Pharyngula

Posted by: Tim | November 9, 2008 9:43 AM

Might I suggest Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study In Scarlet", one of the early Sherlock Holmes novels and reflective of how mormons were seen in the last century. Available in economical paperback for gifting those white-shirted gentlemen.

Posted by: andyo | November 9, 2008 9:46 AM

they sent a letter to all of their churches in California urging their adherents to vote against Proposition 8.

I think you mean "to vote for" Prop 8?

Anyway, yeah, it's disgusting, there were protests here the next day of the election, good to know that people are pushing back.

Posted by: andyo | November 9, 2008 9:49 AM

whoop-dee-doo, magic happened, and there was no error.

By the way, the fucking caths, my (ex)sect, were also responsible for this crap. I'd like to see some protestin' outside those churches, or having their tax privileges removed as well.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 9:50 AM

While I think the LDS should have their tax exempt status revoke, I also think it is an unlikely scenario. Even if the churches themselves can't speak out, there is no way to stop their members from acting on their own, with their own money. Still, we need to work on the concept of MYOB, and make the groups who won't look like the bullies they are.

Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | November 9, 2008 9:53 AM

Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred.

I think that, until fairly recently, admitting that a black man was fully human would at least get you censured in the LSD Church.

I find it amusing that the Mormons spent $115 million to deny human beings basic civil rights and then have the nerve to be surprised that there is a backlash. They also seem pissed off that their contribution is even mentioned.

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 9:55 AM

PZ wrote:

It's bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to "preserve the sacred institution of marriage".

Not as bizarre as it seems. They want to integrate with the old "moral majority." They want their own quirks over looked. And ultimately their marriages are about producing children and less about "romantic" love.

I'd dearly love to see Obama repair the damage to our economy by revoking religious tax exemptions across the board, and refill our treasury with loot from the theological con artists.

Obama wouldn't ever do that. I wish he would. But no one is going to do that until this country turns around on the culture wars. Even in European societies where atheism is high they give financial support to the church.

We may have to settle for escalating our mockery of mormonism.

Yep! Always a good idea. That contradiction between their own marriage practices and their attack on other's marriages is rich in humor to mine.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | November 9, 2008 9:57 AM

Here is the actual link displaying the dumbassitude mentioned in the blogpost referred to by PZ's link at the end of his post...

At least - I was gratified in finding - there were a few sane people in the comments (except for the Anon person, who surprisingly (NOT!) sounded like the blogger himself/herself)...

And talk about the oppressed becoming the oppressor... What's with 70% of African Americans voting in favor of the despicable Proposition 8?

Posted by: Tony Sidaway | November 9, 2008 10:02 AM

The way to really piss in these chaps' porridge is to donate to Lambda Legal, ACLU and other organizations that are working on this in the courts.

The current anti-gay laws are a patchwork of local statutes and state constitutional amendments that are specifically intended to deny homosexuals the legal protections of marriage. They're the best the homophobes can manage, but they're tissue thin and will be wiped from the face of the earth as soon as SCOTUS is forced to rule on them.

One 1960s case that should put the wind up the Mormons and all the "Yes on 8" bigots: Loving v. Virginia. Another: Brown v. Board of Education. These laws will die an ignominious death.

Posted by: James | November 9, 2008 10:20 AM

Back in 2004 when the Tennessee Marriage Amendment was on the ballot, I attended a service where the preacher told the church exactly how to vote on the measure. I thought it was a clear violation of the tax exception status.

Isn't this the very definition of electioneering?

Posted by: Zach | November 9, 2008 10:22 AM

It is the exact definition James.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 10:26 AM

this is interesting but not really surprising.

Guess who one of the biggest financial supporters of Prop 8 was?

Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, mother of the head of Blackwater, Eric Prince.

Posted by: Tim Fuller | November 9, 2008 10:29 AM

How bad are things in Mississippi since Obama won the election?

Here in Mississippi, some of the locals are going ape shit over this election. Whitey has been keeping the Black guy down so long around here they don't know how to act. You're not gonna believe the following, but if you want to read about an institutional attempt to abuse our SCHOOLCHILDREN....

Outlawing Mississippi Enthusiasm for Obama
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=245

Enjoy.

Posted by: Tom Woolf | November 9, 2008 10:32 AM

PZ - you relay that what the Mormons did was legal. I do not doubt the accuracy of what you were told, but as a layman I am very curious as to *why* (or how) it is legal. Can you expand on what the fine Barry Lynn told you?

FYI - I am not totally against churches receiving tax exemption, as taxing churches can lead to religious prosecution. I am a devout atheist, but believe everybody has the right to be delirious about a god. But once a church steps over that political threshold, they should lose that exemption.

Posted by: SLC | November 9, 2008 10:33 AM

Speaking of the Americans United meeting, Ed Brayton has posted a picture of himself and Prof. Myers standing next to each other. Is Prof. Myers going to comment on his encounter with Mr. Brayton?

Posted by: TSC | November 9, 2008 10:39 AM

Now *this* is the PZ I know and love!

Posted by: Zeno | November 9, 2008 10:42 AM

Sunday sermons in Roman Catholic churches prominently featured "respect for marriage" in the weeks before the election. As my mother explained to me, her pastor merely "gave out information, he didn't tell us which way to vote." I scoffed at her claim: "You mean you couldn't tell which way you were supposed to vote?" Without thinking, she blurted, "Oh, you have to vote No!" Right. And I'm sure she did.

Posted by: Loren Petrich | November 9, 2008 10:45 AM

The Los Angeles Times has an interesting map of the results, a county-by-county map of which side won, and by how much. Here's one for Proposition 8, and a similar one back in 2000, Proposition 22: Gay marriage ban: A tale of two votes. The rejection of gay marriage went down from 61%-39% in 2000 to 52%-48% this year, and the biggest supporters of gay marriage were in the San Francisco Bay Area. Support increased from some to all the counties there, and opposition decreased in some other urban areas, notably Los Angeles County and Sacramento County. However, much of the Central Valley and the North End had little change.

So I think that what made the difference for the Bay Area was San Francisco's very visible gay community. Elsewhere, Los Angeles has a sizable gay community in West Hollywood, even if it does not stand out as much as SF's.

Which could be a lesson for atheist activists -- visibility helps.

Posted by: S. Fisher | November 9, 2008 10:52 AM

"Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?"
Do the right not understand that they glorify ignorance?

Posted by: Paul Burnett | November 9, 2008 11:00 AM

"Do the right not understand that they glorify ignorance?" - S. Fisher, #36

As Sarah Palin recently repeatedly demonstrated, ignorance is a virtue for the right-wing fundagelical evolution-deniers.

Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 11:02 AM

No matter what the Mormon Church thinks, Utah is still subject to US laws. I'd think the thing to do is start a long-term movement of non-Mormons into Utah. Get some fresh thinking into the state, and demand equal rights and freedom from religious discrimination.

It seems to me that anyone applying for a job in Utah, for instance, and questioned about their "mission" as part of the job interview, might have some basis for a discrimination lawsuit. I wonder if a class action suit is possible.

On the other hand, we could just sit back and let them make themselves more of a laughingstock.

This protest by the church over being targeted for their support of Prop 8 probably means they're feeling some heat for what they've done.

...............

And I still think naming that angel "Moroni" (the angel who supposedly revealed the holy golden plates) was an obvious joke on his idiot followers by Joseph Smith.

Heh -- interesting tidbit from Wikipedia's "Angel Moroni" entry:

"Some scholars have theorized that Smith became familiar with the name "Moroni" through his study of the treasure-hunting stories of Captain William Kidd. Because Kidd was said to have buried treasure in the Comoros islands, and Moroni is the name of the capital city and largest settlement in the Comoros, it has been suggested that Smith borrowed the name of the settlement and applied it to the angel who led him to buried treasure--the golden plates. Complementing this proposal is the theory that Smith borrowed the names of the Comoros islands and applied them to the hill where he found the golden plates, which he named Cumorah."

