Peterson Misleading Again

[_Gadianton]

Dr. Peterson,

I apologize for what I said, I didn't mean to imply that Bill Hamblin is more cultured than you are. How about this, you are the two most cultured people alive today, Without one being more cultured than the other. We good?

Most of the people I know who've left Mormonism don't even claim any historical or doctrinal reasons. Why should I pretend that they do?

Don't buy it. They don't really believe the doctrine. Unless they are completely psychotic. If someone were to convince those you know that they could have a hundred million dollars, and if it could be proved to them in such a way that they truly had no doubts about it, but first they could not drink, do drugs, or have an affair for six months, then well, I'd wager all of them would be rich in six months.

But the same carrot on the stick won't work with the gospel because they don't really believe in the reward.

[_Yong Xi]

I can't make that claim, and would never support it. However, most of the people I know who've dropped out of the Church have done so in connection with sins of one kind or another -- it's not always clear what's cause and what's effect, but I'm confident that sin often is a principal cause -- and that includes several cases where the apostate at first claimed to be leaving for purely intellectual reasons (and then, as in at least two instances that I know very well, proved to have been having an extramarital affair).

Most of the people I know who remain active in the church have done so despite committing sins of one kind or another -- it's not always clear what's cause and what's effect, but I'm confident that sin often is a principal cause -- and that includes several cases where the member at first claimed to be active because they had received a witness (and then, as in at least two instances that I know very well, proved to have been molesting children).

[_Daniel Peterson]

I apologize for what I said, I didn't mean to imply that Bill Hamblin is more cultured than you are. How about this, you are the two most cultured people alive today, Without one being more cultured than the other. We good?

Yeah, I'm fine with that.

Most of the people I know who've left Mormonism don't even claim any historical or doctrinal reasons. Why should I pretend that they do?

Don't buy it. They don't really believe the doctrine. Unless they are completely psychotic. If someone were to convince those you know that they could have a hundred million dollars, and if it could be proved to them in such a way that they truly had no doubts about it, but first they could not drink, do drugs, or have an affair for six months, then well, I'd wager all of them would be rich in six months.

But the same carrot on the stick won't work with the gospel because they don't really believe in the reward.

Well . . . I think of an old friend of my father's (who, I would imagine, has died by now). He grew up Mormon in Huntsville, Utah, went into the military, fell away from the Church, and then settled in California at the end of World War II. He worked mainly in the construction materials business, which is how my father came to know him, but, when he had a bit of money put away, he bought first one liquor store and then another. He never attended church meetings, but he still believed. He told me many times how, when he returned to Utah, he would always visit the North Visitors Center on Temple Square, and would stand in front of the Christus statue, weeping. He pestered my father about joining the Church. "When are we gonna get him?" he would ask me. Finally, on the night I baptised my Dad, he was there in the audience. I know more than a few people like him. My mother was that way from my childhood until about the time I went on my mission. This is not at all uncommon.

I can see how it would be offensive to those who didn't leave the Church "to sin".

I've expressly granted that purely intellectually-motivated apostasy occurs. I simply don't believe that most people are intellectuals.

Trevor made a good point that many who sin still stay in the Church, and I don't think that's rare, either.

Neither do I. If it were rare, I wouldn't be nearly so busy on Sundays and Wednesday evenings.

But the reality is that, regardless of this factor, and whether I sinned or not - it wouldn't make the Church true or false.

Obviously.

If I'm correct, Dan, you have said several times that the evidence for Book of Mormon historicity is about 50-50?

I wouldn't be uncomfortable with that figure.

I think this could be a valid reason for someone to not believe it.

So do I.

If you boarded a plane, and the pilot told you there's a 50-50 chance we're going to land in Australia, would you fly with him?

If I had an investment advisor who had a 50/50 chance of making a hundred million dollars for me, I would definitely follow his investment recommendations. We're in Pascal's Wager territory.

[_Ray A]

I think this could be a valid reason for someone to not believe it.

So do I.

If you boarded a plane, and the pilot told you there's a 50-50 chance we're going to land in Australia, would you fly with him?

If I had an investment advisor who had a 50/50 chance of making a hundred million dollars for me, I would definitely follow his investment recommendations. We're in Pascal's Wager territory.

And that's what I like about you. I know it's a "Pascal's Wager", and you've chosen to take that on your personal witness, and faith. I have no objection to that, even admire it. I think most Mormons are in this territory. But if the potential $100 million involved investing and risking losing everything I own on 50-50....?

