SFS Post 3! pg 57 LDS historians have not left the church

[4xbros]

.

[4xbros]

.

[_mms]

When I heard the "smarter people than you know this stuff and cotinue to believe" argument I was actually taken aback. I responded that the last thing I would think an LDS apologist would do is to attempt to legitimize the truth claims by the number of smart people who believe them, because if that is the measure of truthfulness than certainly the number of smart people who have not believed and do not believe is greater (by a very long shot) than the relative handful of really smart people who do believe, no? Do you really want that to be a measure, Mr. Ash?

It seems to me sort of like Elder Holland arguing that Joseph and Hyrum dying with their statements regarding the Book of Mormon intact is proof of the Book of Mormon having come from gold plates delivered by an angel. If we are going to use the number of people who are willing to die for their faith as a measure of its truthfulness...well...

[4xbros]

.

[_mms]

Nevo,

Yes, I think you are right. Mr. Ash appears to have limited his argument to those who have chosen to place their entire livelihoods on the truth claims of the Church. My mistake. However, I am certain given your participation in these discussions that you, like I, have heard time and time again that the fact that really intelligent people believe should hold some significance in the debate over truth claims.

I see that you mention Michael Quinn, Todd Compton and Richard Bushman....I wonder how the testimonies of these folks compare with that of the prophets. Let's take how Dr. Bushman concluded his testimony on the Mormon Scholars Testify site:

Others may have had their confidence shaken and don’t know which way to turn—towards faith or away from it. I cannot say that they must swim toward the shore where I stand, or perish; the truth is that we have to find our own footing in our search for understanding. I can only say that Mormonism has served me well and that I believe most people would be better off if they followed the Mormon way.

He "cannot say that they must swim toward the shore where [he] stand[s] or perish"? He "can only say that Mormonism has served [him] well and that [he] believe[s] that most people would be better off if the followed the Mormon way"? "Most" people?

I think it is safe to say that there is some distance between the certainty of the testimonies expressed by historians and that expressed by the prophets. Why do you think this is?

[_MsJack]

I've never given this subject much thought before. So we're looking for ex-Mormons who are academic experts in Mormon history?

I suspect that most Mormons who are interested in becoming historians learn about the troubling aspects of LDS history long before they commit to intense academic study of the topic. Then they either reconcile and remain believers or disaffect and choose another area of history or another discipline altogether. After all, how many people actually want to intensely study the history of a religion they no longer believe in or never believed in? (*cough*)

for what it's worth, I would definitely say that my study of LDS history was a major factor in convincing me not to join the church. I learned the troubling facts of history when I was a teenager and a BYU education plus a fairly amicable relationship with numerous LDS apologists hasn't changed that.

[4xbros]

.

[_Runtu]

That's a fascinating quote, Nevo. Thanks for sharing that. I don't think he's necessarily devaluing the certainty of his testimony but rather suggesting that people who believe in objectivity are really not in a better position regarding truth than he is.

Droopy would probably call his approach postmodern (and in a way, it sort of is), but situating the perception of truth in the subjectively human and the social levels the playing field as far as truth claims go.

[_truth dancer]

Some of the above quotes are good examples of how I understand many scholarly LDS accept the LDS church as "true."

It works for them. They like the people. They believe there is goodness with the teachings. It is their tribe. They are better for embracing the culture and lifestyle. There is nothing to lose. It enriches their life. Etc. etc. etc.

You don't hear these folk testifying to the truth claims of the church in the same way most chapel Mormons do.

~td~

[_Sethbag]

For the record, I don't really believe what Mike Quinn says about his continuing to have a testimony. I think he says that as a way of attempting to claw back a little "street cred" with Mormons, since Mormonism is his gig, and since Mormons themselves represent by far the largest potential group of people who would care about his works.

Why do I not believe his professed testimony? Simply that what he writes so clearly lays down the man-made nature of the church, that if he writes stuff so clearly that anyone who reads his books "gets it" and sees his point (whether they agree with it or not), how could he himself fail to "get" his own writing?