Friday Funny: Mark Twain on the Book of Mormon

Patrik, I think even you'll like this one. Follow this link to read the full text. The more familiar you are with the book, the funnier Mark Twain's assessment is. Here are some of my favorite parts:

"It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle--keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason."

"Whenever he found his speech growing too modern--which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as 'exceeding sore,' 'and it came to pass,' etc., and made things satisfactory again. 'And it came to pass' was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

On the Testimony of the Three Witnesses: "Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has 'seen the engravings which are upon the plates,' and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either."

On the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses: "And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but 'hefted' them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."

On the endless Jaredite battles toward the end of the Book of Mormon: "It seems a pity he did not finish, for after all his dreary former chapters of commonplace, he stopped just as he was in danger of becoming interesting."

"Think about it" Thursday: Saved

This week's question:

• When we talk about being saved, what exactly are we being saved from?
  

Discuss. Civilly.  :-)

Getting to know the Red River Freethinkers

My introduction to the Red River Freethinkers begins with an interview with Dr. Davis Cope, an associate professor of mathematics at North Dakota State University and a founding member of the Freethinkers. Dr. Cope is a warm, congenial man with thinning white hair and endearingly thick glasses. He welcomes me into his office and immediately asks that I call him Davis. It is fairly impossible not to like this man. Despite the fact that I am normally extremely introverted and this is the first time we've met, conversation soon flows easily.

I ask if he would describe himself as an atheist. "Well, 'atheist,' yes," he says, "but I think 'naturalist' is a more precise term. I just don't believe that there's anything supernatural about our world."

Davis was raised in Tennessee, where his family attended a Baptist church until he was about 12, then switched to a Presbyterian church. "But," he says, "I was already an atheist by that time. And that basically came from reading Mark Twain." He continued to attend church to please his family, but stopped going soon after beginning college.

Davis completed a PhD at Vanderbilt University and then moved to Fargo in 1981. The Red River Freethinkers organized in 1997, with roughly 20-30 members at its inception. The name "Freethinkers" was chosen to be inclusive of the diversity among the views of the group's members, which included deists as well as atheists and agnostics. Its mission is: "to advocate for a skeptical view of the role of religion in society and to promote critical examination of religious authority and dogma."

Davis says he is most proud of the Freethinkers' role in starting NDSU's Science, Religion and Lunch Seminar series, a weekly gathering for education and discussion of controversial topics relating to science and religion. He is particularly proud that the SRL Seminars don't push any particular viewpoint. Presenters have included scientists, skeptics, young earth creationists, Mormon bishops, and just "regular" folks from the community who have something to say.

Two days after my meeting with Davis, I attend my first meeting of the Freethinkers. We had to leave a little early because the 5-year-old and 1-year-old didn't find it as interesting as Mom and Dad did, but we were there for most of the discussion. 

After quick introductions, we move on to the main event, a talk by Davis Cope titled "Trying to Understand Fundamentalism." Following is a paraphrase of some of his main points.

He starts with a story from the early days of the SRL Seminars. While discussing a presentation about evolution, an attendee referred to as Mr. A expressed an opposing point of view. And, "in the spirit of the Science, Religion and Lunch seminar, he was invited to speak." Mr. A came and presented a case for the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint and by Davis's estimation, did a wonderful job. Davis stayed in touch with Mr. A, who came back to present again a few times over the years. Mr. A married, entered the ministry and had four children. Davis describes Mr. A as intelligent, self-sacrificing and sincere, and says that it is because of people like Mr. A that he will never promote the stereotypes of fundamentalists being hypocritical, prudish Bible-belters.

Davis continues and asserts that when we criticize a point of view, we must first accurately state that view, and the people who are in the position to determine whether the view is accurately stated are the ones who hold the view, not the ones criticizing.

Of the many types of fundamentalism, the focus of Davis's talk is fundamentalism based on Bible inerrancy, the belief that scripture is infallible. The talk explores how fundamentalists analyze information to draw conclusions and how they deal with opposing viewpoints.

Testing the theory of inerrancy requires comparing it with an accepted source of knowledge. For a fundamentalist, no outside source will do because the Bible is considered the supreme source of knowledge and the yardstick by which all other knowledge should be measured. And thus, Bible inerrancy can only satisfactorily be tested against the Bible itself.

That might sound difficult, but it can be done by comparing multiple accounts of the same events or principles to see if they concur. In examining the different accounts, the result is that they typically vary. Davis cites the example of the death of Judas Iscariot. The account in Matthew 27:3-8 says that when Judas realizes what he's done, he takes the thirty pieces of silver to the priests as an attempt at repentance, but they won't accept it because it's blood money. Judas then throws the silver down in the temple and goes out and hangs himself. The priests then gather up the money and buy a field for burying strangers and call the field the field of blood. The account in Acts 1:16-19 says that Judas fell in a field and burst open and his bowels gushed out, and the field was called the field of blood.

The question then becomes, How does a fundamentalist reconcile what appears to be a discrepancy? And Davis emphasizes that they do have an answer and a reconciliation for every criticism. He refers to the book When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. The authors handle the death of Judas like this:

The accounts are mutually complimentary. Judas both hung himself and fell. They speculate that he hung himself from a tree on a cliff hanging over a field, then fell in the field and burst open.

Now, Davis asks, does this make sense? To him it doesn't, that two writers, if they were both divinely directed, would each only write half the story. And the cliff and the tree are no where to be found in the Bible, but this is the kind of reasoning that many fundamentalists will use.