Posted by: wildlifer | November 9, 2008 11:03 AM

Hmmmm .... articles sacred to Mormons?

Drive a nail through Romney's magic undies?

Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:08 AM

I'm actually enrolled at BYU, though not attending this semester. I was gonna wait until I graduated to remove my name from the church's records since I'm close to graduation, but the way the Mormon church has handled this has really pissed me off too and will probably do so this month. Right now I'm looking at getting a job in Salt Lake and just leaving BYU to finish up at the University of Utah. Oh, and I do happen to have some brand new pairs of the magic underwear laying around here, should anybody want them.

Posted by: Stephen B. | November 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Chicago Bears quarterback great Jim McMahon had a couple of great quotes about his alma mata.

"Happiness is Prove in the rearview"

When asked about the best thing about BYU,
McMahon's response "Leaving!"

Posted by: Joel | November 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Christians are humanity's crazy uncle, Mormons are his bat-shit crazy brother. Yet we keep electing the followers of these ideologies?

Posted by: AmyD | November 9, 2008 11:15 AM

Peaceful protest of Prop H8 at the Capitol Building in Sacramento this afternoon. (Sunday)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:15 AM

Erm, in the mainstream LDS Church, polygamy has been prohibited since 1890, and child marriage is not practised. It's only some of the breakaway fundamentalist sects which still practise these things.

Actually I agree with Walton on this one. The one True LDS church has made these practices a big no no. I mean who cares that the only reason they really threw it out was to get statehood...

But since it is their policay, The One True LDS church has plenty of its own fucked up marriage doctrines to make fun of without mentioning Polygamy.

Posted by: Burning Umbrella | November 9, 2008 11:17 AM

Now you nigger-hugging liberals get to see what happens if you give them the same rights as to real people: they turn around and bite you in the ankle!

The Righteous Americans have once again defeated the bent commies!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:23 AM

The LDS church is an odd bird. They want to be recognized as a "peculiar people"

Well, I don't have any problem with that; downright weird, I'd say!

Posted by: PYRETTE | November 9, 2008 11:26 AM

Getting a pair of magic mormon underpanties sounds like a good idea but i think it'll be a little more difficult to get them than it was to get crackers. You could sneak into some mormons bedroom and remove them while he was sleeping maybe.
Also im interested to know how you would desecrate them. Put them on and eat a tin of baked bean, then fart in them for several hours? Then, once they are thouroughly soaked in methane you could try lighting them up.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 11:29 AM

Burning Umbrella likes to pull Poes on us. Once we realized it, we started to smile and move on. We have a couple of others who are just here to mock and disrupt, and aren't as funny. They get shredded.

Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2008 11:30 AM

Perhaps some of the ire is misplaced. I have to point out that the Mormons didn't pull this off alone. Many of the African Americans who voted for Obama on the same ballot voted for prop 8. A large proportion of Africa-Americans are tragically homophobic, even if not necessarily for religious reasons.

Blaming the Mormons for this is like blaming Nader for the 2000 election. Why not point the finger at the huge percentage of people who voted Bush over Gore? In this case: What about the large proportion of Californians not Mormons?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:33 AM

Getting a pair of magic mormon underpanties sounds like a good idea but i think it'll be a little more difficult to get them than it was to get crackers. You could sneak into some mormons bedroom and remove them while he was sleeping maybe.

No, I'm pretty sure you can pick them up at the local ZCMI.

Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:35 AM

"Getting a pair of magic mormon underpanties sounds like a good idea but i think it'll be a little more difficult to get them than it was to get crackers."

True, because you have to have one of their temple recommends. But, I used to have one, and have several unused pairs still, so it won't be all that hard to get if PZ (or anyone else for that matter) wants them.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:37 AM

I could be wrong on that above. Might have been that way in the past but now...

More here

Posted by: Sir | November 9, 2008 11:37 AM

I agree: Never let the the churches lose their tax exemption, because as the good Rev BDC says, this would lead to a demand for representation in government, one of the first steps towards a theocracy (like we aren't already headed in that direction).

I say fine the f*ck out of them, like what may happen to those asshole pastors who violated tax exemption law when they ordered their sheeple to vote for McSame. (Question for those sheeple: How did that work out, by the way? Why didn't "God" throw you losers a bone on this one?)

Posted by: Ka | November 9, 2008 11:39 AM

# 40:
And yes, there is a Moron in the Book of Mormon (Ether 1:7).

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:39 AM

Do the magic underpants enable you to fly? If so, do you have to wear them as outer garments, like Superman?

Posted by: Ken | November 9, 2008 11:42 AM

be careful PZ, the only nations I know of that don't financially support (directly or indirectly through tax exemptions) are the communist nations. That was one of the things that Pope John Paul II tried, unsuccessfully, to change when he visited Cuba.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:43 AM

Ether 1:7 - Ka

So, are the books named after the psychotropics Joe Smith was on when he composed them? I'm told ether can be a great laugh if the amount is carefully calibrated, a bit like getting falling-down drunk in ten seconds, then sober again within a few minutes!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:45 AM

Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it. - RevRight

And we should give a wombat's testicles about that because...?

Posted by: Jeeves | November 9, 2008 11:47 AM

My apologies, Burning Umbrella.

Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:47 AM

"It so happens that I agree with you, a self-proclaimed godless liberal, about this quasi-Christian cult. Their own record on one man/one woman marriage is spotty, at best, and they would seek to add their own "scriptures" to God's Holy Word. Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it."

It so happens that I agree with you, a self-proclaimed fundie retard, about this quasi-Christian cult. Their own record on one man/one woman marriage is spotty, at best, and they would seek to add their own "scriptures" to God's Holy Word a bunch of other bullshit. Otherwise, I think you're more or less full of it.

Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Re #84 - So, "you may use HTML tags for style," but apparently my strike tags didn't work on "God's Holy Word".

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM

Re #84 - So, "you may use HTML tags for style," but apparently my strike tags didn't work on "God's Holy Word".

Huh What?

Posted by: Jeremy Putnam | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM

PZ,

There was a massive protest in Salt Lake, between 3000 and 5000 people showed up. Member, non-member, ex-member (myself), young, old, gay, straight, it was an incredible crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWsJcteW4Q

Not all of Utah agrees with the politics of the church. Salt Lake City proper as well as Park City are both extremely gay friendly places.

One way you can help is by getting the word out that we're organizing a mass resignation of membership from the church. This is the final straw for many people and they're ready to call it quits. The site people can head to for information on this mass resignation is http://signingforsomething.org

Help us get the word out.

Posted by: Bad Albert | November 9, 2008 11:53 AM

"...I asked Barry Lynn directly what kind of legal recourse we had, and he regretfully pointed out that what the Mormon church did was entirely legal."

So what part of 'must not get involved with politics to be tax-exempt' don't I understand?

Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 11:54 AM

Re RevRight at #77: I clicked on the link to his blog, and I think it's a satire of some kind. Content includes:

Suppose you have potential leader #1, who is clearly educated, smart, and well-spoken, but has no genuine relationship with God. How does such a candidate stack up against leader #2, who, while possessing a sketchy academic record and seeming a bit dense, has an intimate relationship with the all-knowing God of the universe? I don't know about you, but I'll take the mind of God over human "intelligence" any day of the week!

Therefore, since Sarah Palin has self-identified as a conservative Christian and is close enough to God to understand His will regarding an oil pipeline, I am confident that she will be able to draw on the infinite wisdom of our Lord as it pertains to other matters of national interest.

I'm 95% certain this is a parody intended to take the piss out of Palin supporters. Or at least, that's how it reads to me.

Posted by: k | November 9, 2008 11:55 AM

"Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred."

