- a quote by Ryan Parr Ph.D
What they say:
"I would have been a Mormon but my IQ is over 5"
My response:
Okay, so not all Mormons have advanced degrees. I do, and I know many other faithful LDS that do as well. In fact, studies suggest that LDS have a significantly higher level of educational attainment than the general US population. There is a funny thing about members of the Church however, that is not true of other Christian denominations. There is a direct correlation between educational attainment and Church activity. Find out more at Mormon Scholars Testify.
Why would otherwise demonstrably intelligent people buy into the whole weird story of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? If you discover the answer to that question, you will join the Church yourself.
If you lack the patience to read much on Mormon Scholars, at least consider the last five paragraphs of the testimony of Dr. Armand Mauss, a gentleman from whom I have learned much in person and in print. Although our lives have been quite different, he expresses my feelings accurately and eloquently.
What they say:
But surely, these educated people who are Mormons are only Mormons today because they were brought up in the church, brainwashed into believing it, and remain despite their realization that it is ridiculous.
My response:
New converts to the Church include many humble people who lack educational attainment. They also include people with doctorate degrees. As critics challenged the Church with DNA evidence they claimed refuted the veracity of the Book of Mormon, a non-LDS population geneticist with a Ph.D in Molecular Evolution from the University of Texas, Dr. Keith Crandall, saw the data in a different light. Dr. Crandall is now a member the church. Of course, he is probably like a third-tier scholar, not even recognized in his field, right? See for yourself. Here is his vita.
And surely, no Mesoamerican archeologists would join the LDS church. After all, they would know that all the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the possibility that the Book of Mormon could be true. Yet recently two of them did.
What they say:
Are not all Mormons just radical right wing religious fanatics.
My response:
The Gospel of Jesus Christ gathers in all kinds. The U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reed is a sincere liberal democrat, while Glen Beck is an outspoken conservative.
What they say:
But your basing your belief on mere feelings. How "scientific" is that?
My response:
Testimony is an interesting and individual phenomena. We are told in the church, that the good and positive feelings we experience are manifestations of the Holy Ghost. While that may be true in many cases, feelings are probably not the most reliable means of discerning truth.
D. Jeff Burton identifies three kinds of testimony; the "feeling based" testimony, the "manifestation based" testimony and the "life tested" testimony. His essay is instructive and I appreciate his effort. He concludes that the "life tested" testimony is the "surest way of coming to know that any propositional claim is correct or right." This is consistent with the Saviors promise " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself".
The problem with this approach is that a person might waste a significant portion of their life, only to find that what they believed was wrong. More likely however, is that the more time invested in a belief system, the more likely a person will be to defend their investment of life energy.
The inadequacy of "feelings" as verification of a truth claim is a favorite of church critics.
Depending on the type of critic, the appropriate replacement for what LDS call "promptings of the Spirit" is either atheism or Biblical inerrancy. Neither of those alternatives strike me as satisfactory.
One very acerbic exposition by a disaffected church member is here. While many points are valid, the presentation is cynical and derisive and really not very helpful to those hoping to understand testimony.
I don't