Great article. Thanks for publishing it. I predict this will bring out the boo's and jeers from the anti-LDS crowd as they once again, attempt to re-define our religion according to their views. Bring it on!

Yes, the antis have owned the internet in the past. This man goes out and shares his testimony of what he believes to be true. We should all take a lesson.

Uhhhhh.....hello. You work for BYU. The smug, "When will the check arrive?" remark just doesn't have much credibility.

There are actually four constants in life i.e., birth, taxes, death, and my favorite, critics. Critics have been with humanity since day one. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. At some point, everyone is a "critic" and has an opinion about something. Let's get to the point. The number one reason religion (including Mormonisn) has critics is not so much to enlighten others, but to justify ones' own position or thinking. Remember, the Savior had many critics who questioned him. Most were religious people who wanted to defend/justify their beliefs and way of life. I applaud Dr. Peterson for standing up for what he believes. I also support anyone who has "reasonable" questions about Mormonism and wants a reasonable answer to those questions. However, some critics of Mormonism do not want reasonable answers to their questions. They simply want to justify their own anti-Mormon position. If they are debunked in one area, they will try and find another one to pursue. If these critics are truly objective, do they hold every other religion, as well as their own personal lives/conduct, to the same level of scrutiny? If so, I welcome their objectiveness.

FARMS has some interesting 'research' methods whereby they reach their conclusions prior to conducting any 'research'.

EVERY LDS ward in California had a statement by the First Presidency read over the pulpit. President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors asked members to “do all they can” to support a new proposed amendment to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The amendment would overturn the May 15 California Supreme Court ruling but uphold a 2000 prohibition on same-sex marriage. The backlash reaction was almost immediate. While some members agreed with the statement or disagreed but chose to follow their Prophet, others became outspoken antagonists of the Church position. The latter, of course, caught wind with activists and the media, and resulted in an outpouring of news articles across California and Utah and blog postings that now circulate the globe. These individuals claim to be “active Mormons” and disagree with the Prophet’s counsel. Regardless of their rationale for disagreeing, any “active Mormon” sustains President Thomas S. Monson as the prophet, seer, revelator and mouth-piece of God.

Sometimes "antis" are just simply members, like myself, who have actually researched real (and available) history, and have, well, serious questions. Questions that just do not get answered. FYI. Seriously.

The truth is here. Somewhere between this guy and the antis.
Similar tactics are used.

I,too, "am a believer." As such I would like to praise FARMS, FAIR and their researchers and teachers for the great and sometimes groundbreaking work. As a believer I am sometimes appalled at the extent to which they will go to prove un unproveable "fact." On the other hand, I do owe one of their researchers a great appreciation for his condemnation of Lance owens' study on Joseph Smith's involvment in magic and Kabbalah. I was having a hard time believing some of the things that Owens was saying until William Hamblin used such ridiculous statistical arguements that he actually proved that the Smith gfamily was involved in magic, the exact opposite of what he was trying to prove. So let us not condemn these men and women, rather let us search their research to find the truth behind their ridicule and pervasive ad hominem arguementation.

On the other hand, Peterson should perhaps be praised for his brave stance against LDS conventionality and the counsel of the Church leaders by defying the grooming standards most of us are willing to follow because we are believers.

The 'scientists' and lobbyists for the tobbacco industry, among others, also stand up for what they believe, or get paid for. If this chap wants to believe this stuff and stand up for it, good on him. He will be well received by the choir. But, outside of the mormon world a lot of these efforts look like desperation measures. The beliefs are in place, now let's try and get some proof.

Prove it, Helen. And "Anonymous," your name says it all. How convenient to hide behind anonymity.

Go Dr. Peterson. One of the stupidest comments is the one by Helen M. Kimball. The professional Mormon haters have no real answer to the research you do so they just attack it and make fun of it.

These people have to continue to attack because if it turns out that the gospel really is true, they have made a terrible mistake by rejecting it. They have to keep it up in order to justify themselves.

Thank you Dr. Peterson. It must be hard sometimes to be emersed in defending against all that hatred. Thank you for having the knowledge, the courage and the committment to do it.

Uhhh...hello. BYU professors get paid to teach their subjects (which, in his case, is Islamic Studies and Arabic and to perform research. They do not get paid to run websites defending Mormonism. And, by the way, his comment did not come off as smug, but your certainly did.

Well, Prof. Peterson does not answer any questions, and just states he believes in Mormonism and defends it. I think Mormons spend too much time in defending their religion, and not enough time practicing it. It's here to stay right or wrong. It is a good organization advocating good, good deeds, clean crime free living. If it evolved out of deception, it has also evolved into a wonderful way of life. The good out weighs the bad any day, and that needs no defense, And Ms. Kimball is right about FARMS.