The worst of the worst? Pictures of their sacred underwear-preferably if a non-morg is wearing them in the picture. And the morg are horrified if their secret temple rituals are publicized because they like to rub it in the young adult non-marrieds and those who haven't been on a mission that they ain't nuthin' until they've earned their sacred underwear and heard the super secret rituals.
Of course, all of this is already online (praise to the internet) but it's still the worst thing you can do is flaunt the sacred underwear and secret temple rituals.

And believe me, you ain't seen NUTHIN' until you've seen what those temple rituals are like. At least they took out the slashing of the throat if you told their secrets ritual.

Posted by: AntonGarou | November 9, 2008 11:56 AM

@PYRETTE: I'd say simply soak them in cheap wine/alcohol, and maybe some coffee dregs.

Also, people may like to know that if they donate 5$ or more to the effort to invalidate Prop 8. through the LA Gay&Lesbian center, in the name of President Monson, the Center will send him a(snarky) postcard informing him thanking him for the donation made in his name.Thanks go to John Scalzi for sowing this information on the internet winds.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM

epsilon@86: you need to just use "s" and "/s" - between angle brackets of course.

Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM

A large proportion of Africa-Americans are tragically homophobic, even if not necessarily for religious reasons.

Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 11:59 AM

will be wiped from the face of the earth as soon as SCOTUS is forced to rule on them.

Tony,

Your faith in the Supreme Court is misplaced. They only upheld our right to self-defense by one vote, and they allowed local governments to rob people of their land and hand it over to anyone who will pay more in taxes. Putting an equal protection case in their hands is rolling the dice with very poor odds.

-jcr

Posted by: RevRight | November 9, 2008 12:00 PM

RevBigDumbChimp - I am unfamiliar with your "Poe" reference, though I hope you were duly edified by your visit to my site.

walton - I assure that my remarks are in earnest. Dismissing me as some sort of "satire" is, frankly, hurtful. If you are able to refute the truths I present, well, do your darndest!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:01 PM

I'm told ether can be a great laugh

Hunter S. Thompson

Posted by: bipolar2 | November 9, 2008 12:03 PM

** and good English has went to Utah **

• "They sunk (sic!) sank tens of millions of dollars into the campaign." The absolute past of 'to sink' is 'sank' not 'sunk.' 'Sunk' is its past participle. You need an editor who knows grammar --

Amending (or is that amen-ing) our state constitution is too easy. Amendments to the US constitution require 3/4 of the states to approve. Maybe we shoot for at least a 2/3 vote to amend the constitution of CA. The state standard for raising taxes is a 2/3 majority --

Well, we can vote to annul the damn thing. It still might be unconstitutional under an equal protection argument.

I'm convinced however that God couldn't care about so mundane a matter. Being caretaker of the cosmos and all.

bipolar2 terra linda, ca

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:05 PM

Anybody know where I could get a lid of decent ziff?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:05 PM

So what part of 'must not get involved with politics to be tax-exempt' don't I understand?

I do not think that is how it is worded.

The 501c3 code on politics

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

IANAL but that appears to be only concerned with Candidates and does not deal with propositions and other similar ballot initiatives.

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:09 PM

Later that night, in his Magic Mormon Underpants...

Posted by: epsilon | November 9, 2008 12:09 PM

Thanks also to Nick and Nerd of Redhead. Who would have thought that godless and immoral atheists would be so helpful?

Posted by: The Chemist | November 9, 2008 12:10 PM

I don't understand why you would want to take away their tax exemption status. These same exemptions permit other groups to oppose them tax free as well. Whatever happened to good old fashioned, "Good for us when we're powerless, so good for us when we're powerful."

Posted by: meadowrue | November 9, 2008 12:11 PM

I would urge any former LDS here that haven't already to resign their membership to the church. Let them know they are going to lose numbers over this. Also if you haven't seen this YouTube video yet you should. I know that several mormon blogs have and they are very offended by it. Mormons love their squeaky clean image and hate to see it tarnished.

Posted by: marcia | November 9, 2008 12:14 PM

Sign the petition:
(70K signatures already)

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 12:15 PM

@Ken. heh I'm feeling vaguely foolish now. O well, that's what I get for taking myself to seriously and not closing blockquote tags correctly.

Posted by: RevRight | November 9, 2008 12:18 PM

Nick Gott - I am indeed still here, ready to be dismissed as "batty" yet return love for hate. And I do know a bit about evolution, as you duly noted, having devoured Hank Hannegraff's "The FACE that Demonstrate the Farce of Evolution." I cannot recommend this work highly enough.

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:21 PM

#127

If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of the Book of Mormon, you will either become a Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer named Joseph Smith nor a committee of the top religious scholars of the day could have fabricated the Book of Mormon.

Comedy gold.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:23 PM

Poe people...Poe.

subtle, but still poe

Posted by: Sean | November 9, 2008 12:24 PM

How can what the Mormons did possibly be legal? I just can't understand it. No taxpayer should have to be underwriting their campaign of hatred and intolerance.

The problem with only ridiculing the Mormons is that they absolutely relish in playing the part of the victim. You can already hear them shrieking about how they are being singled out for persecution. The sick irony of that is utterly lost on them.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 9, 2008 12:27 PM

How can what the Mormons did possibly be legal? I just can't understand it. No taxpayer should have to be underwriting their campaign of hatred and intolerance.

Again, IANAL but see post #114

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 12:27 PM

RevRight@128,
Nah, don't believe you! Tell you what, post a few links from other creobot fruitcakes to your site! Then I might start to take you seriously.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 12:28 PM

Given their history as a racist, misogynist, and homophobic organisation, maybe they should just change their name to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Bigots so that everyone knows what they stand for.

Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 12:29 PM

For those who would like a pretty definitive list of the Mormon church's most weird beliefs, I've got a page for you:
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm

As a Utahn and lapsed Mormon living in Salt Lake, I can tell you that a LOT of people here are angry at the Morg's support of this proposition. I was at the protest march on Friday night and I'd say the police's estimate of 2000 people is low. iirc, the police estimated 2000-5000 people and the news sources repeated the low end of that figure. Either way this was the largest civil rights march _ever_ in SLC, and it made an impression. Yes, Californians managed greater turnout, but that won't stop me from being proud of my fellow SLCers.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 12:30 PM

the decent folks

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 12:31 PM

forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer professional conman named Joseph Smith - Some Mormon moron

Fixed that for you! No thanks necessary.

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 12:34 PM

If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of the Book of Mormon, you will either become a Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer named Joseph Smith nor a committee of the top religious scholars of the day could have fabricated the Book of Mormon.

Every religion with a holy book makes that bogus claim.

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/1_20/pages/mormons.html

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 9, 2008 12:35 PM

Rev. Right.... or at least I'm pretty sure he is. His site is subtle but check out the page on evolution.

Posted by: Burning Umbrella | November 9, 2008 12:39 PM

I feel truly humbled. The evident faith of Rev. Right really touched my soul, but even he is put to shade by Tracy Hall Jr.

I must bow my head, pray, and locate the closest mormon missionary at once.

Imagine how I'll feel after I've glanced the Holy Truth of the Book of Mormons...

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:43 PM

"Look at the Book of Mormon, how could a poor farmer have written that on his own?"

And how could he have translated the golden plates without a Mark Super VII Quantum E-meter at his disposal?

Posted by: BobC | November 9, 2008 12:44 PM

It's bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to "preserve the sacred institution of marriage".

Is this marriage thing really necessary for anyone? I noticed the other ape species don't bother with it.

Posted by: John The Unbaptist | November 9, 2008 12:45 PM

Mormons believe in conversions after death, on the grounds that all deserving people should get to heaven, but non-mormons can't get into heaven, which isn't fair for ancestors who died before John Smith wrote his bible and foreigners who haven't had a chance to hear about Mormonism. This explains their interest in geneaological records (to find ancestors so that you can hold a temple ceremony to induct them into the church, so that they can join you in heaven), and in going on missions.

