Dawkins on Mormonism

[_Who Knows]

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?

Well, i'm not saying it's a great criticism of the Book of Mormon. I was just trying to point out how it could be viewed as one (of many). After all, god can do whatever he likes, right? (including making the words appear to Joseph Smith in KJ english). :)

I think Dawkins' point is that he assumes a god-given translation would show up with language similar to the day of Joseph Smith (or maybe something similar to 1,500 years ago). The fact that it shows up with KJ english makes it look like someone was intentionally trying to make it look 'official' - like scripture.

I would also just point out that Whitmer's account isn't the only one. There are others. And how Oliver was told to do the translation is pretty vague, and could be interpreted in a number of different ways. I still don't see it as contrary to the number of other descriptions regarding words or sentences appearing in the stone.

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.

How is it worse? That's the only way it really makes sense.

[_asbestosman]

I think Dawkins' point is that he assumes a god-given translation would show up with language similar to the day of Joseph Smith (or maybe something similar to 1,500 years ago). The fact that it shows up with KJ english makes it look like someone was intentionally trying to make it look 'official' - like scripture.

I'm not convinced largely because it seems like a sort of witch-hunt mentality where you conclude someone is obviously guilty because they denied it.

I can, however, see something which indeed makes it look like someone was intentionally trying to make it look official, especially if the tight translation theory is correct. The Book of Mormon often uses the KJ English incorrectly. I found that odd when I finally discovered it especially since I had long assumed that it was a tight translation. Sure it could have been the Nephites being ungrammatical but when cheifly in the use of thee / ye / thou instead of other issues? That does seem a bit more like someone was trying to make it look official, but again I don't think it was the use of official-sounding language so much as the misuse of it.

How is it worse? That's the only way it really makes sense.

Because if Joseph was using his own words, then why wouldn't he speak clearly and naturally instead of using KJ English of which he did not have mastery? Indeed the mistakes and jumping in and out of KJ English make it seem more like he was trying too hard to impress instead of letting the message speak for itself in the clear way the message would have been communicated to his mind.

[_Who Knows]

How is it worse? That's the only way it really makes sense.

Because if Joseph was using his own words, then why wouldn't he speak clearly and naturally instead of using KJ English of which he did not have mastery?

Well, no. This is where your examples of the Dead Sea Scrolls would apply, and make sense. Joseph Smith would merely have been doing what the DSS translators did.

Simple enough, as long as it's a loose translation. Too bad Joseph Smith (nor anyone else for that matter) gave an indication this was so, and in fact went against this theory.

[_Mary]

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsi ... epage_box4

Dawkins is on Channel 4 on Monday (UK).. I'm looking forward to it. (don't always agree with everything he says...)

Actually, I think he has a point, on the mad board someone referred to people that are obvious frauds...

To Dawkins, Joseph Smith is just that. To many people, they look at his lifestyle, and come to the same conclusions. It's so obvious that it is difficult to ignore. Even to long standing members (like myself) who have to change their beliefs with greater knowledge of what Joseph was really like...which is certainly more interesting, but more disturbing if one has a particular view about how a prophet should behave, as taught by the LDS religion itself, in times gone by...

If Sunday School had been full of lessons in which Joseph was portrayed as the colourful man that he was, it might have been different.

Mary

[_Some Schmo]

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?

Um... well, how about the major traffic associated with Mormon recovery boards? Doesn't that tell you something about Mormon baggage?

It took me years to see things from an utterly non-mormon point of view. If you can't see that you have the mental baggage, then you're obviously still mentally in the church, or you never were.

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.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people were acting interested just to be nice?

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.

There is a clear correlation between intelligence and agnostic/atheist belief. I'll try to find a reference to the study on this that was performed.

I don't specifically think all believers are idiots; I just think they're idiots when it comes to this religious stuff.

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.

Well, people are free to not care what I think of them, just like I'm free to not be concerned with how moral they think I am.

The fact is, believing in supernatural hocus pocus crap like religion is irrational; hence, I am, in fact, more rational. Not necessarily better or smarter, but certainly more rational.

[_Jason Bourne]

Um... well, how about the major traffic associated with Mormon recovery boards? Doesn't that tell you something about Mormon baggage?

A limited number of disaffected members proves all believing Mormons have baggage? Wow I am sooo impressed with this empirical evidence.

It took me years to see things from an utterly non-mormon point of view. If you can't see that you have the mental baggage, then you're obviously still mentally in the church, or you never were.

In other words "Since you do not see the light like I do you have baggage and are blinded." That is just as silly as me saying "You gave up the Holy Ghost when you rejected your belief and now are blinded by Satan."

Did it ever occur to you that maybe people were acting interested just to be nice?

So now all intetested people are just being nice. Come schmo. You are treading water here.

There is a clear correlation between intelligence and agnostic/atheist belief. I'll try to find a reference to the study on this that was performed.

I would like to see that.

I don't specifically think all believers are idiots; I just think they're idiots when it comes to this religious stuff.

This is still an a priori assumption. For you all religious belief is stupid and the person believing it is flawed in that part of their life.

Well, people are free to not care what I think of them, just like I'm free to not be concerned with how moral they think I am.

Did you really miss the point that badly?

The fact is, believing in supernatural hocus pocus crap like religion is irrational; hence, I am, in fact, more rational. Not necessarily better or smarter, but certainly more rational

No you just tell your self this to make yourself feel more rational. In fact all you are posting here is irrational.

[_Some Schmo]

No you just tell your self this to make yourself feel more rational. In fact all you are posting here is irrational.

If a person from an asylum told you that you were insane, how seriously should you take that?

I'll take this with a grain of salt given your various responses in this post and on these boards in general.

[_Jason Bourne]

No you just tell your self this to make yourself feel more rational. In fact all you are posting here is irrational.

If a person from an asylum told you that you were insane, how seriously should you take that?

I'll take this with a grain of salt given your various responses in this post and on these boards in general.

Ahh I was just harassing you man!! Look I know where you are coming from and understand why you view it this way. As I have moved along my own spiritual journey there is a lot of things I used to believe that I think were irrational and I see a lot of irrational things in fellow believers as well. The thread on the testimony about God answering the car keys thread is an example. Also it is irrational to think one's feelings of a spiritual witness trumps another's. It is irrational to think that all athiest are automatically amoral and now going on rampanet ses, drinking, drugging and hedonistic binges and that religion is the only thing that keeps people's behavior in check.

But it is irrational to think that all who may still have faith in a religion and God are irrational in that belief.

[_asbestosman]

If a person from an asylum told you that you were insane, how seriously should you take that?

Reminds me of a comic I once saw of a psychiatrist visiting a patient in a rubber room. He told him something along the lines of, "Just between you and me, your conviction that the rest of the world is insane is probably correct, but they are in charge."

It also reminds me of Wonko the Sane in the Hitchhiker's trilogy who built a building inside out. In fact it was an inside-out insane asylum in order to hold the rest of the world.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hey Schmo, I'd like to see any research that shows a correlation between higher intelligence and atheist/agnostic beliefs.

It's never been my experience that intelligence had much to do with belief or lack thereof, but I'd be interested in seeing some research on this.