[_Trevor]

So, if you do think so, that simply moves the question back a step: Why do you think so while others, equally well trained and at least equally well informed, don't?

Because the very basic questions I have outlined above remain unanswered, and the unsatisfactory answers proffered usually depend on spiritual conviction. I would not get a pass on the antiquity of the Phaistos Disc, if its finder and/or translator claimed that he was inspired by God and I was convicted of the truth of that. I would still have to show that the text was indeed ancient based on other standards. Fortunately, in that case, I may examine the actual document. If the document were not around, and we only had one of the many purported translations of the text, it would be that much more difficult to prove the text's antiquity, even if the translations managed to demonstrate some degree of plausibility in terms of their relationship with a known textual tradition. One might also raise the example of the Secret Gospel of Mark, which many scholars, for very sound reasons, suspect was forged by Morton Smith.

[_beastie]

(1) Saying that "a feasible geographic location is imperative for belief in the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon" is quite a different proposition from saying that "a feasible geographic setting for the Book of Mormon is a crucial issue in supporting its claim of ancient origin." You're equivocating. Moving the goalposts. The first proposition, for example, is false. People who have never given the geography of the Book of Mormon a moment's thought have still believed in its ancient origin, as have people who have held to geographical views that, in my opinion and certainly in yours, were not "feasible." The latter statement is distinct and is true, because it says that a feasible geography is crucial for many arguments that attempt to construct a case supporting the book's antiquity.

(2) I agree with the latter, but see little evidence to suggest that academic cases for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon are centrally important to most people or to God.

You’re right, I should have been more specific. A feasible geographic location is imperative for informed belief in the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. Yes, there are plenty of believers who don’t have the slightest interest in the topic, and still believe due to spiritual reasons. I didn’t mean to equivocate or move the goalposts, I simply assumed we were talking about the same group of people – people with the interest to begin with.

(3) I note your insinuation that I only "pretend" to hold the views I do. As I often am, I'm left to wonder why believing Latter-day Saints aren't simply flocking here for the charming, respectful, and civil conversations that this wonderful board offers.

I think you’re pretending to not understand how crucial the plausible geographic setting is in regards to evaluating the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon – or rather, for an informed evaluation of the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. You most certainly understand that is it crucial in terms of constructing a case supporting the book’s antiquity, so then to state that you regard it as a peripheral issue is illogical. It is an issue that could – and does – create quite a stumbling block in terms of belief.

I will try to remember you have a very thin skin. I had to tolerate being repeatedly called a liar and a plagiarist over at MAD – by one of the moderators, no less – and have seen other poor behavior as well, but I will try to remember your thin skin.

I think his views changed over time. Clearly, through much of his life, he held to a hemispheric model. Whether he always did is debatable.

It seems obvious to me that his views were based on what he regarded as revelations, but that they were also significantly impacted by his thinking and his reading (e.g., of Stephens and Calderwood). This is not fundamentally different from the process through which any other Latter-day Saint arrives at his or her views on the matter. The long-standing FARMS motto, taken from scripture, expresses this nicely enough: "By study, and also by faith."

“What he regarded as revelations”? My, if Joseph Smith were participating here, he might take offense at that. ;) It almost sounds as if you don’t think Joseph was reliable in ascertaining “real” revelations.

So you concede that his views were at least partially impacted by the revelations – or, excuse me, “what he regarded as revelations”. He was being instructed by angels, and it sounded like he was being instructed by personages that were actually Nephites in their mortal lives. And yet he believed in the hemispheric model. He believed that Hill Cumorah was, you know, Hill Cumorah. So God misled Joseph by sending angelic instructors who apparently misled him on a fundamental point about the text. I’m wondering why you challenged me in the first place on this point.

LOL!!!! Laughable! Hahaha!

I hold no such view.

I don't regard it as a "higher precept." I regard it as relatively peripheral.

Your complacently superior laughter would look considerably less foolish if, before you began your rather forced guffaws, you actually understood your target's viewpoint.

So it’s peripheral, not worth bothering over. It is a crucial piece of evidence in providing support for the ancient historicity of the Book of Mormon, and yet, to you, it’s peripheral. I really don’t get it. This is illogical, and is why I suspect a certain amount of “pretending” to not really grasp the significance of the issue.

Whereas I, by contrast, with my own fair amount of training in ancient history and languages, think it already does.

The difference between us, I suspect, is not so much one of differing facts as one of differing worldviews and variant prior assumptions. Unless and until your worldview and assumptions change, you will not see a scenario that makes sense to you.

Yes, Trevor, you have to believe in the Book of Mormon first, and THEN the evidence will be clear.

So, if you do think so, that simply moves the question back a step: Why do you think so while others, equally well trained and at least equally well informed, don't?

Because you are engaging in motivated reasoning.

Is there any other ancient text that requires a pre-existing belief in its antiquity before the evidence of its antiquity can be recognized?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's called indoctrination, Dan.