So perhaps we should devise some religious ceremonies to convert living and dead mormons to some other religion. Perhaps something that worked semi-automatically, like Buddhist wind-driven prayer wheels.

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 12:49 PM

Did you know that according to RevRight, most people become atheists, not because of a lack of evidence for God, but in order to watch Desperate Housewives ?

Poe or not Poe, that is the question...

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 12:51 PM

#155

From the July 1 Sacramento Bee:

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

The mass mailer California's received quoted Obama and Biden out of context, featuring his picture and making it appear as if he had endorsed their position. The promoters of prop 8 were, of course, lying sacks of crap.

Posted by: Kathy | November 9, 2008 12:53 PM

Wow. Mr. Hall, you have so misunderestimated the pull of the Book of Mormon.

While at Berkeley, I did a paper on the institution of polygamy in the Mormon church (as Joseph Smith "revealed" it). To do so, I had to go back to the far history of the church and Mr. Smith, including his early days as a "Gold prospector" in the hills of New York State. (As in, his early money-making schemes included having poor farmers pay him to search for gold with divining rods on their properties.)

If I ever needed a clue that he was a charlatan from his early days, that was it. The "revelation" of polygamy just cemented it. The only intelligence that Mr. Smith had was in the same realization that L. Ron Hubbard came to a century later: if you want to make money, start a religion.

So, it is, indeed, possible to review the Book of Mormon, and find that it is so full of deceit and lies that it is amazing that he ever found one single person to follow him into the desert, let alone whole crowds of them.

Posted by: George Atkinson | November 9, 2008 12:53 PM

Yet unmentioned is the role of the Mormon church in making the Boy Scouts of America safe for pedophiles. The LDS infiltrated the BSA administration, gradually strengthening the (previously unwritten) policy of ejecting gay and atheist boys.

Under suit for this discrimination (the federal charter granted to the organization was based on its being open to "all boys"), BSA lawyers appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which agreed that BSA was a private religious organization with full right to discriminate.

And now, godly scoutmasters, like godly priests, need no vetting, or supervision.

[Note: In the U.S., Girl Scouts are not connected with BSA, and do not discriminate.]

Posted by: Jeanette | November 9, 2008 1:04 PM

Nick Gotts @78:

Yeah, the whole religion sounds like it was made up as a parody, doesn't it? The book of "Ether," the angel "Moroni." A prophet named Joe Smith, his tale of the vanishing golden tablets, the babies' souls floating around in heaven waiting to jump into women's wombs...

People have to be "Moronis" to buy into any of that.

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 1:08 PM

#162 revised: California's voters received

Posted by: DMS | November 9, 2008 1:16 PM

@Tracy (#127):
Doesn't the Book of Mormon have horses in the story, despite the fact horses weren't in the Americas until Euros brought them here? As I recall, the story also mentions steel (!) though it's supposed to take place a couple thousand years ago.
Recommended reading for you, Tracy: Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer

Posted by: Muhamad | November 9, 2008 1:21 PM

Child marriage? Well, in that case, they aren't that different from Muslims.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 1:30 PM

Doesn't the Book of Mormon have horses in the story, despite the fact horses weren't in the Americas until Euros brought them here? As I recall, the story also mentions steel (!) though it's supposed to take place a couple thousand years ago.

Jesus brought them over. Duh

Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 1:33 PM

I resigned my membership three years back--mostly because I didn't want my future children's names on the rolls of the church, but also because of their shitty stance historically on women's and minority rights. The LDS church took ten years after the civil rights movement to let blacks hold the priesthood--1978--one year after I was born. They also pulled similar shenanigans back in the day trying to get ERA bounced, and it worked then too. The leaders would tell the Relief Society (the women's auxiliary) to organise protests on the steps of various state capitals. They were very involved in making sure the ERA didn't pass, and for a long time, when I was little, I thought that the ERA must be something really heinous. Imagine my surprise as a young adult, when I investigated it and found that it was merely granting equality to everybody regardless of gender. Shocking for a wee Mormon kid.

While I generally agree with most of what I've read in this thread, and I think the LDS church's behaviour has been shameful, a few things have been said in thread which need clarifying:

Norman Doering said that LDS marriages were more about children and less about romantic love. Tsk, tsk, Norman. LDS marriages are REALLY about the chance to boink the only person you will ever be sanctioned to boink. ;) What else do you think would happen if you told people they can't have sex outside of marriage? They will get married to the first person who comes along who says yes. (I jest, but that's still partly true. By the time I was 22, a third of my graduating class in high school was married off.) In reality, most Mormons do marry for love and romance and all the same reason non-Mormons do.

Also, PZ's assertion about the polygamous marriages that happen in Utah conflates the FLDS church with the LDS, when in reality, the LDS has no control over the FLDS, and hasn't for over a century. The FLDS and their ilk broke off from the main branch of the church pretty much because the LDS rejected polygamy. It's a minor point, because historically the church was persecuted for their non-traditional marriages--incidentally, the other major cause of friction between early Mormons and the rest of the US was that the Mormons kept bloc-voting, as their Prophet told them too. Instead of learning one lesson--ie, don't try to tell your people to vote all one way--they ended up focusing on the persecution, as they no doubt will this go-round. The victim complex runs strong and deep, and they have a soft spot for people they view as martyrs to the cause. This makes them hard to engage rationally, because they are convinced that disagreement = persecution.

MoxieHart@79: Yes, there is a belief that if you are righteous, and sealed in a temple marriage, you will get to become like God and make planets. This actually relates to my own deconversion, since I was a rabid science fiction/fantasy nerd, and was all excited about the prospect of making planets. I planned my planet out, and was so excited that it spurred my interest in science. I reasons I would have to know a lot of science in order to create my planets, so in junior high and high school I took a lot of biology and geology courses with that in mind. I drew up pics of my continents, and monsters and creatures I wanted to populate my worlds with....and then one day I mentioned my world-building project to an ecclesiastical authority, who condescendingly laughed, patted me on the head, and said, "Oh, but you won't do that. Your husband will do that since he's the one with the Priesthood. You'll help him raise spirit children." Jaw drop. Sound of crickets. My brain screaming, "But! But! But! But!" So yeah....you get a planet. If you possess a penis.

Things Mormons hate:

+ The ACLU - because it keeps them from turning Utah into a complete theocracy

+ Planned Parenthood - because every spirit child needs an earthly body. (Nobody has been able to reconcile the idea that if God is up there sending down spirit children to bodies, why is he sending them to bodies where they are going to get aborted? And why would abortion be bad in that case, if he could just send the newly aborted soul back to another body??)

+ Environmentalism and Gun Control - because God gave us this world to be a steward over, and doncha know that being a steward means the right to shoot whatever you want. (Admittedly, the younger generations are much cooler about enviromentalism than the older generations.)

+ Feminism - Uppity women wanting to make their own planets instead of submitting to raising spirit children. What is this world coming to?

+ Democrats - Okay. There are some Mormon Dems. There were two in the entire congregation/ward I grew up in. And later, when they left the church, everybody said, "We should have known. He voted for Mondale." My mother thinks Hillary Clinton is practically akin to Adolph Hitler. (That is NOT an exaggeration.) It is nominally okay to be a Libertarian, but generally everybody in Utah County, where I grew up, leaned Republican.

+ Gay people, natch. Most Mormons will say shit like "Love the sinner, hate the sin," but those who do, probably don't know any gay people who are out to them. Or they will be like my dad, who worked with a few gay people, declared them to be among the nicest people he knew, and said it was a shame they couldn't give up their sin to be closer to God. I think the younger generation, once again, is a bit more chill about the gay movement than their parents were--I had a number of old classmates back in Utah who are still Mormon and who lobbied against 8--but sadly many still accept the prevailing church view, which is that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage should be stopped.