I guess I don't qualify under the "faith is betting your life that the Church is true" genre. But I don't in any way feel any animosity to your choice. And I hope the attacks on you here don't stop you posting. I totally disagree with that, and I think you know that.

[_mikwut]

I don't get it, a few questions? Genuine ones. Really.

Mr. Peterson, without disavowing your held position concerning apostates leaving due to sin, why not also affirm beasties' experience? The attention you receive is obviously due to deep respect of your intellectual abilities - why withhold any opportunity to build a bridge? I know.... I can do the quote where you think you did just that, I mean kindly and sincerely even with all the water under your and beasties posting bridge.

Beastie, I affirm your intellectual problems with the church, but why disavow the experience that Mr. Peterson expresses that most of his personal life examples are due to sin?
What is really controversial here, are you really having an argument of the majority or minority?

Why would a board of truly intellectual seekers and discoverers on this board, not show respect and genuine intrigue when Mr. Peterson posts? I truly ask this question, when someone such as Mr. Peterson comes on the board than a truly confident critical position would indeed be respectful and courteous - without holding back any critical acumen of course.

Antishock, with all due respect, and I do respect a nihilistic viewpoint, why the antagonism and personal nature of your post? Nihilism should also express deep confidence in, just what you said, it is all BS man! What moral compass are you talking about and what compass does a nihilist put his nose in the air toward a theist with? I truly don't understand.

Gad, since I last spoke with you a couple or few years ago, I sense a new edge, what's the objective now for all your critical energy? Stages intrigue me.
regards and best,

mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

mikwut,

It should be obvious that not all here are true intellectual seekers and discoverers.

Jersey Girl

(and hello :-)

[_Tarski]

I've expressly granted that purely intellectually-motivated apostasy occurs.

Consider that the original reasons may have been intellectual or spiritual. Then, the process of recalibrating one's moral compass might get ugly and some wild oats are sown and mistakes made. Seems like human nature. Yet, the reasons were not sin and when the dust settles, the person may find a moral compass calibrated quite well and living a productive life that would be viewed as moral to most people.

I simply don't believe that most people are intellectuals.

One can have intellectual reasons without being an "intellectual". Many of the issues we hear about (polygamy etc) are easily understood and count as rational reasons even for those who aren't "intellectuals". Also, most people are capable of mustering basic incredulity concerning what they may come to see as excessively outlandish beliefs.

Besides intellectual reasons, there are reasons of the heart (the temple ceremony felt wrong etc.), or reasons of experience such as noticing some ineffectiveness of the "gospel" in their own lives.

[_bcspace]

John L. Sorenson wrote a two parter for the Ensign about late 1984 which made two Cumorah's a very real possibility within LDS doctrine; not because of Sorenson, but because it was published by the Church.

You prove my point. The fact that this was a notable event indicates that my premise is correct - church leaders have commonly believed and taught that Cumorah is in NY. I realize that there are more and more pushing for the silly "two cumorahs", but it's because they don't have any other choice, and they are pushing against centuries of church teachings.

But to try and pretend that the church hasn't historically taught that Cumorah is in NY because is silly, and that is what the insistence on "official doctrine" misleadingly insinuates.

Even the main proponents of "two cumorahs" admit that they were taught the NY cumorah idea throughout their lives, and they had to rethink the proposition as they studied more.

Your point is a non sequitur. It doesn't take into account continuing revelation or the detail given in existing revelation. My point, on the other hand, ends all dispute. By pointing out in an official work the notion that there may have been two Cumorahs, I valid everything the Church has taught all along regarding doctrine.

[_Tarski]

Your point is a non sequitur. It doesn't take into account continuing revelation or the detail given in existing revelation. My point, on the other hand, ends all dispute. By pointing out in an official work the notion that there may have been two Cumorahs, I valid everything the Church has taught all along regarding doctrine.

Definition:

Continuing revelation: The process whereby previous revelation is admitted to be false and then relabeled as mere opinion. The driving force is usually advancing secular norms and/or scientific progress.

[_bcspace]

Your point is a non sequitur. It doesn't take into account continuing revelation or the detail given in existing revelation. My point, on the other hand, ends all dispute. By pointing out in an official work the notion that there may have been two Cumorahs, I valid everything the Church has taught all along regarding doctrine.

Definition:

Continuing revelation: The process whereby previous revelation is admitted to be false and then relabeled as mere opinion. The driving force is usually advancing secular norms and/or scientific progress.

Incorrect. You have to have a detailed enough revelation in the first place.