Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _beastie »

In the final analysis, and after suffering through so many threads like this I can no longer even come close to keeping count, we are compelled to remind ourselves that this handful of arrogantly self-assured exmormons plying their unique trade on the mormondiscussions.com message board constitutes an almost indiscernible blip on the scope of critical significance. My numerous discussions with beastlie, for example, have done nothing more than to confirm the fact that exmormon “intellectuals” render the term “rigorous analysis” nothing but an endeavor in academic comedy. Mark Wright’s assessment of her has been the most accurate to date: she is an academic poseur whose entire credibility derives from the uninformed applause certain to be found in this small circle of her “peers."

As for myself, it is late where I am, and I have exhausted my capacity for dealing with the perpetual demonstrations of illogic and incognizant ignorance emanating from these people.

I must therefore leave them to you alone for the time being ...


But of course! The problem here is that the exmormons are illogical and ignorant.

Let’s review some of Will’s participation on this thread, shall we?

1. Will appears to remind us that Dr. Hansen is a respected Mesoamericanist who was consulted for the Gibson’s film. Dr. Hansen believes in the Book of Mormon.
2. Since the topic was whether Dr. Clark had convinced any of his colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican document, I asked Will if he had evidence that Dr. Hansen had so convinced his colleagues – since, you know, that would actually directly address the issue being discussed. Will brought up Hansen and Clark in a clear appeal to authority.
3. Will responded that:
Your "point" is irrelevant, of course. Why should Clark or Hansen even attempt to persuade "their colleagues that the Book of Mormon is an ancient Mesoamerican record?" And how do you know, at all, whether or not they have been able to do just that? Obviously, you don't. You simply assume, as per usual.

4. I responded by repeating the portion of Dr. Clark’s comments wherein he directly stated that he had attempted to so persuade his colleagues, to no avail. Will ignored this.
5. In response to Will’s appeal to authority, I referred to Coe and Demarest’s statements that contradict the idea of the Book of Mormon being an ancient Mesoamerican document. I also share when it’s appropriate to analyze an appeal to authority. One specific instance in which an appeal to authority is logically unfounded is when the authority’s opinion contradicts the opinion of the majority of scholars in the field.
6. Will replied that:
Your analogy breaks down if you cannot demonstrate, to any appreciable degree, that (placing the question explicitly within the context of the present discussion) John Clark and/or Richard Hansen have ever done precisely what you suggest: disregard experiments that contradict his belief.

7. I provided direct evidence of Dr. Clark disregarding data that contradicted his belief, as well as an additional example of Dr. Miller.
8. When asked why he ignored the evidence, he responded that
beastlie dear, isn't it quite apparent that I categorically disagree with your conclusions concerning his "ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia"?

9. I invited Will to provide evidence that Mesoamerican scholars really do accept the existence of the bow and arrow during the Book of Mormon time frame, since that’s the only way he could prove Dr. Clark was not ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia.
10. Will’s response was that the bow and arrow was not a crucial issue. Whether or not it’s a crucial issue, it clearly is an example of Dr. Clark ignoring Mesoamerican data in his apologia.
11. Will bows out.

These conversations always end up taking on a strange Mad-Hatterite aspect, as Will bows out while loudly proclaiming that exmormons are illogical and ignorant.

:eek:

:lol:
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_JohnStuartMill
_Emeritus
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:12 pm

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _JohnStuartMill »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
JohnStuartMill wrote:How are "the promptings of the Holy Ghost" distinguishable from emotions?

Thank you for confirming my point. Your summary of my views really contained your views, rather than mine.

How are such promptings distinguishable?

How is vision distinguishable from very realistic hallucination?
If the hallucination is realistic enough, it isn't. That's kind of my point. We take the rest of our sensory perceptions with a grain of salt; why wouldn't we do the same for our "spiritual" perceptions**? This is especially so when we consider that our normal senses seem to give us consistent information most of the time, while we don't have anything with which we can calibrate our "spiritual" sense.

**I think this is what Morrissey is getting at, by the way. In Mormon theology, revelation is of such an undeniable nature that it doesn't seem to have the limitations of normal senses. Some Mormons have even taken this to its logical conclusion and said that they're more certain that the Church is true than that they were speaking to a roomful of people at that moment.

Mormon revelatory epistemology is directly analogous to the "sixth sense" perception I have that Dr. Peterson is an amphibian. I know for certain that Dr. Peterson is descended from salamanders, but a) no data from my other senses supports this idea with any confidence, b) it is irreconcilable with lots of other sensory data, c) although everyone putatively possesses this sixth sense, very few people share my belief about Dr. Peterson, and d) my belief can be readily explained by natural social and psychological causes. "The same causes which make [Peterson a Mormon in Utah], would have made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Pekin."