Which brings us to today: Your mission, should you choose to accept it is to scan the list of Mormon donors to Prop 8 here: http://mormonsfor8.com/ and make a donation to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Utah Democratic Party, the HRC, or NOW in their name. This will make the veins on their heads throb and their eyeballs implode. (I'm donating to Planned Parenthood in Monson's name.)

The future of the Mormon church: The Mormon church has changed before, and they will change their beliefs again. They will adapt....eventually...to the zeitgeist as they perceive it, but probably about ten-to-twenty years after wider mainstream acceptance. In the meantime, their ranks will suffer minor attrition, as people who take a few minutes to think about it realise the doctrine is contradictory and full of shit. I wish the rate of attrition was a little higher, because they'd notice quicker, but in the meantime, they drive out gays, women, people with different political views, and anybody who schisms doctrinally with the church over various issues. I don't think they'll lose enough people to implode as an organisation, but the more they lose, the more they'll try to follow the mainstream. Which means that their current doctrine is doomed, I think. They just don't know it yet.

Oh, and here's some ammo for Mormons who insist that their prophet has a direct line to God: Three Prophets back, Ezra Taft Benson was the leader of the Mormon church. He thought a great deal of the John Birch society and preached that the Civil Rights movement was Communist-inspired and that MLK had been trained by communists. Benson ALSO wrote a forward to a nasty piece of racist literature called The Black Hammer. As far as I know, he never recanted his beliefs before taking the reins of the church.

Cover of the Black Hammer: http://www.affirmation.org/images/covers/the_black_hammer.gif

History of ETB's racism, as documented by his grandson: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon409.htm

When Mormons use the excuse that they are following the orders of their Prophet, ask them why God would allow a racist man to become head of their church. They will probably note that the prophet is still a man and occasionally makes mistakes. Ask them if the prophet then was mistaken, if it would be possible for the prophet now to be mistaken.

Posted by: Brad D | November 9, 2008 1:39 PM

Mormons seem to have one part of running a religion down pat: keep your people constantly under watch, don't let anyone have too much time to themselves to think things over on their own.

Posted by: Zar | November 9, 2008 1:43 PM

#123:

I would love to see California's gays and lesbians go on strike. Margaret Cho had a fantastic routine about all gay wedding planners/florists/caterers/beauticians refusing to work on those who oppose gay marriage. "If you can't get married, neither can I!"

Melissa Etheridge has stated that she will refuse to pay taxes until gay marriage is legalized. Good for her! If the government refuses to grant her the rights everyone else enjoys, then why should she pay the same taxes everyone else pays? I hope Ellen follows suit.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 1:48 PM

Yeah, the whole religion sounds like it was made up as a parody, doesn't it?,/I> - Jeanette@168

Well, maybe it was! Smith was obviously a megalomaniac, so he may have enjoyed making his followers accept the most ludicrous tenets possible. In Russell Miller's biography of L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, there's an account of a lecture at which Hubbard told those in the audience wearing spectacles that they would no longer need them, and got hundreds of people to throw theirs away. According to the account, he found their credulity very amusing.

Posted by: Badger3k | November 9, 2008 1:54 PM

I had to skim towards the end, but I had a few comments from around the 50s - from an interview I heard from an ex-Mormon, the mainstream church does say polygamy is a no-no, but it is part of their "Doctrine and Covenants" (IIRC), and they do believe that once you have been "sealed" in marriage, even divorce and remarriage can't change that - after death, a serial divorcee is supposed to have all his wives in heaven - afterlife polygamy! Once you realize that the woman has no choice in this (even if she would rather spend her afterlife with her second husband, for example), it gets more disgusting than laughable. Even if it is a complete crock of shit, the misogyny is real. I did wonder what happened if the woman remarried another mormon - would she be split up in death, alternate who she serves, or what?

Regarding the actual number of individuals in the Mormon church, I had heard of their "conversion after death" plan, where they put someone's name in their books and consecrate them as Mormons after they have died (this is an issue with me since my brother is a Mormon, and if he thinks he'll sign me up after death as a loonie, he's mistaken - I know I'll be dead and beyond caring, but it's the principle of the thing), so they can say that the number of church members is higher than it actually is.

Posted by: Stark | November 9, 2008 1:59 PM

Something sacred to the Mormons? Grab a pair of Mormon underwear? :)

Or perhaps their Bible, translated from an "alien" language?

Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 9, 2008 2:08 PM

From Tracy Hall, Jr.'s wall o' text:

"Advocacy of the Comoros/Moroni link seems an act of desperation. It has not been proved that Joseph saw the names, or that any source available to him linked them. Furthermore, latching on to two names in an obscure reference work does nothing to explain the incredible complexity and internal consistency of the Book of Mormon."

Or, you might come to realize that "complexity" and "self-consistency" don't bar a written work from also being fictional.

Posted by: Richard | November 9, 2008 2:10 PM

As a Utahn and a former-Mormon, I think the Mormon Church has far too much power. I'll admit that I wasn't at the demonstration, and I regret it now. As for something to mock, I've always thought that the history of polygamy has been a well-kept secret by the Mormon Church. In my view, such historical facts as Joseph Smith's marrying other men's wives and his telling young girls that they wouldn't get to the highest heaven unless they married him need to be more widely-known. Also, Mormons have a particularly odious dogma about chastity (which, by the way, I think is a good ideal within reason), a dogma which has caused needless stress and pain to countless young people. This dogma is based on the following passage in the Book of Mormon:

Know ye not, my son, that these things [sexual transgressions] are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?--Alma 39:5.

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 2:12 PM

Nick Gotts wrote:

...Russell Miller's biography of L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah...

That is online here:
http://www.nots.org/

Great insights into how religion works occasionally show up.

Posted by: Dan | November 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Wow. There is a whole lot of religious bigotry and intolerance being ejaculated onto the internet from people who claim to be above bigotry and intolerance. Imagine that! And they're spewing a bunch of lies! I guess when you're angry it's ok to be a hypocrite.

Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:19 PM

AlexT #191

Perhaps all of this energy and effort by the LGBT community and its supporters would be vastly more effective in broadening the rights of civil unions for same-sex couples rather than attempting to demonize and persecute the Church and its members. Or, is it just easier to single us out and start treating us as second class citizens? Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies.

Funny, I thought making people second class citizens was YOUR job.

Posted by: Pixelfish | November 9, 2008 2:20 PM

Badger3k: To answer your question, there can be a cancellation of sealing for temple marriages, but they are particularly hard to obtain. Generally they will only be granted if the ex-spouse was excommunicated, or did something pretty heinous or criminal.

As you note, Mormon males will be able to be temple-sealed to their next spouse, while Mormon women will NOT be able to. In theory, if the husband died very young and there are no children, there is sometimes special dispensation for the woman to get sealed to a new husband, with the theory that God will sort it out in the next life.

I have a friend, btw, who is the biological daughter of her mother's second husband. He died young, so her mother married for a third time and my friend's stepfather raised her. But because her mother was never able to get a cancellation of sealing from her first husband, her children are sealed to him, and not their biological father or the man that raised them. I call that pretty f--ed up.

