Internet To Mormon Guy: We Have Thought About It, That's The Point.

In today's entry to his blog, Mormon guy to Internet: shut up and think a minute, Ken Jennings asserts that Mormonism should be exempt from ridicule. He asserts that mocking Mormons is "becoming a currency of cool now".

I would like to point out, though it isn't relevant to my point one way or the other, that I admire Ken Jennings in many ways. I find him to be intelligent, talented and witty. I read his site daily and thoroughly enjoy it. I imagine that we could be friends, though he may not agree.

He makes three major points in his article. Let me address each, if I may.

1) Ken chides us for not applying the same standard to Mormonism that he presumes is, or should be, applied to other religions. " try recasting your sentence so it refers to 'those gullible Jews' or '…Catholics' or '…Muslims.'" OK... let's.

Orthodox Jews are gullible for believing, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary that there is a destroying angel that can only be fended off with lamb's blood on their doorways.

There I did it.

What's my point? That social over-sensitivity or some sense of respect alone are not compelling enough reasons to refrain from pointing out the truth of a situation when all available evidence supports your position.

2) He makes kind of the same point here but with a different flavor. "Realize that pretty much all religious belief is fundamentally irrational."

Exactly, Ken. Exactly.

Mormonism is not unique in this. It just happens to be very, very good at it. Simply because your faith is not the only whacky one doesn't make yours less whacky.

3) Ken implies that those poking fun at Mormonism don't know what they are talking about. "...do your @#$% research", he implores. I have, Ken. I have lived my research as have many. Also, just because Stephen Colbert doesn't have the Apostolic Line Of Succession memorized does not make his point less valid or his joke less funny. To think that it does fails to even address the crux of the criticism it intended.

But here's the point Ken misses in his entire piece. The general criticism of Mormonism (certainly this is true in the examples he states) is not even about matters of faith. It is about matters where faith fails and using one's own senses, especially common sense, is most valuable. Faith, according to Mormon teaching, is near the beginning of the progression towards knowledge. Hope, faith, belief, knowledge, in that order, are the prescription I was always taught towards gaining a true knowledge. Unfortunately, far too often, faith is put in place of actual knowledge. For example, Mormons rely on a faith that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from ancient papyrus written by Abraham "by his own hand". But their faith keeps them from a true knowledge of the fact that the papyrus, now in Church custody, are far to new to have been written by Abraham and that the translations simply don't add up. No faith is required to know the truth of that. Ancient Egyptian is now very much translatable and the age of the document is not even in debate. Carbon dating and the Rosetta Stone, in this case, trump faith. A faith that something is something it isn't is simply a hinderance to the progression of a true knowledge of the reality of a thing.

That kind of faith, in the face of all reasonable and replicatable evidence to the contrary is not respectable or admirable. It is laughable. A person of Jennings' obvious intellect should appreciate the disdain many of us feel when logic, reason and Occam's Razor are displaced by that brand of faith. Faith when none is required and where it contradicts reality is looney enough to be mocked. Pitied, at least.

---
*NOTE: A minor change was made to the original text of this post to more accurately express my point.

Filed under - Mormonism

<< previous - Blog Post, Jr. | More On Those Whacky Mormons - next >>

Natives

Submitted by Steve-O (not verified) on May 1, 2007 - 5:42pm.

Or how about the fact that there is no proof of Native Americans originating from Israel? All studies have shown they are from Asia. If this is true then that makes the entire BofM false, the corner-stone of another silly religion.

Re: Natives

Submitted by jstayii (not verified) on May 1, 2007 - 6:45pm.

Steve-O,

Have you even read the Book of Mormon? How do you know DNA evidence (note that it is just that, evidence) that Native Americans don't originate from Israel disproves the Book of Mormon? Based on what Book of Mormon scripture do you base this upon? I am only aware of individuals, not scripture, that state such an idea. The Book of Mormon is not proven untrue by this idea, whether fact or not.

Re: Joseph Smith and the Papyri, The Book of Abraham itself only says, "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt -- The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." What evidence do you have to prove it was not written by Abraham? Could it not be a copy of Abraham's writings, copied after Abraham's death? I see nothing to state that could not be the case.

Please...

Submitted by Pete on May 1, 2007 - 7:10pm.