Bro. Peterson thrives on controversy, to the point where he creates "enemies" for the thrill of crushing them with his "humor." I know. I have been one. Yet I am a faithful, believing, active member of the church whose writings have always been entirely supportive of the church, the gospel, and its members. His misreading of my remarks in one instance unleashed repeated public attacks on my character and faith. His "humor" is cheap sarcasm, and when it is misdirected it can do great personal harm. (I don't suppose the Deseret News will allow this comment to remain, but I have given my email address in case they are fair enough to want to contact me for corroboration.)

The FARMS folks do some good work and some not so good work. I almost always read what they have to say but I try to balance what they say against what independent experts (who don't get paid by the organization they are defending) have to say.

Case in point, a number of scholarly books about LDS Church history have been written in recent years ("In Sacred Lonliness", forget the name but the book was on the DNA of native Americans, etc.) and these are real deal, honest and fair histories of controversial aspects of LDS history not usually presented to the public. I several instances, I have read the FARMS response to these type of books and articles and FARMS gets down right nasty and instead of attacking the logic or arguments of the researchers they attack the person writing the work. This is not true in all cases but in some of the ones I've read.

Bottom line, I don't fully trust FARMS to be "fair and balanced" and neither should anyone else since they have a financial incentive to protect. Doesn't mean they don't do alot of good work, just reader beware.

Anti-Mormons have some interesting 'research' methods whereby they reach their conclusions prior to conducting any 'research'.

I was a student at BYU when I first encountered Peterson's work. I have always been bothered by his method of scholarship. He loves to attack the writer instead of attacking the writer's message. That is, he engages in ad hominen attacks which neither advances his cause or the cause of the institution for which he works. I'd respect him if he'd tone down his rhetoric and focus exclusively on the argument of the works he's reviewing. If he can do this I think more people would take him seriously.

What about those skeptics? I have no problem with Mormonism, I am one and attend church every week. Through study I have come to the conclusion that the historical claims of Mormonism simply don't hold up. I have read and heard many arguments of those who defend the faith, especially those who defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I simply think that for me I would have to do too many "mental gymnastics and convolutions" to accept most of Mormonism. There are critics or skeptics out there who have come to their conclusions with an open mind (and open heart, it hurts to lose your religion). I am one of the sympathetic disbelievers, even though to outward appearances I look like any true believer. There are more of us than those critics that Dr. Peterson seems to need to argue with.

Do you know how much BYU professors make? My husband applied there, but the amount he would have made was almost a third of what we are making now. I know Dan Peterson personally and have been in his home and know he doesn't live an extravagant lifestyle by any means. Like most of the other BYU professors I know, they make enough to live a middle class life. Anyway, he gets paid for his work as a professor, not because he shares his testimony with others.

More power and success to you brother Peterson. I like that common sense, "there wasn't English then either". Isn't our English language sprinkled with French?

Anonymous-

What Peterson is referring to is that he has not received pay for his apologetic efforts, as he is employed by BYU as a professor of Arabic/Near Eastern Studies, not as an LDS apologetic. You are welcome to believe this is simply a front for the *real* reason he's working at BYU, but understand there is no real basis on which to base this speculation...it's groundless.

I am surprised that some people are criticizing the fact that people will believe something (have faith) and then look for evidence to support its truth. That is the essense of the gospel. I believe that is how we learn spiritual things, starting with belief and then working forward toward gainting an understanding.

Some people criticize modern prophets for being old, out of touch or too sick to "lead the church". I look at them today to say "so is that how Moses looked / acted or Paul the Apostle". I bet Paul had rumors floating around about him that he liked men more than women (giving his comments about women). Todays leaders are no different than what existed int he past. We can learn something from that.

Ah, the esteemed Dr. Peterson for whom I coined an anagram of his first name now legendary in "anti" circles . . .

So much nonsense to debunk, so few one-liners . . .

Peterson substitutes ad hominem attacks for scholarship; my friend, singer Tal Bachman, left the church and described his former level of faith as on par with extremists, saying if he'd been told to engage in suicide bombing he would have . . .

DCP immediately smeared him as a terrorist . . .

Another, Simon Southerton, engages in a review of Native American DNA findings, concludes Lehi never left descendants in the Americas, and FARMS puts out propaganda sans peer review that renders them laughingstock in academia.

I'll close by suggesting investigators examine apologists' current treatment of Rodney Meldrum's claims the Book of Mormon actually occurred where Joseph Smith said it did, namely upstate New York where Moroni purportedly showed him the plates.