One of the things that drives me crazy about the Mormons trying to keep gays from getting married, is that they don't really recognise non-temple marriages. They sort of do, but they ALREADY think that anything other than a temple marriage is inferior. If a Mormon couple slips up before marriage, and for whatever reason, isn't "worthy" to enter the temple to get married--usually because they anticipated the wedding and boinked a few weeks/months early--then they get civilly married and the bishop or whoever performs that wedding reminds them that the non-temple wedding is for time only, and that they should go to the temple to get properly married as soon as they are able. (A year after their transgression, usually.) Mormons don't even think that STRAIGHT people's marriages count towards the afterlife unless you were sealed in the temple. You're only married for time (ie...until one of you drops dead) and not for eternity. So why it's so important for them to keep gays from getting married is a bit of a confusion for me, because those marriages wouldn't be equal to a temple marriage in the eyes of a Mormon. Trying to keep one class of people from having something you wouldn't participate in yourself...ie...non-temple marriage....is sour grapesy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:21 PM

Wow. There is a whole lot of religious bigotry and intolerance being ejaculated onto the internet from people who claim to be above bigotry and intolerance. Imagine that! And they're spewing a bunch of lies! I guess when you're angry it's ok to be a hypocrite.

Um, no. You fail.
Support that statement.

Posted by: Norman Doering | November 9, 2008 2:23 PM

Dan wrote:

There is a whole lot of religious bigotry and intolerance being ejaculated onto the internet from people who claim to be above bigotry and intolerance.

Define bigotry and intolerance.

And they're spewing a bunch of lies!

Point out some lies.

Your accusations seem to be empty of facts.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 2:24 PM

Or, is it just easier to single us out and start treating us as second class citizens?,/I> - AlexT, Mormon moron

The hypocrisy, it flabbergasts!

Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:25 PM

I'm getting the feeling that The Word Has Gone Out in Mormonville, and the righteous defenders are beginning to show up.

Welcome Mormon brothers! Visit your righteous indignation upon us! We thirst for your counsel! We wander confused and bereft, and need your healing words to mend our broken spirits!

Posted by: Dale Husband | November 9, 2008 2:26 PM

Here's a ray of hope: that atheist girl on YouTube that P Z Myers has promoting was raised a Mormon. And she's in California.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gogreen18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn2cUR46400

Posted by: Hank Fox | November 9, 2008 2:30 PM

Yahoo News:
Utah faces boycott after Mormon work for Prop 8

SALT LAKE CITY - Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, a spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford, among other popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

Posted by: park city | November 9, 2008 2:32 PM

Hey-- loved the article! Most people have no idea how truly strange and delusional the mormon religion is. Mormons work hard to appear pro-family and wholesome.

I was raised in this religion ("born in the covenant" is the term they use). I was forced to attended church, Sunday-School, Seminary and every other imaginable mind-f***ing program the church provided. Finally, despite my objections, my parents insisted that I marry in the Salt Lake LDS temple. This was back in the late '80's when the mormons still practiced their super creepy "washing and annointing" ceremony that involved a lot of naked touching and where women promised to be "obedient" and subservient to their "priesthood" holding hubby. (I've since gotten some therapy to recover). I understand that sometime in the early '90's god told the church to change these "eternal truths" to something a bit more mainstream, but I was long gone by then. While I was cognizant at the time that my mormon upbringing was twisted and bizarre, it wasn't until the temple ceremony that I figured out I had been raised in a cult. A big, well-financed cult, but a cult nonetheless.

The mormon/LDS church, since it was invented, has always been on the wrong side of history. Their current bigotry against gays is no different than their prior doctrinal and institutional bigotry against African-Americans. (For sh*ts and giggles check out the LDS church's original Journal of Discources It's a little tough to find as the LDS church has gone to great pains to deep 6 it. The crazy sh*t the earlier mormon profits [sic. pun intended] spued will curl your hair).

The LDS church is all about money and appearance. Only when they are hit financially or when they appear incredibly ridiculous will they get a "revelation" and make long overdue changes.

I was only 13 yrs. old, but can recall that 1978 was a big year for revelations from god. After decades of preaching that African Americans were "inferior" and from "the seed of Cain," and must have been "less valiant in the preexistence," and "must never mix their seed" with whites because it was punishable by "death," blah, blah, it was the threat that BYU athletics might not be included in the NCAA, among other financial threats, that prompted the good news from god. African Americans were now totally OK. Go figure.

I'm a straight, caucasian, middle-aged stay-at-home mom with two children. I have one brother who is gay. He and his husband have adpopted a wonderful little girl. They are a beautiful family. It breaks my heart that the church we were raised in is such a narrow-minded, bullying organization. Both my brother and I formally resigned from the LDS church many years ago but if I could resign again, I would, just to protest the LDS church's involvment in prop 8. The church that was founded on polygamy is the last organization in the country that should be whining about preserving "traditional" marriage. It makes me crazy!

It's too slow but I'm willing to wager big that within 2 decades from now, the LDS church will receive another "revelation" from their god that gay are suddenly OK too. To bad the mormon church is always lagging behind the times.

I do believe that this time, and despite their clever, and oh-so-careful exploitation of current tax code exemption provisions, the LDS church has gone too far. They have pissed off the wrong people. The backlash will be hard and nasty.

Hmmm... maybe the LDS church will "reap what they sow" just like they preach. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 2:32 PM

AlexT #191 -- a mealy-mouthed apologetic for your bigotry, rich in self-deception, devoid of basic fairness and decency.

Dan #196 -- word salad, devoid of meaningful content.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 9, 2008 2:37 PM

Shorter Walton@215,
OK, Benson opposed civil rights for blacks, favoured persecuting communists, and had insane religious beliefs, but he was a supporter of laissez-faire capitalism, so he's one of the good guys.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 2:42 PM

Oh please. PLEASE don't turn this fucking thread into another Libertarian chamber pot.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 2:46 PM

I'm afraid Walton has monomania. We keep trying to widen his horizons, but he just can't seem to get away from his mania. A few of the ladies were even chipping in to get him a hooker to broaden his outlook on life. He reminds me of radicals during my undergraduate days, minus the pot.

Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 2:48 PM

Poor, poor credulous Dan. What a Cretin... what? What do you mean I've pissed off people from Crete?!!

Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 2:48 PM

In my view, such historical facts as Joseph Smith's marrying other men's wives and his telling young girls that they wouldn't get to the highest heaven unless they married him need to be more widely-known.

Typical of cults. God's plans as revealed by older men always seem to be the same. God wants old alpha males to have lots of sex with lots of teen age girls.

And oh yeah, I almost forgot. Make sure you send them lots of money along with your daughters.

Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 9, 2008 2:51 PM

AlexT#191 sayd, "...I voted to protect what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage, between a man and a woman. I didn't do it out of hatred nor coercion. I voted for what I believe to be right. Marriage does not belong to same-sex couples. It is not their right."

You are an unconscionable equivocator. That vote of yours and your justification for it clearly indicates hatred. Yes, HATE: It's prejudicial, it's sanctimoniously exclusionary, it's ignorant, self-serving, intolerant, obnoxious, and the claim of virtuous conviction as a shield behind which you cower to avoid the name of hatred, cowardly.

You add, "Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies. Say what you will, do what you will, my faith will not waver."

So what have you accomplished? All you have managed to do is act on your impulse to deny that same-sex couples cannot IN YOUR VIEW form a union under the grace of what you are pleased to identify as the source of all love. In your own way of thinking, you cannot even accomodate the possibility that you have ostracized a significant population with precisely the same charge you level against us.

I don't give a shit whether your faith, befouled as it is by mere tradition rather than any logical principle, will waver or not. All that indicates, buster, is that you have yet another strike against you: a pathological incapacity to change, which is the form and delight of every hater.

I don't suppose shame is at all possible in anybody who declares they will not waver from their faith. That's fixed, isn't it? No recourse for correction, none for humiliation, none for repentance.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 9, 2008 2:53 PM

He reminds me of radicals during my undergraduate days, minus the pot.

If you gave Walton a pot, he'd immediately fill it up with a pantload of libertarian diarrhoea.

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 2:56 PM

AlexT,

Or, is it just easier to single us out and start treating us as second class citizens? Maybe you should segregate us into ghettoes and tattoo a number on our bodies.

Last time I remember it was the large Christian Aryan majority who put the minorities (Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, ...) in those ghettos and who tatooed numbers on their body.