The meeting opened up to discussion at this point. Lilie Schoenack, secretary for the Freethinkers, compared the addition of the cliff and the tree to inserting a constant into an equation. Further speculation ensued about the legitimacy of "adding to" the Bible. Jon Lindgren, president of the Freethinkers and a former mayor of Fargo, gave the opinion, "As soon as you say, 'what this means is...' you're inserting your own words."

Davis stated, "Fundamentalists are in serious danger of treating the Bible like an idol." A guest, whose name I didn't catch, but who was a member of the Lutheran Missouri Synod and considered himself fundamentalist agreed with this statement, saying that many church members get caught up with the Book, and forget about what the Book points to: Jesus Christ.

A couple of small and cute people (one of whom tugged at my shirt sleeve to ask me if cats lay eggs) made it difficult to follow the rest of the discussion, but I will say that opposing views were expressed and the tone remained civil and respectful.

I'm looking forward to continued association with the Red River Freethinkers.

Checking in, and some "wisdom" from Elder McConkie

Hi readers,

I'm very pleased with the small but loyal readership that my blog is attracting. You could say I have a cult following. Ha! I'm still working on my promised report on the Red River Freethinkers, but my kid has been extra clingy. I'm pretty sure he's teething. Hope to have that up sometime tomorrow.

But anyway, I know I learned growing up that the Fall of Adam occurred approximately 6000 years ago. I'm looking for documentation of this doctrine from a Church source. If anyone knows offhand where I can find that and wants to save me some time, that would be awesome.

In the meantime, while I was looking, I came across this gem of an article by Bruce R. McConkie. It's about the Creation, from the September 1983 issue of Liahona. I'll just share a few highlights:

Appended to this command to multiply was the heaven-sent restriction that the creatures in the waters could only bring forth “after their kind,” and that “every winged fowl” could only bring forth “after his kind.” There was no provision for evolvement or change from one species to another.

Evolvement? That sounds like a perfectly cromulent word. It's called evolution, Bruce. Further on he says:

These revealed verities about the creation of all things run counter to many of the speculations and theories of the world. They are, however, what the inspired word sets forth, and we are duty bound to accept them. We are frank to admit that our knowledge of the creation of the universe, of this earth, of man, and of all living things is meager—perhaps almost miniscule—as compared to what there is to learn. But the Lord has revealed to us as much about the mystery of creation as is necessary for us in our probationary estate.

"Theories of the world." You mean, science? Because science is so worldly? Labs and observatories are the bastions of Babylon! "Duty bound to accept them." There's some intellectual property laws for you. And it's like God is saying, "Yeah, there's more, but the only way to learn more is for me to reveal it to you, and I'm not gonna, 'cause you don't need to know. Nyah, nyah, nyah." 

Kind of sounds like God is a dick.

TED Talk Tuesday: Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see

This week's TED Talk: Beau Lotto: Optical Illusions show how we see

It's a fascinating presentation that will change your perception of perception. Some of his main points: What we perceive is largely based on our past experiences and expectations. Our brain often projects images of what we expect to see, and is not necessarily reflective of reality. He also says, "The brain evolved to see the world in a way that was useful in the past." We see what we need to see.

Research like this makes me very skeptical indeed of accounts of visions.

While we're on Adam and Eve and thinking...

This is a great post and thread from John Loftus' blog Debunking Christianity, which I highly recommend. John is a former Christian apologist, now an atheist. Here's his blogger profile.

I have seen the new comments on previous posts and want to respond. I'm also working on writing up my report of the Red River Freethinkers meeting, but am currently thwarted by a cranky toddler wanting my attention every thirty seconds. So this will have to suffice for now.

It doesn't take a scientist.

This is in response to a comment from my last "Think about it" post.

A reader thinks I should be the one giving the answers to these questions instead of soliciting opinions from my readers. I don't give my views up front on these "think about it" questions, because I want my readers to think for themselves without my influence. I firmly believe that if you can just get people to think about things, they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. That's how I got out: thinking.

 

I am no scientist. I've done well in science courses that I've taken and I like Discovery Channel as much as the next person, but my degree is in music (or will be in May). I make no claims about having any sort of expertise in any field of science, but it doesn't take a scientist to figure this stuff out. It was not science that convinced me that there is no god. Science did, however, play a role in convincing me that Mormonism was bullshit (see previous post), and it also makes it pretty clear that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve cannot possibly be literal.

We evolved, just like all other life forms on this planet. It's true that evolution does not disprove the existence of God, but with regard to the Adam and Eve story, just think about it. What is the likelihood that at some point in evolution there were suddenly (remember, there is no sudden in evolution) two humans, exactly two humans, male and female (and where's the cutoff line for what's human and what's not?) and then God swoops in and points out a couple of trees and tells them not to eat from one of them but they do it anyway (to say nothing of the talking snake)? I have to concede I have no proof that this didn't happen, but I find it highly, highly unlikely. But as a couple of my readers rightly point out, the writers of the Bible obviously did believe the story was literal. And if they were mistaken about that, what else were they mistaken about?

As for it not mattering whether Eve ate first or Adam, maybe it doesn't matter to our wonderful, perfect, loving God, but it obviously did matter very much to many of His servants through the ages. If a human botched up the story somewhere along the line, it seems awfully cruel of God to make half the population pay for that mistake for centuries.

If you want empirical evidence from a scientist, use your Google. Spencer Wells is a great place to start, or you can rent The Journey of Man from Netflix.

And just to keep everyone happy, I'll offer my answer to my previous question post regarding whether or not Neanderthals were capable of sin. Were neanderthals capable of cruelty, brutality, jealousy and fornication? Undoubtedly. Were they capable of sin? No, because there is no such thing.