Dawkins on Mormonism

[_Some Schmo]

Bright people do find the LDS Church compelling and fullfilling and not so obviously false. They are not all deluded and bumbling idiots nor are they simply believers because they were born into it. Nor do all non LDS come to the conclusions about Smith and the Church that you think they do. It is just not so cut and dry.

Actually, it really is cut and dry if you remove the emotional baggage foisted upon long time members of the church. You can rationalize it away all you want, but that says more about your baggage than it does about its credibility.

They may not be all bumbling idiots, but you wouldn't know it based on their belief in this stuff.

by the way, your parrot reference was amusing, considering the number of repeated platitudes continuously perpetuated by Mormon culture. Pretty funny indeed.

[_asbestosman]

I looked at my secular Dead Sea Scrolls translation published in the good old 20th Century......King James English, what do you know? My Gospel of Thomas? Same thing. My book of Enoch? Same thing. I would contend that if God had brought forth the Book of Mormon today it would still be in King James English. Quick survey shows that out of 7 translated religious works I grabbed off the shelf behind me, 5 are in King James English, none published by the LDS Church. The two that weren't were the Koran and the Kabbalah.

Just thought I'd quote this to point out that both The Nehor and Doctor Steuss have made my point much better than I could. If even the Dead Sea Scrolls are translated into Jacobean English does that mean that scholars are trying to manipulate our feelings by giving us some fraudulent texts that they made up? What are your rationalizations there? That they wanted to give it a certain feel? Perhaps so, but why would that be an indication of transparent fraud?

[_Who Knows]

I looked at my secular Dead Sea Scrolls translation published in the good old 20th Century......King James English, what do you know? My Gospel of Thomas? Same thing. My book of Enoch? Same thing. I would contend that if God had brought forth the Book of Mormon today it would still be in King James English. Quick survey shows that out of 7 translated religious works I grabbed off the shelf behind me, 5 are in King James English, none published by the LDS Church. The two that weren't were the Koran and the Kabbalah.

Just thought I'd quote this to point out that both The Nehor and Doctor Steuss have made my point much better than I could. If even the Dead Sea Scrolls are translated into Jacobean English does that mean that scholars are trying to manipulate our feelings by giving us some fraudulent texts that they made up? What are your rationalizations there? That they wanted to give it a certain feel? Perhaps so, but why would that be an indication of transparent fraud?

Perhaps because those things are ancient? And they fit with the biblical scriptural genre? I don't know.

I think some of the problem has to do with Joseph Smith's lack of disclosure about the translation process. And most of what we do know points to words appearing on a seer stone that Joseph Smith merely dictated to his scribe - word for word. The KJ english component seems to suggest a sort of loose translation process - Joseph Smith chose to write the words that way - likely in order for it to sound more 'scriptural'.

If Joseph Smith would have said something like "i put the words of the gold plates into my own words, and into KJ english", then we probably wouldn't be talking about this right now. However, he never gave us a hint of anything like that happening. Rather, all that we do know seems to indicate that he was merely a reader of the english version of ancient american writings. And if this were the case, it shouldn't show up as KJ english.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is great. Does anything else really need to be said?

By the way, Dawkins sneer about Romney was really revealing. Does he sneer about those running for president who believe in Jesus Christ. Seem to me Dawkins believes he is really a cut above the idiot believers of the world.

[_Some Schmo]

This is great. Does anything else really need to be said?

By the way, Dawkins sneer about Romney was really revealing. Does he sneer about those running for president who believe in Jesus Christ. Seem to me Dawkins believes he is really a cut above the idiot believers of the world.

Well, from an intellectual standpoint, he is.

[_Jason Bourne]

Actually, it really is cut and dry if you remove the emotional baggage foisted upon long time members of the church. You can rationalize it away all you want, but that says more about your baggage than it does about its credibility.

No you are incorrect. For me I do not believe the LDS Church is what I once thought it was. But I am not so condescending that I canont see that honest and smart people see things differently and are not just emotionally tied down to it and can see things differently.

