Mormon Scholars Testify is a website which seeks to give “LDS scholars the opportunity to express their views and feelings about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Daniel C. Peterson, who originally conceived of the site and collects testimonies for inclusion, described it as a “personal missionary enterprise” inspired by Elder Ballard’s call for more members to use the Internet to spread the gospel.1 In this post I want to chat about the purposes of such a website.
There are over a hundred posted testimonies to date which can be browsed randomly, by name, or by academic specialty. What’s the point of such a site? It restricts submissions to “scholars” and makes sure to cite their credentials at the end of each testimony. At face value, it seems like one giant collection of arguments from authority. The site itself offers this suggestion:
There are some who may feel that people of education and learning can’t be religious. It is hoped that these testimonies will help dispel that myth, educate, and give insights into the thoughts and feelings of LDS scholars.
Perhaps this point helps (at least partially) explain the knock-off site, Ex-Mormon Scholars Testify. To borrow a concept from Piers Benn, the Ex-Mormon site counters “the problem of reasonable Mormons” with the “problem of reasonable non-Mormons.”2 Peterson describes the problem of reasonable Mormons this way:
The argument isn’t “Smart people believe in Mormonism, so you should, too.” I’m not that stupid, I hope. But there is an implicit argument, for those inclined to consider Mormonism with at least some minimal degree of open-mindedness, to the effect that, if you think Mormonism too simple, too shallow, too obviously false to be even worth a moment’s attention, you might want to reconsider your view: Plainly, intelligent and informed people do find it profound, rich, and convincing. The scholars featured on the site are just such people. I would say the same thing about Islam and Catholicism and Judaism and other faiths, of course.3
In a paper on agnosticism, Benn wonders to what extent does the knowledge that reasonable people are theists give atheists a reason to take theism seriously (I’m shifting the discussion to Mormon/non-Mormon). He believes that such witnesses themselves are not necessarily compelling because they suffer from problems that all arguments from authority and consensus suffer from. However, he adds, despite being “unsound proofs, they may still retain some weaker evidential force.”4
That evidential force seems to be what Peterson says is the “implicit argument” of the testimonies: perhaps not all Mormons are dupes and perhaps you should take a closer look if you believe otherwise. The site collectively is a challenge to critics and a way to sneak in Pascal’s wager, or encourage people to “give place,” as the Book of Mormon says (Alma 32:27).5
Benn would add that “for the same reason [Mormons] should feel challenged by the fact that there are reasonable [non-Mormons].”6 I don’t think Peterson would object to that point, and he might shift the discussion, as the critics also likely would, to the actual reasons given for the respective positions. While the collective testimonies in total represent the overall point that not all Mormons are uneducated or necessarily foolish, the individual testimonies do something much different for me, an already-believing Mormon. Peterson describes what he expects in the individual testimonies:
To this end, Peterson said when he solicits testimonies he gives very little direction as to what he expects, but allows submitters much leeway in what they choose to include. I’ve enjoyed selections from scholars including Boyd Peterson, Grant Hardy, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, and others. I’ve been surprised by the content of several of the testimonies, which might not be the sort of thing you would expect to hear in your average Fast and Testimony meeting.
Which brings me to the real reason I put this post together in the first place. Not simply to argue that there is nothing inherently fallacious in putting together an argument from authority, although there can be problems with such arguments as well as counter arguments which ought to be considered (feel free to disagree in the comments). But more than that, to point out that I’ve enjoyed the site for many of the individual testimonies I’ve read there. I really like hearing the perspectives of these thoughtful people and considering how unique Mormon testimonies can really be, despite the somewhat repetitious F&T meetings.
A bunch of questions mashed at the end to spark some discussion:
Would you recommend any of the testimonies from MST to friends or family? What are your thoughts on the site in general? Would you contribute to the site? Why or why not? Benefits, drawbacks, etc. I’m looking for some feedback on what people think of it.
 See Piers Benn, “Some Uncertainties About Agnosticism,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 46 (1999): 176, 179.
 Patheos staff, “Mormon Scholars Testify: An Interview with Dan Peterson, Scott Gordon, and Tanya Spackman,” patheos.org, 8 April 2010.
 Benn, 177-8.
 Pascal’s wager can be simplistically summed up as encouraging a person to “take an irrational belief-stance for the sake of prudence,” (Benn, 175), but I prefer to see it in light of Ben Rogers’s description: “[Pascal’s argument is]: ‘well, as a first step to believing in God you have to try believing in God. You will then begin to examine in a much more sympathetic light, the case for Christianity, and you begin taking part in all these bodily exercises…” (Philosophy Bites podcast, “Ben Rogers on Pascal’s Pensées,” 30 July 2009). This seems to comport well with Alma 32.
 Benn, 187.
 Patheos staff, ibid.