Oh but I foget, as all Mormons, you guys rewrite history at your convenience, so now in the USA the risk could be that it's the minorities (Atheists, Homosexuals, secular folks...) who will put the large Christian majority into ghettos and tatoo their bodies...

Just a question, do you actually use your brain when you write such fantastic nonsense, or do you just copy and paste it from somewhere ?

Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 3:07 PM

What is laughable is that there are Catholics and Protestants who think that Mormonism is entirely ridiculous, just as Mormons think that Catholicism would be laughable if the Catholics hadn't instituted there own pogrom for Mormons in the mid 1800's. Evangelical Protestants think everyone else is deluded and that Mormonism is a silly cult. This sect hates that sect, this demonination refutes that denomination; teach as irrational and delusional as the other; but they all pretend to be in harmony against anyone who points out that religion is irrational and the existence of an intervening God is highly improbable.

Posted by: Ken Cope | November 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Prop 8 didn't pass because of mormon interference. It passed because of record voting by Blacks and Hispanic Americans.

These communities did not vote the way they did because they were Black or Hispanic, but because these communities are readily persuaded by the religious communities which they comprise. Mormon interference came in the form of tens of millions of dollars, matched by Catholic Knights of Columbus, who flooded the airwaves as if nothing else mattered, in a deceptive ad that characterized the issue as preventing public schools from being forced by the state to teach your children to be gay, and would force all churches to marry gay couples.

Posted by: Joe the Wanderer | November 9, 2008 3:10 PM

Just south of Idaho Falls, Idaho there's a large billboard showing a male Mormon missionary ecstatic over saving money at missionarymall.org. No, no, no, you don't get to put "mall" and ".org" in the same URL, do you? The question of tax-free status should be more closely examined. It may be technically legal to fund Prop 8 propaganda, but what about the "mall" sales, the NPR station at BYUI that bumps NPR news shows to broadcast LDS conferences (not to mention "Devotionals" that even bumped 9/11 news)? Is it legal that the most basic cable TV package available always includes the Mormon channel, forcing all cable subscribers to support the broadcast? And what about the control by the LDS Church of public space in Salt Lake City? Money used to fund anti-gay legislation is just part of a much bigger picture.

Posted by: travc | November 9, 2008 3:12 PM

A bit tangential... Crested Butte CO has very good skiing too. And is just a few miles south of the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL). So go there instead and mention that you heard about it because of RMBL.

Hell, go do field work a RMBL in the summer too. For you undergrads, there are always interesting projects there looking for volunteers.

Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 3:17 PM

Walter Scott @ #229:

I am a Mormon, always have been, always will be. Why? Because I was born into the religion (and at the age of accountability, 8 years old, I "chose" to become a member of the church). [emphasis mine]

"Age of accountability", my ass. This was a pretty large part of my deconversion. Seriously who, at age 8, can even pretend to be ready to decide on something as momentous as The Fate Of Their Everlasting Soul? I wasn't allowed to choose my own bedtime at that age.

The older I get, the more this particular practice bothers me.

Posted by: pixelfish | November 9, 2008 3:22 PM

Patricia@237: You ask what Mormons hold sacred. Well, the temples are considered sacred. (Although I don't advocate doing anything to them, as they are private property. I actually like some of the early temples, such as the Cardston Alberta temple for its an art deco architectural style, and the Manti Utah temple for its nifty unsupported spiral staircases and the murals that were painted by my Mormon ancestor.) The Book of Mormon is also considered pretty sacred, and that's more fair game, because anybody can purchase or be given a copy. Trent Reznor once destroyed a Book of Mormon onstage at a concert--or so the legend in Utah goes--and became the topic of many a church denunciation about the evils of modern music. (I felt so guilty for liking Nine Inch Nails at the time.)

Mormons really love Joseph Smith and hate it when people denigrate him. (But as Walter Scott, I think it was, noted above: if you say that Mormons worship him, they will laugh at you. In fact, Mormons are inured to a lot of the weird old slanders. My siblings and I used to joke about our Mormon horns.)

You don't really need to attack any of the Mormon sacred symbols to get a rise out of them though, if that's what you're looking for. You can piss them off merely by telling them about how Joseph Smith started boinking Fanny Alger BEFORE Emma gave her go ahead, or how he probably deserved to be in jail because he had a printing press destroyed. Or you can ask about the number of changes to the Book of Mormon. Or point out that before Brigham Young became president, Joe baptised black people and let Eliza R. Snow preach. Mostly though, you can look them straight in the eye and say, "I believe that everybody should be equal under the law and gays should be allowed to get married." Obviously, it makes the non-compassionate or non-thoughtful Mormons implode.

Posted by: Albatross | November 9, 2008 3:26 PM

Here's the thing about Mormons (and all fundamentalists) - no matter what anyone does, they'll still think they're right. (Of course, everybody here already knows that, I just thought it bore repeating.)

Protest, boycott - it's all only further proof of their elite position among God's children. (And protests, by the way, are a sign of immaturity, and they're just wasting their time standing up against injustice.) Go to the Deseret News website and read the comments on some of the Prop. 8 protest stories. Many of the LDS commentators say things like "God told us his people would be persecuted" and "it looks like Satan really hates our righteousness" and, my favorite: "If Prop. 8 had passed, do you think Mormons would be out protesting? - I think not!" And other wonderful things like that. There's no winning.

Posted by: natural cynic | November 9, 2008 3:35 PM

@117

Wait a minute!
My people were a lost tribe of jews AND sold Manhattan for 24 dollars?
Well that obviously doesn't add up.
That's got to be well below retail.

Yeah, but it wasn't theirs to sell in the first place.

Posted by: Erica | November 9, 2008 3:55 PM

I really hate to jump the the defense of religion but what is wrong with polygamy so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult? And the bit about young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages is a very small fundamentalist group that is denounced by the regular Mormon church.

Anyway something that is sacred is family trees. Mormons believe that ancestors cannot go to heaven until their name has been recorded in a family tree. Ancestry.com is run by the Mormon church.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 3:57 PM

Welcome Mormon brothers! Visit your righteous indignation upon us! We thirst for your counsel! We wander confused and bereft, and need your healing words to mend our broken spirits!

Triglav save us, no Hank! So far we've had to wade through onslaughts of stupid from pathological Protestants, berzerk Baptists, crazed Catholics, and now you welcome throngs of maniacal Mormons^*? Oh, won't somebody somewhere think of the children!

In the interest of brevity, let me save them the time by presenting the only arguments that are generally ever made by theists coming here to defend their faith:

1. A selective sampling of minutiae from my Sacred Holy Text™ shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's the actual Word of God, unlike all the other Sacred Holy Texts™ ostensibly authored by the same God held by those of different faiths who can make the same case using selective samples of minutiae from their books;

2. Selective samples of minutiae that conflict with my claim in 1. are: metaphors/redactions/later edits/misinterpretations due to lack of faith/Shut up! and your provision of them merely shows how little you understand of the mysterious and completely scientific art of apologetics/snake oil salesmanship;

3. We're holier than everyone else (but please don't investigate the activities of our leaders or laypeople which will show that, by and large, they're no better or worse than anyone else. This is because: God gave us free will/Satan still has the power to dupe us/they aren't True Followers™/Shut up! Arguments against atheism using the strawmen of Hitler and Stalin still hold though.);

4. The vast majority of people believe in some sort of God, therefore atheists are the only stupid ones and incidentally, all those religious people are wrong unless they share my faith, but I'll use them for now as they're needed to make my point;

5. HITLER + STALIN!!!

6. Atheists just want to lock us up because: they can't abide our superior morality/are mad at their dads & God/love abortion/are in league with Satan/are probably witches and pagans/are going to burn in hell!/are being used, like Judas, as God's fall guys to fulfill the prophesy of persecution^† (see 7.);