They may not be all bumbling idiots, but you wouldn't know it based on their belief in this stuff.

A fine example to the irrational atheistic approach to the believer.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is great. Does anything else really need to be said?

By the way, Dawkins sneer about Romney was really revealing. Does he sneer about those running for president who believe in Jesus Christ. Seem to me Dawkins believes he is really a cut above the idiot believers of the world.

Well, from an intellectual standpoint, he is.

Not really. There are many believers that are just as smart. Have you read the debates between Dawkins and the evangelical Christian genetics genius-wish I could remember his name. This guy mapped the human genome and is and adult convert to evangelical Christianity. He is not an intellectual slouch at all.

[_Some Schmo]

Actually, it really is cut and dry if you remove the emotional baggage foisted upon long time members of the church. You can rationalize it away all you want, but that says more about your baggage than it does about its credibility.

No you are incorrect. For me I do not believe the LDS Church is what I once thought it was. But I am not so condescending that I canont see that honest and smart people see things differently and are not just emotionally tied down to it and can see things differently.

Well, you aren't going to really know for sure until you shed that baggage. But I can tell you with utter confidence that people who have never been exposed to Mormonism, when first encountering it, generally think of it as a pretty cut and dry fraud.

They may not be all bumbling idiots, but you wouldn't know it based on their belief in this stuff.

A fine example to the irrational atheistic approach to the believer.

How is that irrational? It's irrational to expect people to believe based on evidence rather than warm fuzzies? It's irrational to expect people to be critical of things which under normal circumstances seem completely outrageous?

Sorry, but when I observe people applying logic to all facets of their life except their religious beliefs, and think to myself "what's up with this hole in their thinking?" They can appear very smart indeed, right up until they start talking about their supernatural beliefs, and then they turn into a bumbling idiot.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well, you aren't going to really know for sure until you shed that baggage.

This is only your a priori assumption that I, or others have baggage. What proof of this other then sneering about it do you have?

But I can tell you with utter confidence that people who have never been exposed to Mormonism, when first encountering it, generally think of it as a pretty cut and dry fraud.

I am sure I have as much or more experience with discussing Mormomism with people and my experience is not yours. Many do not find it a cut and dry fraud. I think you are mistaken. Many find it a plausible religion and as possible and plausible as the religion discussed in the Bible.

How is that irrational? It's irrational to expect people to believe based on evidence rather than warm fuzzies? It's irrational to expect people to be critical of things which under normal circumstances seem completely outrageous

It is irrational that you assume everyone who believes is an idiot, deluded,has baggage and so on. And what is outrageous to one may not be to another.

Sorry, but when I observe people applying logic to all facets of their life except their religious beliefs, and think to myself "what's up with this hole in their thinking?" They can appear very smart indeed, right up until they start talking about their supernatural beliefs, and then they turn into a bumbling idiot

When you presume religious belief makes someone an idiot you put yourself in a position to act as if you are better then, smarter then, and more rational then they are. This is not always the case. It is as bad as the believer thinking you are automatically morally defective because you do not believe in God.

[_asbestosman]

If Joseph Smith would have said something like "I put the words of the gold plates into my own words, and into KJ english", then we probably wouldn't be talking about this right now. However, he never gave us a hint of anything like that happening. Rather, all that we do know seems to indicate that he was merely a reader of the english version of ancient american writings. And if this were the case, it shouldn't show up as KJ english.

Even assuming that David Whitmer's account of the words appearing is correct (leaving aside that such seems to contradict how Oliver Cowdery was told to do it in the D&C) why should we assume that if God or the seer stone is doing the translating that it would not also show up as KJ English especially in light of the fact that professional scholars have translated the Dead Sea Scrolls in KJ English. If the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claims it was, then wouldn't it also be ancient writings similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls with a translation provided by the professional scholar God?

Indeed, I almost think the case is worse for a loose translation where Joseph Smith claims that the tranlation came to him is pure knowledge and impressions which he then wrote in English. Perhaps it is bad for me to say that as I actually do believe in more of a loose translation.