Dawkins on Mormonism

[_asbestosman]

Your zelda diversion is laughable.

Yeah? Well they laughed at Wright Brothers. They laughed at Fulton. They also laughed at Moksha, Cinepro, and Mighty Curelom. I'd say I'm in good company.

[Guest]

Would Dawkin’s (and other critic’s) qualms disappear if the Book of Mormon was written solely in 19th Century Upstate New Yorkian dialect?
For some reason, I think that would provide additional fodder for the "frontier fiction" crowd.

I can't imagine that critics qualms would 'disappear', but I - for one - would find it more credible. (To some degree)
I think the fact that the Book of Mormon is written in essentially King James Bible 'English' was one of the first things that struck me as 'odd' about it - as I was starting my 'descent'. (Or my 'ascention' - depending on your point of view!). It was probably the second in fact.
...I think the first thing was all the essentially 'New Testament' stuff going on 100's of years before Christ was born...

EDIT: In the full Q&A clip, Dawkins clarifies some of his opinions on his 'religious child abuse' views. I'm glad he did - their not quite as extreme as I thought they were.

[Reflexzero]

Would Dawkin’s (and other critic’s) qualms disappear if the Book of Mormon was written solely in 19th Century Upstate New Yorkian dialect?
For some reason, I think that would provide additional fodder for the "frontier fiction" crowd.

I can't imagine that critics qualms would 'disappear', but I - for one - would find it more credible. (To some degree)
I think the fact that the Book of Mormon is written in essentially King James Bible 'English' was one of the first things that struck me as 'odd' about it - as I was starting my 'descent'. (Or my 'ascention' - depending on your point of view!). It was probably the second in fact.
...I think the first thing was all the essentially 'New Testament' stuff going on 100's of years before Christ was born...

People have tried to find 19th Century New York within the pages of the Book of Mormon in order to show that it is a modern production and not of antiquity. I really don’t think that if Joseph had “translated” the Book of Mormon into his upstate New York vernacular, that Mr. Dawkins qualm regarding the language of the text would simply disappear nor even diminish (as I believe you're suggesting). KJV-style English was what was familiar for “scripture.” I recently finished reading an 1898 (I believe that’s the year) translation of the Book of Enoch, and the translator chose none other than KJV-style English for his translation. In fact, most "modern" translations of apocryphal texts that I've read choose at least a bit of a KJV flavor. It's what's familiar for "scripture" amongst Americans.

I really don’t think it’s a point of contention as to whether or not Joseph was a fraud. I think it holds as much water as a criticism as the whole adieu argument. KJV Isaiah passages or KJV New Testament passages that are verbatim would potentially be a point of contention. But the fact that the Book of Mormon is written (or “translated” [depending on which camp you’re in]) in KJV-style English is really a weak evidence for fraudulence if even an evidence at all.


Edited to add: I hope the above makes sense. I'm having a bad day mentally and there's a lot of "noise," so I'm having trouble getting my thoughts together. Sorry if it's too loopy to understand.

[_Tarski]

Isn't Zelda just marketed fiction?

I suppose you could say that. It certainly is fiction.

The use of Jacobean English is just added exactly to help sell it? To give it a certain feel?

I'm not sure that the Jacobean English helped sell the game, but I'm sure it was used because of the effect such tends to have upon people (reminds them of scripture / Shakespeare I suppose).

How does that help the Book of Mormon?

It may help remind them of other scripture and therefore aid in making the connection between various points. I don't know, but it may also be that people discussed religious things using Jacobean English back in that day. It may be that the Nephites used slightly older words and so the semantics of their words are better expressed by using Jacobean English--in fact I believe that such is still done today when things are translated from one language to another (say the Japanese version of Zelda to the English one).

Gotta be frank. That sounds like some serious "rationalization"

[Analytics]

Perhaps I should state it this way. If indeed the Book of Mormon were 19th century fiction, I don't think the Jacobean English thing would be more than a peculiar attribute which may give one leads in other interesting directions (look at CK's CK thread). In and of itself I find it completely benign (but of course I do, consider the source).

And again Doctor Steuss is much more eloquent than I am.

[_Ren]

In fact, most "modern" translations of apocryphal texts that I've read choose at least a bit of a KJV flavor. It's what's familiar for "scripture" amongst Americans.

I suppose it would make a difference here whether God was giving 'impressions' of words to Joseph Smith, which Joseph Smith then 'turned' into English, or if God literally showed 'readable text' to Joseph Smith. (I always understood it to be the latter).
If it's the latter, then we'd be saying that God purposefully chose to use KJB-like language? Presumerably because this was what was expected?
...it kinda works - I guess...
I can see why it would strike Dawkins as 'odd', but I also agree that it's hardly a 'killer' point.
I think your right that - without any difference in substance, critics would still be all over it without this detail.

I really don’t think that if Joseph had “translated” the Book of Mormon into his upstate New York vernacular, that Mr. Dawkins qualm regarding the language of the text would simply disappear.

I can't speak for Mr.Dawkins. I can only speak for myself.

But the fact that the Book of Mormon is written (or “translated” [depending on which camp you’re in]) in KJV-style English is really a weak evidence for fraudulence if even an evidence at all.

All I can say is that it stood out to me. Whether that is reasonable or not is another question.

[_Doctor Steuss]

The source is as credible as they come.

When the Dawkins speaks, the thinking has been done.

(Sorry, couldn't resist).

[_Doctor Steuss]

I suppose it would make a difference here whether God was giving 'impressions' of words to Joseph Smith, which Joseph Smith then 'turned' into English, or if God literally showed 'readable text' to Joseph Smith. (I always understood it to be the latter).
If it's the latter, then we'd be saying that God purposefully chose to use KJB-like language? Presumerably because this was what was expected?
...it kinda works - I guess...

Actually, now that I’m thinking about this a bit more, perhaps the "tight translation" theory would potentially make Dawkins argument somewhat more noteworthy (as it would presume that expectations would be more important to G-d than clarity and accuracy).

What the heck… you start to agree with me, and then I have to disagree with your agreement to my previous disagreement(?) I need a nap.

[Guest]

When the Dawkins speaks, the thinking has been done.
(Sorry, couldn't resist).

I doubt he's spent much time looking at Mormonism. He's probably getting more exposed to it than usual because of Romney.

[_Ren]

What the heck… you start to agree with me, and then I have to disagree with your agreement to my previous disagreement(?) I need a nap.

Don't feel too bad :)
I bought up the exact translation process in relation to another 'problem' I had a while back - in relation to a case where the name 'King Benjamin' appears to get mixed up with another name (can't remember which now) and got 'jumped' on because I was 'assuming' I 'knew' how the translation process worked.
I think all I was doing was taking David Whitmer's account at 'face value'....

Anywho - since then I haven't assumed that I 'know' how the translation process actually was supposed to have happenned...!