My point on this is the same as in my post... The apologist position on this point is too ridiculous to entertain. It strives to simply believe, through sheer will, something into being something it isn't. The reality of it is clear and any attempt to call it something it isn't is nothing more than straw-grasping.

In other words, you will not make a point I haven't heard on the subject and no matter which way you try to spin it, it still won't address the actual point of the matter.

The evidence that it wasn't written by Abraham is the same evidence that Hamlet wasn't written by Abraham. It simply isn't, on every level possible, the writing of Abraham. It is a translatable document... by everyone except Joseph Smith, it seems.

So does this mean the Book

Submitted by jstayii (not verified) on May 1, 2007 - 9:12pm.

So does this mean the Book of Genesis was not written by Moses, or the Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John were not written by the hand of those mentioned? The fact is when translated those books weren't taken from the same hand-written documents they were written in either. They were records, passed down from generation to generation. Any historian will tell you that is how things used to be. The Joseph Smith Papyri was translated in the same manner from the same type of record - please, prove to me otherwise.

Not the point...

Submitted by Pete on May 1, 2007 - 9:27pm.

Not the point at all... the documents Joseph Smith said were written by Abraham which he claimed to translate into the so-called Book of Abraham do not contain the words Smith said they do. A simple translation of the document shows that.

We know what they don't say because we know what they DO say. Get the point?

Yes I Have

Submitted by Steve-O (not verified) on May 1, 2007 - 8:02pm.

Uh ya, many times. I grew up in a very mormon family. So you are saying you don't believe in DNA or Archeology? Even the church has done research in trying to prove the historical truth of the books. As far as I know nothing has ever been found. Unless you can point me to it?

Steve-O, of course I believe

Submitted by jstayii (not verified) on May 1, 2007 - 9:08pm.

Steve-O, of course I believe in DNA and archeology - I almost became an Archaeologist, in fact. That has nothing to do with my point though. You still have yet to show me where in the 4 standard works it makes this claim. I understand members of the church, even leaders have made inference of your claim, but the fact of the matter is, the basis of the Gospel which Mormons believe lie in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Unless you can show me something from those four books that denies the evidence you claim, you have no ground to stand upon.

Umm... what?

Submitted by Pete on May 1, 2007 - 9:30pm.

What Book of Mormon did YOU read? I read the one where travelers from Jerusalem came to America in two groups and poplated North America with their Jewish seed.

Again, the classic apologist tactic of totally arguing a point which is NOT THE POINT.

The point is that there were not civilizations described by the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith on the American Continents... period. the burden of proof is on those who claim that ancient Americans lived in upstate New York and died by the millions and who claim that American Indians are Lamanites of Jewish decent. If you don't think Mormon doctrine teaches those things then you are truly deluding yourself.

Did I miss something?

Submitted by C. L. Hanson (not verified) on May 2, 2007 - 9:06am.

He seems to be claiming that Mormons are being singled out for specil ridicule -- different than other religions are receiving -- yet he illustrates it with a cartoon that mocks Jesus, Buddah, Mohammed, and Joseph Smith all together in a single panel...?

Not sure...

Submitted by Pete on May 2, 2007 - 9:21am.

I think he was trying to keep his post light as his blog doesn't normally cover very weighty topics. But yeah... interesting point.

I do agree with his point that people should not criticize until they are educated on the subject matter. That point should be expanded to say that one should also not vehemently defend a point about which they are not fully educated. For example, drive-by apologists who aren't even aware that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy or the method by which he claimed to translate the Book of Mormon.

If you're only exposure to the history and teachings of Mormonism is Sunday School and Seminary then you don't have the whole story. Period.

Clearly

Submitted by danny on May 2, 2007 - 10:10am.

The narrative of the Book of Mormon does make claims not supported by evidence. Though appealing to its pages for proof of anything is not rational. If it is a fictional document, its claims are meaningless, even if they "resemble actual persons living or dead". It's like asking "Where in Star Wars are the coordinates to their galaxy given!? hmmm? Where? You don't know it isn't there!!!" It's simply ridiculous. The need for evidence supporting Mormonism is fueled by a desire to believe not by a search for truth. Carl Sagan rightly said belief without evidence is superstition. You can still have faith in yourself and faith in the future if it spurs you to do good things, great, but why desperately desire to believe falsehoods? The only reason is to rationalize having been sold lies, to cure the shame of having been bamboozled into letting someone else take your money and tell you what to do.