Des News Reports Brandon Flowers-Dawkins Incident

[_mms]

I sit in awe of how the strategy of just telling the members something ridiculous and having them repeat it makes everyting "ok" as it regards the problems in Mormonism. That is, tell them the thing until the thing is no longer useful (sorry Professor Bott, we were just kidding about the curse of cain stuff). Flowers knows professors have tried to tear the book apart and have had zero success and Dawkins should do hios research. And the Des News backs up Flowers' position with the Apostle who gave him his position. Sigh.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... .html?pg=1

[_Fence Sitter]

From the article a quote by Jeffery Holland.

"For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history — perhaps like no other book in any religious history," Elder Holland said. "And still it stands."

What is still standing?

Cinepro can't even get five historical facts that members are willing to state and defend. It seems what is left standing are those parts that are not falsifiable, which why we are seeing more and more discussions defending the book as a piece of fiction. "Hey look it's not actual history but it is still standing!" Community of LDS Christ here we come.

[_Ludd]

I just watched the video clip of Dawkins and Flowers exchanging pleasantries on the Swedish talk show. Man, you had to feel a little sorry for Flowers. At least I did. Poor guy more or less got ambushed by the host bringing out Dawkins and inviting him to skewer the Book of Mormon. A couple times, when Dawkins was talking, the camera showed Flowers, looking kind of like a deer in the headlights. It's obvious that Flowers isn't well-versed in all the apologetic talking points. Poor guy didn't know what to say after Dawkins attacked the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Someone needs to send him (Flowers) a collection of apologetic catch phrases to use in such situations. I felt bad for him.

On the other hand, Dawkins said something I caught that I thought was very interesting. He mentioned the fact that (If I recall correctly) he had recently read the Book of Mormon, and he said that it was obviously a 19th century work that had used 16th century English to sound like the Bible ("verily I say unto you...etc."). He said something to the effect that: "people didn't talk like that in the 19th century." Why is that interesting? Well, because it's exactly what Royal Skousen says in his recent "Earliest Text" Book of Mormon. Remember the discussion a few months back about Skousen's fireside in Cedar City? About how it uses 16th century English? It makes me wonder if Dawkins had read Skousen's version of the Book of Mormon. Skousen (and his buddies in the apologetic crowd) think that the 16th century English in the Book of Mormon is some kind of evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Dawkins correctly recognizes that using the King James style English was just part of Smith's strategy to make the Book of Mormon seem like real ancient scripture.

Anyway, my take away from the whole thing was pity for people like Flowers who don't really have a rational basis for their faith. It all comes down to their good feelings for (using the example Flowers gave) their mothers having taught them to pray to their "Heavenly Father", etc.

Maybe the church needs to have some special training sessions for celebrity Mormons so they don't end up looking ridiculous in situations like Flowers was put in. Maybe DCP and his old FARMS buddies could use their new-found spare time to organize apologetic training for celebrity Mormons?

[_Bob Loblaw]

I felt bad for Brother Flowers as well. Can you explain how Dr. Skousen argues that a fake 16th-century style is evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon? I've not heard this before.

[_Cicero]

Ludd: Do you know if Skousen and/or his apologetic buddies have a theory re who translated the Book of Mormon originally in the 17th century?

[_Ludd]

Ludd: Do you know if Skousen and/or his apologetic buddies have a theory re who translated the Book of Mormon originally in the 17th century?

I haven't the slightest idea. I do remember there was a thread on this board after the presentation Skousen made in Cedar City. I can't remember how long ago it has been. Seems like it was in the early summer. Maybe someone can find it and link it here.

Did anyone else think the same thing when they heard what Dawkins said? I thought it was very interesting because I can't ever remember anyone talking about "16th century English" in the Book of Mormon prior to a few months ago after the Skousen fireside.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I haven't the slightest idea. I do remember there was a thread on this board after the presentation Skousen made in Cedar City. I can't remember how long ago it has been. Seems like it was in the early summer. Maybe someone can find it and link it here.

Did anyone else think the same thing when they heard what Dawkins said? I thought it was very interesting because I can't ever remember anyone talking about "16th century English" in the Book of Mormon prior to a few months ago after the Skousen fireside.

Ever since Alexander Campbell and Mark Twain, critics have noted the clumsy attempt at Jacobean English so it's not surprising that Dawkins would mention it.

[_Ludd]

I haven't the slightest idea. I do remember there was a thread on this board after the presentation Skousen made in Cedar City. I can't remember how long ago it has been. Seems like it was in the early summer. Maybe someone can find it and link it here.

Did anyone else think the same thing when they heard what Dawkins said? I thought it was very interesting because I can't ever remember anyone talking about "16th century English" in the Book of Mormon prior to a few months ago after the Skousen fireside.

Ever since Alexander Campbell and Mark Twain, critics have noted the clumsy attempt at Jacobean English so it's not surprising that Dawkins would mention it.

Perhaps so. But it was the way Dawkins specifically said "people didn't talk like that in the 19th century" that made me think of the Skousen fireside thread. It's not a big deal either way, and I didn't mean to sidetrack this thread on this topic. Besides, the more interesting part was how Flowers was entirely unable to make any response to what Dawkins had to say about the Book of Mormon being obviously fake and that Joseph Smith was such an obvious "charlatan". Even that he had been convicted, which Flowers didn't know about, saying it was a "lie". Yep, another of those "anti-mormon lies" raising it's head.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Perhaps so. But it was the way Dawkins specifically said "people didn't talk like that in the 19th century" that made me think of the Skousen fireside thread. It's not a big deal either way, and I didn't mean to sidetrack this thread on this topic. Besides, the more interesting part was how Flowers was entirely unable to make any response to what Dawkins had to say about the Book of Mormon being obviously fake and that Joseph Smith was such an obvious "charlatan". Even that he had been convicted, which Flowers didn't know about, saying it was a "lie". Yep, another of those "anti-mormon lies" raising it's head.

It's debatable if Joseph Smith was convicted, but the rest of it is pretty obvious. Being confronted with uncomfortable truth is always unpleasant.

[_Themis]

It's debatable if Joseph Smith was convicted, but the rest of it is pretty obvious.

Yup. What's not debatable is that Joseph was indeed glass looking for money.

Being confronted with uncomfortable truth is always unpleasant.

Indeed. I felt bad for flowers. It's good to be educated, but not in such embarrassing ways. It's not like Dawkin's knows that much about LDS issues, but more then enough here.