I've had experiences in which such promptings have been remarkably clear, and quite distinct from, even opposed to, my emotions.
That's one explanation, yes. But you don't seem to consider the possibility that your range of emotions is simply wider than you once thought it, and that your "religious" experiences lie in this penumbra. Given that there's no way to calibrate or judge these experiences, I find it highly suspicious that you believe they emanate from the same forces that you happen to have been taught to believe in as a child.
"You clearly haven't read [Dawkins'] book." -Kevin Graham, 11/04/09
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _beastie »

**I think this is what Morrissey is getting at, by the way. In Mormon theology, revelation is of such an undeniable nature that it doesn't seem to have the limitations of normal senses. Some Mormons have even taken this to its logical conclusion and said that they're more certain that the Church is true than that they were speaking to a roomful of people at that moment.


This can be seen in testimony meetings, wherein folks sometimes claim that they "know" Jesus is the Christ so absolutely, that knowledge could not be any more certain were he to appear to them in the flesh.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Ray A

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _Ray A »

beastie wrote:
This can be seen in testimony meetings, wherein folks sometimes claim that they "know" Jesus is the Christ so absolutely, that knowledge could not be any more certain where he to appear to them in the flesh.


I'd have to look for this quote, but Joseph Fielding Smith said that a testimony, or witness of the spirit, is stronger than an open vision. Yet Harold B. Lee said:

“Testimony isn't something you have today, and you are going to have always. A testimony is fragile. It is as hard to hold as a moonbeam. It is something you have to recapture every day of your life.”
( Church News, July 15, 1972, 4. )
_Ray A

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _Ray A »

Here is the Joseph Fielding Smith statement:

“The question frequently arises: ‘Is it necessary for a member of the Council of the Twelve to see the Savior in order to be an apostle?’ It is their privilege to see him if occasion requires, but the Lord has taught that there is a stronger witness than seeing a personage, even of seeing the Son of God in a vision. Impressions on the soul that come from the Holy Ghost are far more significant than a vision. When Spirit speaks to spirit, the imprint upon the soul is far more difficult to erase. Every member of the Church should have impressions that Jesus is the Son of God indelibly pictured on his soul through the witness of the Holy Ghost.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1966, p. 979.)


Harold B. Lee:

“Testimony isn't something you have today, and you are going to have always. A testimony is fragile. It is as hard to hold as a moonbeam. It is something you have to recapture every day of your life.”
( Church News, July 15, 1972, 4. )


So which is it? Stronger than an open vision? Or "as hard to hold as a moonbeam"?
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _EAllusion »

Daniel Peterson wrote:I don't see a substantial difference.

Nor have I constructed a straw man.

This is probably enough.


Huh. So you don't see a substantial difference between claiming that it is problematic for a person to assert one must believe a religious proposition before seeing the evidence in favor of it and claiming that scientists harbor no pre-existing beliefs when thinking about propositions?

Interesting.
_Morrissey
_Emeritus
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:42 am

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _Morrissey »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Morrissey wrote:No I don't. That's not what I was referring to. But I think you know that.

No, I don't know that. If I misunderstood you, explain. Don't pull the standard-issue beastie stunt of presuming that I'm a dishonest cretin operating in bad faith.


.


Oh heavens, no need to be so touchy. I'm not pulling anything. At worst, I might think you are engaging in rhetorical jousting, something for which you have obvious relish.

I am not referring to objectively verifiable facts or logical self-evidents. I am referring to matters of belief, opinion, conviction, faith, etc.
_Morrissey
_Emeritus
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:42 am

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _Morrissey »

William Schryver wrote:Dan,

In the final analysis, and after suffering through so many threads like this I can no longer even come close to keeping count, we are compelled to remind ourselves that this handful of arrogantly self-assured exmormons plying their unique trade on the mormondiscussions.com message board constitutes an almost indiscernible blip on the scope of critical significance.


As Mormonism writ large is an arrogantly, self-assured belief system that constitutes an indiscernible blip on the scope of any significance.

I am happy to concede that this board is nothing more than a blip and has no real significance for anything. (It is nothing more than a way to pass a few idle minutes.)

Mormon egocentricity, however, will admit no similar concession.
_Morrissey
_Emeritus
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:42 am

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _Morrissey »

William Schryver wrote: . . . an academic poseur whose entire credibility derives from the uninformed applause certain to be found in this small circle of her “peers.


And Will is the one saying we have no sense of irony. Sheesh :rolleyes:
_Ray A

Re: Questions I'd like to see Peterson "actually answer (and not

Post by _Ray A »

Morrissey wrote:
As Mormonism writ large is an arrogantly, self-assured belief system that constitutes an indiscernible blip on the scope of any significance.

I am happy to concede that this board is nothing more than a blip and has no real significance for anything. (It is nothing more than a way to pass a few idle minutes.)

Mormon egocentricity, however, will admit no similar concession.


The reason Morrissey's reply is interesting to me is this: DCP has said that he's still trying to discern whether Morrissey is a "worthy debating partner". And he/she (Morrissey) has been courteous to Dan. Now witness the above sarcastic reply to Willie (a.k.a., "Wheat"). Someone with an IQ of 4 will realise why.

And this is why I've consistently said that with "defenders" like Will, who needs anti-Mormons?

:lol:
Post Reply