Are Defenders simply incorrigible?

[_asbestosman]

No, but that isn't what I was asking, was it?

You said "treated with incredulity". That statement seemed somewhat ambiguous to me. Did you mean my religious opinions treated as such or my entire personality? I thought maybe you meant to limit the comments to treating with incredulity my comments on the subject of religion instead of necessarily all my thoughts or actions. As such, my comment is that I don't expect you to agree with those comments and then I clarified in what way you could disagree with them without necessarily thinking I'm quite defective.

Do you write off as mere superstitious the concerns of the people and authorities in Salem regarding the which trials of 1692? Or have you tried to gain their perspective? I see no more evidence of Mormonism's truth claims than I do of those people that were hanged having been witches.

I don't have time to try gaining perspective of everything. I think that some of what Isaac Newton did was superstitious nonsense, but I also recognize that he was an extremely intelligent individual. The only reason I think my beliefs are superior to Newton's in certain areas is that I have the advantage of more information which was not readily available to him. I may very well write off the Salem witch hysteria as madness, but to some extent I do try to understand their perspective. Indeed, I think it good because I believe this stuff still crops up in our society such as the Satanic ritual abuse scare. Nowadays we're also moving away from religious scares such as with the commie scare of the 1950's and perhaps how we often judge men accused of sex crimes as guilty until proven innocent (Duke lacrosse anyone?).

Then are you admitting that accepting Mormonism takes a preconceived bias in its favor?

No, I am saying no such thing. I am admitting that I have a pre-conceived bias in its favor. What others need for accepting Mormonism I cannot say.

I do not question your overall abilities to have rational thoughts and conversations. There are many topics on which I imagine you are sublimely rational. Religion just doesn't happen to be one.

Oh, of course not. That's where you're supremely rational--just like every other subject where you're convinced you're correct? Come on. At least step back and admit that you're human and can make similar mistakes to the ones you believe you see in others.

I also like Don's thoughts on the matter, but I do not share the academic background he does on Mormon history. Many of his points echo what I have in mind and have been trying to express. I think of anyone who can talk about understanding evidence and making choices, it would be him (if he chooses to). He has been on both sides of the fence.

[_DrW]

Simon seems to think that "many" some LDS Church members ARE Brights. He is certainly mistaken in that.

Any "faithful" LDS member who states that they are a Bright is either lying or needs to have a talk with the Bishop.

I think he meant "bright" as in "intelligent", not the group of atheists with a silly label.

Here is the quote from Simon's post above:

Why is it so popular with academics and "brights" who obviously are aware of these things?

Since Simon put "brights" is in quotes, it is pretty obvious the he meant "brights".

It is also therefore self-evident that he had not a clue what he was talking about (not uncommon for Simon, as I am beginning to understand).

Would you not agree?

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, you want to jump in and help the hapless stemelbow by bringing him up to speed on how his religious hero was a common, garden variety charlatan?

Frankly, I do not understand why you're getting so worked up over stemelbow's comments. How are they much different from mine?

But, in short, Joseph Smith was engaged in a profession that was common in his time and place. His family and he sincerely believed in the folk magic they practiced, as did many others including preachers, doctors, and laymen alike. You cannot damn him anymore than a future person could damn me when it is discovered, in the future, that the practice IT was a form of magic (many users, in fact, think it is magic).


And, DrW, by "bright" I meant "not dull or dimwitted." I was not referring to the actual "Brights" (capitalized).

Think, man.

[_asbestosman]

It is also therefore obvious that he had not a clue what he was talking about.

I agree that it was clear that he misused the term. What he actually intended was also clear due to the context, would you not agree?

I know it's fun to rag on people for spelling, grammar and like, but sometimes it's nice to try addressing actual intent when it's clear. Of course, I also enjoy the occasional joke from a misspelled word. One of my favorites was when I friend told me that our "trials make us sore." She meant soar. I had good laugh about that one--just the thing I needed at the time.

Your first response to Simon could have been seen as humorous reply of opportunity (although you could work on making it funnier). Your subsequent posts where you brought it up again and again weren't funny or helpful. It's just vanity since we all know what Simon actually intended to convey even if he was mistaken in his usage of the term.

[_thews]

Ask any LDS missionary how obvious the JW fraud is. They'll be happy to tell you. And yet, it's a pretty popular religion.

no doubt its easy to conclude fraud for any religion. Very easy. So what? To some an obvious fraud, is nothing but a wonderful way of life to others.

In other words, ignorance is bliss.

[_EAllusion]

Mormonism isn't that popular Simon. You're not Catholic. In fact, Mormonism is widely synonymous with goofy beliefs in America. That being said, there's nothing precluding widely held beliefs from being irrational. Almost half the united states believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. That isn't a rational belief to hold.

[Guest]

Simon, you want to jump in and help the hapless stemelbow by bringing him up to speed on how his religious hero was a common, garden variety charlatan?

Frankly, I do not understand why you're getting so worked up over stemelbow's comments. How are they much different from mine?

But, in short, Joseph Smith was engaged in a profession that was common in his time and place. His family and he sincerely believed in the folk magic they practiced, as did many others including preachers, doctors, and laymen alike. You cannot damn him anymore than a future person could damn me when it is discovered, in the future, that the practice IT was a form of magic (many users, in fact, think it is magic).


And, DrW, by "bright" I meant "not dull or dimwitted." I was not referring to the actual "Brights" (capitalized).

Think, man.

Not good enough, Simon.

First letter capital "Brights" are actually members. Lower case "brights" are adherents or advocates - those who consider themselves "brights" but have not formally joined the organization.

Both terms are generally used inside quotes.

If you had meant bright people, why use the term "brights" in quotes?
Why not just say bright people?

You should have checked out the website before you came up with that lame excuse.

Why not just go ahead and admit that you had heard the term, associated it with academics and "smart people", and did not bother to inform yourself of the real meaning of the term before you used it?

[_Simon Belmont]

You should have checked out the website before you came up with that lame excuse.

It wasn't an excuse. It is a common term that has been used for decades to denote someone who is above-average. When I was in grammar school, some of my teachers told my mother that I was "very bright" for example (of course, many did not).

[_EAllusion]

Why otherwise intelligent people hold onto obviously bad ideas is a highly interesting thing though. It's a nut cognitive science is slowly cracking.

[_asbestosman]

Uh oh, do I hear a Dr. Shades spelling/grammar lesson coming on?

Simon, the thing that strikes me as odd is that you used the term in quotes. I'm unaware of that term being used in quotes to denote someone who is intelligent unless it's denote that some is often claimed to be intelligent (but really isn't). I doubt you were using the term in the later sense (scare quotes). However, I am not a master of grammar. There may be some other usage of which I am not aware.