Elder Holland's Book of Mormon talk

[wuapinmon]

I don't find the mocking and attacks of a man and to those who believe him to be a Prophet funny.

Nor do I find the mocking of something he hasn't seen or listened to and that I feel a spiritual conviction about to be funny.

This is the Isaac Hayes South Park problem. Hayes, as the voice of Chef, was fine with skewering every religion out there until South Park fixed its gaze on Scientology. He quit the show over it. Would you be okay with people mocking and attacking a man someone else believes to be a prophet? Like Muhammad? Or David Koresh? Or Bob Marley?

[RockyBalboa]

This is the Isaac Hayes South Park problem. Hayes, as the voice of Chef, was fine with skewering every religion out there until South Park fixed its gaze on Scientology. He quit the show over it. Would you be okay with people mocking and attacking a man someone else believes to be a prophet? Like Muhammad? Or David Koresh? Or Bob Marley?

Did you really just compare Mohammed and Joseph Smith to David Koresh and Bob Marley to make a point?

Okay.

[JohnnyLingo]

This is the Isaac Hayes South Park problem. Hayes, as the voice of Chef, was fine with skewering every religion out there until South Park fixed its gaze on Scientology. He quit the show over it. Would you be okay with people mocking and attacking a man someone else believes to be a prophet? Like Muhammad? Or David Koresh? Or Bob Marley?

An excellent question, and an important aspect of Rocky's problem with SU.

Also: 10 points for using South Park to illustrate the issue.

[DU Ute]

Did you really just compare Mohammed and Joseph Smith to David Koresh and Bob Marley to make a point?

Okay.

In the context of your quote they are the same.

[creekster]

If I went to hell and my punishment was an eternity of home teachers, I would choose 3D and Sooner.

You wont get to choose.

[SeattleUte]

If new world horses and chariots were a pervasive and constant threat to the education of our children, I guarantee you'd see a lot more talk about those subjects coming from scientists who know better. Similarly, I assume you must hate how much we are hearing about the extreme danger to society that the anti-vaccination movement presents? The scientists couldn't possibly just be concerned about saving children from preventable death; they obviously think the anti-vaccination movement is onto something.

I am on record here comparing creationism to female circumcision. So part of me agrees with you. That being said, the scientists are winning. Heaven't they heard? It's illegal to teach creationism in public school science class. Unconstitutional! The lawyers have the problem in hand. The scientists should stick with science. But I don't think their approach going on endlessly against creationism and religion in general in books like the God Delusion is the reason science is winning.

Indeed, every review in the great secular literary journals that I read of Dawkins' The God Delusion panned the book, and on the same grounds on which I am here complaining against him and others like him. The lady doth protest too much! Moreover, that he is a great scientist virtually unmatched in his ability to explain lucidly complex science for consumption by lay people doesn't qualify him to wax as a historian, theologeon, or philosopher, or to make pronouncements about the mysteries of the cosmos or the human heart. I think Einstein would have hated Dawkins and the current scientists obsessed with creationism.

By the way, I think new world horses and chariots are harmful in just the same way creationism is, but to a smaller subset albeit one that for me is closer to home.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I will admit I succumb to the trolling now and then and I troll now and then.

However, I am not going to apologize for it.

A couple of wise posters on this board helped me with my problem with being trolled. The message, which took a while to sink in, was I can controll how I react to the troller.

I can engage emotionally, just engage, not respond or fix it so I don't see the persons posts. I don't have the power to make them stop, unless of course it is my site. After all these years, I can't believe someone really got to me.

One last thing. Anyone can be accused of trolling. If you make a comment, don't you hope someone has an opinion on what you said. Yet, if someone accuses us of it, we have an automatic "who me" response.

"trolling" = the most overused and hijacked term on internet message boards.

[wuapinmon]

Did you really just compare Mohammed and Joseph Smith to David Koresh and Bob Marley to make a point?

Okay.

Answer the question. I was clear. Those people were/are considered prophets by some people....Mindful thinks Muhammad spoke to Gabriel in a cave and gave us the Koran. Would you be okay with someone mocking Muhammad?

Don't sidestep the issue. I'm not trolling. I'm channeling Socrates.

[JohnnyLingo]

"trolling" = the most overused and hijacked term on internet message boards.

That's what people who troll say.

[RockyBalboa]

Answer the question. I was clear. Those people were/are considered prophets by some people....Mindful thinks Muhammad spoke to Gabriel in a cave and gave us the Koran. Would you be okay with someone mocking Muhammad?

Don't sidestep the issue. I'm not trolling. I'm channeling Socrates.

Wuap you're clearly in a mood and I'm just not willing to get into it with you and what will be sure to delve into constant spamming from you. We've made peace and I prefer it to stay that way, even though you have demonstrated that you do not want it to stay that way.

Have a nice day.

And no I'm not okay with someone mocking Mohammed just as I'm not okay with someone Mocking Joseph Smith or our current prophet. I answer the question in that context, but not when you try throwing Koresh and Marley in there,,,nice try though.