Joseph Fielding Smith agreed with Meldrum's views, but apologists today teach "limited geography" and Meldrum is labeled a heretic. However, Central America is the only locale with cities and people with writing who populated them, never mind the lack of horses or steel.

ahhhh DCP, haven't thought about you in ages. Well sometimes we just have to shake our head and smile. Enjoy your moment Great Defender. Perhaps King Thomas might smile upon you.

Peterson, should he ever choose, could and would just as effectively and easily use his well-honed debating skills in presenting the opposite view to the one he now takes in the ongoing debate over the truthfulness of Mormonism. He fully recognizes the doctrinal and historical problems associated with Mormonism while choosing to take upon himself the role of “defender the faith.” There is nothing wrong with this. It is done all the time. But we should not assume based upon Peterson’s skills as a debater that he is necessarily telling the truth, whatever that might be.

Thank you Professor Peterson. It is oh so inconvenient for these rabid Mormon Haters to be confronted with the facts. You have done a world of good to take time away from your duties as a professor and your family to help us fend off these attacks.

"Farms researcher" is an, ahem, "oxy-Mormon". Research is performed to test hypotheses, not to look for evidence to a pre-conceived idea. Daniel Peterson is nothing more than a hack, trying to sound intelligent in order for members to not question the basic tenets of their faith, no matter how damning the evidence. Peterson isn't a researcher, but a biased advocate. He's no better than the so-called scientists who worked for the tobacco industry and tried to tell us all, that tobacco was perfectly safe.

re: What?
Exactly what would you like me to prove?
FARMS has no objectivity. They are completely subjective, therefore their "research" isn't actually research.
That point is more than obvious.
Isn't the entire point of research is by conducting the research using nothing but objectivity?
FARMS is a massive spin machine, similar to Faux 'News' and those of that ilk.
As I stated before, their conclusions are generally reached before they conduct their "research".

I have read articles from both FARMS and FAIR. I think the later seems to try to make apologia a contest of ideas rather than polemical attacks aimed at demonizing those who disagree with their view. I can't say the same for FARMS unfortunately.

I wish Dr. Peterson well in defending his faith in an honorable and intellectually honest way.

Also, why doesn't FARMS give us the background information about the extermination order by Gov. Boggs? There was the Sidney Rigdon speech on July 4 where he said that Mormons would take all 'gentile' property in a certain county in Missouri, which lead to the Mormon War and the extermination order.
What doesn't FARMS give us the background on William Law (particularly Law's wife & plural marriage) and the Nauvou Expositer?
FARMS does NOT give us that info, because they are not objective.

Like your blog and other places you have "posted," you're no different than what you think Daniel Peterson is, you have decided to take an atheist stance, and you fight tooth and nail by using biased sources to hold firm to your belief. Honestly, to call him a hack, I would love to see you debate him, that would be certainly entertaining.

You wrote, "Research is performed to test hypotheses, not to look for evidence to a pre-conceived idea."

Isn't a hypothesis a pre-conceived idea, a guess of what you think might happen? Research performed to test a hypothesis is looking for evidence that the hypothesis is right or wrong.

Do you really know what you are trying to say?

A little manure around the base of the tree, only helps the tree to grow. We have weathered the onslaught of the gainsayers for years and even they must admit that their antics have had the opposite effect they intended. WE ARE STILL HERE and are GROWING!!! The Lord said that "man may as well raise his puny arms to turn the course of the Missiouri River from its decreed path than to hamper the work of the Lord" (OK, that's a paraphrase). Point is.... bring it on gainsayers, bring it on.

I wonder if this will make it onto the forum.

I agree with Peterson's defense of the church and I disagree totally with his "kindly" attitude toward Islam.

I take pride in having been "banned" from a number of anti-Mormon blogs, including Decker's. Dr. Peterson is much more kindly than I.

Keep up the good work FARMS.

Do you know how ridiculous this article, and the accompanying comments, sound to non-Mormons living outside of Utah? It's no wonder people outside of Utah view BYU and Mormonism just like any other cult.

Bob P, people "ban" you when they cannot argue against you. Feel proud young man, feel proud.

Utah was colonated by Mormons, its two main universities - yes, even the University of Utah, were founded by LDS presidents. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is investing billions of dollars into Salt Lake City and everywhere they turn, antagonists within the city and state do all they can to rip down the church and what it does. From the church's leadership, to BYU (its Professors, Students and FARMS)and every-day members, there is always someone complaining against them. If you don't like what Utah is like - LEAVE. If you don't like the LDS church - LEAVE. If you don't like BYU and what its staff is doing - LEAVE. It is amazing how ignorant people can be. I know that I am not perfect, nobody is, and as soon as we all figure that out and start living with more tolerance we'll all be doing better. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

Shouldn't the truth withstand scrutiny? So much of Mormon doctrinal claims and history simply falls apart with even the slightest scientific methodology or historical research done by "non-Members" (who some may say have an "axe to grind").