In other words, you're opting for the functional equivalent of the "insane" option as your preferred explanation for why others with training in ancient studies at least equal to Trevor's (and far superior to yours) don't agree with your view of the Book of Mormon.

Got it.

As much as all of us like to think we're too smart, rational, educated, etc. to succumb to indoctrination, we are not. Culture, upbringing, family & social expectations, repetitive messages told time after time and year after year, etc. are all powerful--very powerful--factors in determining what we believe. Frequently, if not more often than otherwise, more powerful that education, intellect, rationality, etc.

And that all applies to others -- but not to you, because you've transcended all of those extrarational factors on this question.

I need hardly point out that you're engaging in a form of labor-saving ad hominem dismissal, not a real argument.

You believe what you believe, Dan, because you were born into it. Had you been born Jehova's Witness or Evangelical, odds are that you'd be on some discussion board pimping for those beliefs instead. You believe what you were born, conditioned, and indoctrinated to believe. At least demonstrate the intellectual honesty to admit the role that birth and indoctrination play in your belief.

My father was a non-practicing, non-religious, nominal Protestant until after I was an adult. My mother was a mostly non-practicing Jack-Mormon until after I became an adult. My extended family are either nominally Protestant non-church-attenders or inactive, entirely uninterested Mormons. I've never had a conversation on any religious subject with any of them. I grew up in California with virtually no Mormon friends.

Your thesis rests on no real evidence. I don't get the feeling that you believe it needs any. Rather like your absurdly confident assertions about the narrowness of my worldview and my constricted intellectual sympathies. You know essentially nothing about what I read or how I really think. You've almost certainly never even met me, and wouldn't recognize me on the street. Yet, because you've read some message board posts, you imagine yourself capable of sweeping dismissive judgments.

I can't take such pretentious vacuity with any degree of seriousness.

I know, because I was once indoctrinated just like you. I broke programming, you have not.

That's a very heroic myth, and I would imagine that it's quite gratifying to you.

[_Yong Xi]

Or maybe they have not really applied the same standards of evidence and argument to the question.

Maybe. But they don't seem to think so, and I don't think so.

So, if you do think so, that simply moves the question back a step: Why do you think so while others, equally well trained and at least equally well informed, don't?

Probably for the same reason that most people retain the political party affiliation of their parents.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I will try to remember you have a very thin skin. . . . I will try to remember your thin skin.

The assumption of complacent superiority is unearned, but (very slightly) amusing.

So God misled Joseph by sending angelic instructors who apparently misled him on a fundamental point about the text.

I see no evidence to support that formulation.

I really don’t get it.

I won't dispute that.

This is illogical, and is why I suspect a certain amount of “pretending” to not really grasp the significance of the issue.

You don't get it, so I'm being disingenuous.

This is boring.

Yes, Trevor, you have to believe in the Book of Mormon first, and THEN the evidence will be clear.

I said nothing of the sort. That's a different issue altogether.

But you plainly and admittedly don't get it.

This is very boring.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Probably for the same reason that most people retain the political party affiliation of their parents.

Which, incidentally, I didn't.

[_Trevor]

It's called indoctrination, Dan. As much as all of us like to think we're too smart, rational, educated, etc. to succumb to indoctrination, we are not. Culture, upbringing, family & social expectations, repetitive messages told time after time and year after year, etc. are all powerful--very powerful--factors in determining what we believe. Frequently, if not more often than otherwise, more powerful that education, intellect, rationality, etc.

In connection with this problem, I would recommend to Daniel and everyone else, for that matter, Smolin's book The Trouble with Physics, which documents the forces that perpetuate an unwarranted ascendancy of String Theory. It is the current composition of the community of physicists (many of the powerful senior scholars being String Theorists) that allows this to be so, not the inherent superiority of String Theory. I would guess that the problems among LDS apologists are quite similar.

[Guest]

In connection with this problem, I would recommend to Daniel and everyone else, for that matter, Smolin's book The Trouble with Physics, which documents the forces that perpetuate an unwarranted ascendancy of String Theory. It is the current composition of the community that allows this to be so, not the inherent superiority of String Theory.

The book is on my nightstand.

I would guess that the problems among LDS apologists are quite similar.

Once again, this is dismissal in lieu of actual reasoned argument, followed by pop-psychological speculations about people you don't know.

Why do my opponents hold their ridiculously false opinions? What psycho-social defect bars those who don't agree with me from seeing things my way? What mental incapacity or biographical anomaly prevents others from holding my opinions?

"Why am I so brilliant?" "Why do I write such good books?" These are chapter titles from Nietzsche's writing . . . penned just before he was locked up for the rest of his life in an insane asylum.

Trevor and Guy Sajer are two of the intellectual leaders on this board.

It probably isn't going to get any better.

[_antishock8]

Nothing like the ability to fire an arrow at a wall, draw concentric circles around it, and then claim you hit the bullseye! Great shot!