![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mormonscholarstestify.org\/wp-content\/themes\/office_10\/images\/logo.jpg\"){kind=logo}
<\/a>Mormon Scholars Testify is a website which seeks to give \u201cLDS 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<\/a>.\u201d Daniel C. Peterson, who originally\u00a0conceived\u00a0of the site and collects testimonies for inclusion,\u00a0described it as a \u201cpersonal missionary enterprise\u201d inspired by Elder Ballard\u2019s call for more members to use the Internet to spread the gospel.1<\/sup><\/a> In this post I want to chat about the purposes of such a website.<\/p>\nThere are over a hundred posted testimonies to date which can be browsed randomly, by name<\/a>, or by academic specialty<\/a>. What\u2019s the point of such a site? It restricts submissions to \u201cscholars\u201d 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:<\/p>\n There are some who may feel that people of education and learning can\u2019t 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Perhaps this point helps (at least partially) explain the knock-off site, Ex-Mormon Scholars Testify<\/a>. To borrow a concept from Piers Benn, the Ex-Mormon site counters \u201cthe problem of reasonable Mormons\u201d with the \u201cproblem of reasonable non-Mormons.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a> Peterson describes the problem of reasonable Mormons this way:<\/p>\n 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\u2019m 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 \u201cunsound proofs, they may still retain some weaker evidential force.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n That evidential force seems to be what Peterson says is the \u201cimplicit argument\u201d 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\u2019s wager, or encourage people to \u201cgive place,\u201d as the Book of Mormon says (Alma 32:27<\/a>).5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Benn would add that \u201cfor the same reason [Mormons] should feel challenged by the fact that there are reasonable [non-Mormons].\u201d6<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0I don\u2019t 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:<\/p>\n I\u2019m not looking for academic arguments for belief, but I genuinely appreciate it (and I think the readers will appreciate it) when authors include in their testimonies something about how their own studies, research and\/or intellectual and cultural life has interacted with (perhaps even reinforced) their spiritual lives or their lives as believing members of the Church.7<\/sup><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To this end, Peterson\u00a0said 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.\u00a0I\u2019ve enjoyed selections from scholars including Boyd Peterson, Grant Hardy, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, and others. I\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0fallacious 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\u2019ve enjoyed the site for many of the individual testimonies I\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n A bunch of questions mashed at the end to spark some discussion:<\/strong><\/p>\n 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? \u00a0Benefits, drawbacks, etc. I\u2019m looking for some feedback on what people think of it. <\/em><\/p>\n FOOTNOTES:<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> R. Scott Lloyd, \u201cNew Web site: \u2018Mormon Scholars Testify<\/a>,'\u201d Church News<\/em>, 23 December 2009.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> See Piers Benn, \u201cSome Uncertainties About Agnosticism,\u201d International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 46 (1999): 176, 179.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a>\u00a0Patheos staff,\u00a0\u201cMormon Scholars Testify:\u00a0An Interview with Dan Peterson, Scott Gordon, and Tanya Spackman<\/a>,\u201d patheos.org, 8 April 2010.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Benn, 177-8.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Pascal\u2019s wager can be simplistically summed up as encouraging a person to \u201ctake an irrational belief-stance for the sake of prudence,\u201d (Benn, 175), but I prefer to see it in light of Ben Rogers\u2019s description: \u201c[Pascal\u2019s argument is]: \u2018well, as \u00a0a 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\u2026\u201d (Philosophy Bites podcast, \u201cBen Rogers on Pascal\u2019s Pens\u00e9es<\/a>,\u201d 30 July 2009). This seems to comport well with Alma 32.<\/p>\n\n