As a former member who once looked to FARMS for some answers, I was quickly shocked to the degree in which their claims had no basis. I know very little of Mr. Peterson other a few articles he has written that seemed to focus on ad hominem attacks...other than the issue at hand.

Now that old Hugh Nibley is gone, looks like the Mormons have finally found another "scholar" to defend them. LOL It really would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

I am an active member, scholar and researcher. I leave out my name because I do not have the time or patience to be hounded by my own church for simply stating the truth. The truth in this instance is that Daniel Peterson hurts the genuine missionary efforts of the Church. Many ivestigators today are inclined to research LDS claims before accepting the Gospel. That research often includes the work of FARMS and Daniel Peterson. I have known several investigators who chose not to join or almost did not BECAUSE of his work. He attacks anyone who does not hold his point of view including strong, active members of the Church who may view things differently than the way FARMS does - ie the location of the BofM events. It is sad that many members simply click on FARMS or FAIR, see the abundance of articles and just assume "there must be good answers defending the church because so much is here" without reading any of it. Folks like Daniel Peterson have also helped BYU research in defense of the Church become a literal laughing stock among legitimate research institutions. Daniel Peterson hurts BYU's scholarly image as a whole.

"...the modern argument contends the witnesses were unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. Not likely, says Peterson, who finds it difficult to believe that individuals who spend their time in air-conditioned offices staring at computer screens have a better grasp of reality than those who spent their days laboring on farms."

What an odd pronouncement. Many people - including farmers and computer users - have been prone to superstition and fantasy. I wonder how Dr. Peterson views the witnesses' flings with other (presumably false) seers and prophets of the time.

Mike:
In case you didn't know it, Mormons were not the only people who helped make this great state of Utah what it is.

You and Mormons don't own the place and if you can't stand the criticism for certain things, then pershaps you should leave.

Utah was "colonated"???? Is that anything like a colonoscopy? I think what FARMS and FAIR produces comes out of the same orifice.

Mike said, "If you don't like what Utah is like - LEAVE. If you don't like the LDS church - LEAVE. If you don't like BYU and what its staff is doing - LEAVE. It is amazing how ignorant people can be. I know that I am not perfect, nobody is, and as soon as we all figure that out and start living with more tolerance we'll all be doing better."
This is tolerance?

I love the way critics claim ad hominem without any proof or references. I have read a lot of Dr. peterson's works and have not found him "attacking the man" instead of the research. But that isn't the way the critics want it, they state that all his work is ad hominem and so it must be true. They use ad hominem as an ad hominem attack on Dr. peterson and FARMS.

Keep up the good work Dr. Peterson!

Dr. Peterson makes the same salary if he does apologetics or not.
Southerton makes money for his Losing a Lost Tribe book, while Peterson is not paid royalties for his FARMS writings. Southerton is the one with the financial interest.
Arguments against FARMS and FAIR writers such as Peterson is little more than ad-Hominem and poisoning the well. The critics are the ones who actually do what they accuse Peterson of doing. The critics don't want to deal with the evidence, so they accuse. As for bias--everyone is biased. At least Peterson is honest about his.

Daniel Peterson is so lacking in the ability to be straightforward, serious, and respectful that the best he can fall back on is snide, prideful, self-absorbed humor and mocking.

Critics will take Peterson more seriously if he actually obeyed the Book of Mormon:

Alma 5:30 And again I say unto you, is there one among you that doth make a mock of his brother, or that heapeth upon him persecutions? 31 Wo unto such an one, for he is not prepared, and the time is at hand that he must repent or he cannot be saved!

Also, Peterson's insinuation that early Christians believed in theosis ***in the manner that Mormons understand it*** is a shameful lie. Daniel has been corrected far too many times on this. No orthodox Christian view of theosis has ever said humans can become equally omnipotent or omniscient with God.

LDS historical research has become more objective recently. The church is not 'hiding' anything about our past as the anti-mormons would like to think.

For example, The first 'Joseph Smith Papers' book will be released later this year. The project has been overseen by 3 non-mormons and 1 mormon. The National Historical Publications and Records Commission has endorsed this project and holds high requirements for objectivity and thoroughness. The entire project will be an encyclopedia of 26 volumes on practically every authentic piece of paper associated with Joseph Smith.

This will really help to quell naysayers and 'myth-makers' and I think will be just the start of new objective research into Mormon history.

I'd sure like to know how Mr. Peterson tries to explain away the fact that scientific DNA evidence proves that American Indians originated from Asia and NOT from Israel as the Book of Mormon falsely claims! This evidence has discredited the Book of Mormon to the Nth degree