[SeattleUte]

I think it was just circumstantial evidence, and probably more persuasive to those who are already familiar with, and admirers of, Joseph and Hyrum. It really isn't proof of anything, just another reason to believe. At least that's how it came across to me. It was not the most riveting part of the talk to me, either, but I liked it.

It's like that advice you always hear about marriage, "Don't argue with your wife, even if you think you have a good argument." When religious people start arguing the case for historicity of their faith they lose. Why do you think so little of that type of discussion goes on here? I don't think "circumstantial proof" is any reason to believe.

[woot]

I am on record here comparing creationism to female circumcision. So part of me agrees with you. That being said, the scientists are winning. Heaven't they heard? It's illegal to teach creationism in public school science class. Unconstitutional! The lawyers have the problem in hand. The scientists should stick with science. But I don't think their approach going on endlessly against creationism and religion in general in books like the God Delusion is the reason science is winning.

Indeed, every review in the great secular literary journals that I read of Dawkins' The God Delusion panned the book, and on the same grounds on which I am here complaining against him and others like him. The lady doth protest too much! Moreover, that he is a great scientist virtually unmatched in his ability to explain lucidly complex science for consumption by lay people doesn't qualify him to wax as a historian, theologeon, or philosopher, or to make pronouncements about the mysteries of the cosmos or the human heart. I think Einstein would have hated Dawkins and the current scientists obsessed with creationism.

By the way, I think new world horses and chariots are harmful in just the same way creationism is, but to a smaller subset albeit one that for me is closer to home.

The reasons why science is winning this battle are complex and it's not just because our side is the one with all the evidence. I think books, articles, and talks do affect the zeitgeist. Dawkins' The God Delusion is not a great example of this, since it was not explicitly about this topic (although that combined with his new book, which is also not explicitly about this topic, do present a very nice case).

I won't comment about Dawkins' critics too much, other than to say I've never seen a critique of TGD that didn't appeal to all sorts of stuff that mainstream believers have never heard of and don't care about. I found it to be a very nice critique against standard mainstream belief. He wasn't trying to go after the fringe sort of deism that many "Christian" scholars espouse. Yours is the "courtier's reply".

I think you're also not understanding the percentages here. I'd wager that 99% of all scientists have not opined in public format about creationism, and this is seen as a problem by many. You're on the other side, those that say 99% is still too few. What would you suggest?

[SeattleUte]

The reasons why science is winning this battle are complex and it's not just because our side is the one with all the evidence. I think books, articles, and talks do affect the zeitgeist. Dawkins' The God Delusion is not a great example of this, since it was not explicitly about this topic (although that combined with his new book, which is also not explicitly about this topic, do present a very nice case).

I won't comment about Dawkins' critics too much, other than to say I've never seen a critique of TGD that didn't appeal to all sorts of stuff that mainstream believers have never heard of and don't care about. I found it to be a very nice critique against standard mainstream belief. He wasn't trying to go after the fringe sort of deism that many "Christian" scholars espouse. Yours is the "courtier's reply".

I think you're also not understanding the percentages here. I'd wager that 99% of all scientists have not opined in public format about creationism, and this is seen as a problem by many. You're on the other side, those that say 99% is still too few. What would you suggest?

My only point here is a defensive person is an unpersuasive person, and there's nothing less persuasive than a defensive, argumentative cleric. What started us off on this interesting exchange was your comparing my criticism of Holland as like when people say there must be something to creationsm becuase scientists argue so vehemently against it. I'm just saying your comparison is not apt, because argument is part of what scientists do and are supposed to do--it's part of the scientific method--but I do think some of them are a little obsessed with creationism and try to prove too much against religion. On the other hand, people shouldn't need to come to church to receive a "circumstantial case" on the historicity of their faith.

[LA Ute]

I don't think "circumstantial proof" [sic - I said circumstantial evidence] is any reason to believe.

Oh, come on. We're talking about religious belief here. That Joseph was uneducated and yet came up with this book in 60 days or so is also circumstantial evidence. It's not conclusive proof, simply a factor to take into consideration as one prayerfully reads the BofM and asks oneself, "Could any man have written this book? (or, in your and my mission language, "¿Pudo haber escrito este libro hombre alguno?")

On reflection, and taking everything I can into consideration (including circumstantial evidence), in my heart of hearts I believe the BofM is the word of God and was translated by the gift and power of God. You don't. It's always fascinated me that you can't seem to leave it at that.

[woot]

My only point here is a defensive person is an unpersuasive person, and there's nothing less persuasive than a defensive, argumentative cleric. What started us off on this interesting exchange was your comparing my criticism of Holland as like when people say there must be something to creationsm becuase scientists argue so vehemently against it. I'm just saying your comparison is not apt, because argument is part of what scientists do and are supposed to do--it's part of the scientific method--but I do think some of them are a little obsessed with creationism and try to prove too much against religion. On the other hand, people shouldn't need to come to church to receive a "circumstantial case" on the historicity of their faith.

Point well taken. I basically agree with all of that.