7. God told us we'd be tested like this therefore your persecution of us only proves we're right^‡;

8. Atheists are sad and have no morals, and all us religious people agree that if they'd just go away and leave all of us God-fearing fellow-man-loving faithful alone we could go back to the business of killing each other based on the aforementioned minutiae;

9. Did I mention HITLER + STALIN!!!?

10. You're just lucky that we're not Muslim. Ooh, then you wouldn't be saying such nasty things. Then again, I guess that's just the price one pays for being tolerant of heathens and heretics, thanks to this nation's ancient widespread Christian ideals of free speech (note: please do not actually seek out and fail to find examples of ancient widespread Christian support of free speech. That would be rude);

11. This country is founded on Christian principles (see note about rudeness in 8.), so if you're not one, get out! Alternatively, separation of church and state implies freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, so pick a god and start prayin'. (The FSM doesn't count. It has to be a real religion, indicated by some Sacred Holy Text™ minutiae that justifies our disenfranchisement of one or more groups. Women and darkies^§ would be a good start);

12. Ladies and Gentlemen, once again I present HITLER + STALIN!!!

I apologise if I missed the argument that definitively proves your religion and thus invalidates all others, but there's only so much time on a Sunday and I've got my family, friends, and other members of my community to interact in positive and meaningful ways with.

*Oddly enough, though PZ hasn't been shy on the subject, we haven't yet been inundated by maddened Muslims seeking to defend their faith. Could it be they're cooking up something even worse than trolling? Just in case: To arms, Christen Brethren!

† This makes God mysterious, not merely a sadistic asshole.

‡ This demonstrates God's only bit of prescience so far: why bother authoritatively authoring a holy book impervious to forgery by charlatans when you can encourage your followers to act like douchebags in every conceivable way 'predicting' that they'll be disliked for it? Gee, thanks Magic 8-Ball!

§ This is for the benefit of any Hindus present, whose religious entrenchment of the caste system has discriminated against the darker descendants of the Indus Valley inhabitants to the benefit of the lighter Aryan descendants.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 4:01 PM

Which is about what half the people here would like to happen.

That's ridiculous and you know it.

Posted by: pharynguphile | November 9, 2008 4:04 PM

Wait. Didn't you just say in an earlier post that atheists are more patient and polite?

Or were you being ironic?

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 4:05 PM

For what it's worth, my personal experience of succesful religious fundie deconversion (and I'm proud to have deconverted a few of them amongst some close friends and relatives), is that whatever the religion, it makes no sense to start by attacking their myths, sacred scriptures, ridiculous traditions, miracles and other fairy tales.

What's valid for Mormons is valid for Cathos, and Baptists and Muslims etc...

The only way that works, IMHO, if one has the patience and the time, and provided the people one is trying to deconvert have a minimum of trust in you, is the hard way, the scientific way.
It's only once they understand that one can explain the complexity of nature without the need for God, and that we observe is what is to be expected from a universe without a God, and most importantly why God cannot be the answer of the question how could something come from nothing It's only once people have understood why some of their most basic intuitions about nature and what is natural are actually wrong and why they correspond to the same wrong basic intuitions that were vehicled by the primitive thinkers that were the writers of the sacred scriptures, then only it becomes easy to attack the myths and the fairy tales. Sometimes it's not even necessary, the rest just comes crumbling down all by itself.

Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 9, 2008 4:06 PM

Last time I remember it was the large Christian Aryan majority who put the minorities (Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, ...) in those ghettos and who tatooed numbers on their body.

The nazis thought they were Aryans, but they were mistaken. Aryans mostly live in Iran, Pakistan, and India.

-jcr

Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 4:07 PM

I really hate to jump the the defense of religion but what is wrong with polygamy so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult?

Many of the FLDS girls involved in these marriages could barely be considered consenting and definitely aren't adults. One of the examples to come out of the whole mess in Texas was an arranged marriage between a 54 year old man and a 14 year old girl.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 4:14 PM

Wait. Didn't you just say in an earlier post that atheists are more patient and polite?

Or were you being ironic?

Could you once have a post where you don't come off like a total moron?

There is a time for patience and politeness and a time for calling a spade a spade.

Posted by: Walton | November 9, 2008 4:16 PM

Benson wasn't an anti-Communist, he was a far-right, white supremacist extremist. His support of the John Birch Society and his eagerness to run as George Wallace's vice-president are ample evidence of this.

Just as a note for non-Americans and those too young to remember the John Birch Society, in the late 1950s they claimed that Dwight Eisenhower was a "knowing tool of the Communists."

But Benson served as Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture (in fact, he was Eisenhower's longest-serving cabinet member, IIRC).

Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 4:22 PM

About the whole horses thing: Some of the apologists suggest that instead of "Horse" they meant "Tapir", I shit you not. It seems that all of apologetics can boil down to: "If we define every word to mean something else entirely, this can be read literally."

Somehow the stories of armies riding into battle on battle-tapirs or Moroni fleeing the Lamanites on his trusty tapir don't have quite the same ring to them.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 9, 2008 4:27 PM

You should all read this, if you're currently convinced that black turnout is responsible for the prop 8 win for the bigots.

Quick version: exit polls statistically very screwed up; not enough blacks in Cali anyway; easy racist answer to complex question.

Posted by: sara | November 9, 2008 4:28 PM

I could not understand why the Mormons pumped funding into Prop. 8 rather than Prop. 4 (which has been on the ballot three times now). Maybe postponing a marginal percentage of the "murders" is just not as good as banning all same-sex marriages, but I would argue differently, if I were so certain about when life begins. Some of them picketed on the corner near our university, so I had a chance to ask them. They did not offer any good answers.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 4:39 PM

Walton,

But Benson served as Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture (in fact, he was Eisenhower's longest-serving cabinet member, IIRC).

If I were polite, I'd ask "and your point is?" But since I'm feeling snarky towards you, I'll respond: "So fucking what?"

I know you at least glanced at Steve Benson's discussion of his grandfather. Steve described his grandfather as both a radical right-winger and a racist and gave examples to support both contentions. Especially since Steve knew Ezra Taft, I'm willing to believe that Steve knows what he's talking about.

Posted by: Ken | November 9, 2008 4:46 PM

I have to say, this has been one of the funniest threads I have read in a while.

Posted by: Eric Atkinson | November 9, 2008 4:49 PM

"See, I told you so. Bet you there's at least 100 million fundies in America like Eric Atkinson or AlexT who actually BELIEVE in the kind of fantasy story #243."

Man. Talk about missing the point.

Or intellectual dishonesty.

BTW Eric is not a fundie.

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 4:59 PM

Talk about missing the point.

What was your point then ?

BTW Eric is not a fundie.

He sure does write like one.

Posted by: Marc Abian | November 9, 2008 5:04 PM

I'll try to mock the mormons more but I'm concentrating a lot on Scientology right now.
I'd send you what they consider sacred, but there's no point desecrating perfectly good money.

Also, extreme mormon trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOh4g_FLIM&feature=related is worth a watch.

Posted by: mandrake | November 9, 2008 5:06 PM

My favorite bit about the Mormon church seems to be rarely brought up, I don't know why. It's Joseph Smith's "I can translate Ancient Egyptian, really" story.
Synopsis: Actually authentic papyri bought by Joseph Smith, who claims he can translate them - before scholars had deciphered hieroglyphics. Translates them as "The Book of Abraham." Scrolls assumed lost in fire. Scrolls show up in 1966, Mormons rejoice to have proof that their prophet Joe had divine powers, until the actual translation showed no correlation between what Joseph Smith "translate" and what they actually said. Pretty good article here.
Though I note that, entertainingly, it seems to be on a Xtian apologetics site showing how Mormonism can be shown to be false, unlike Christianity, which is based on reality. I am not to be held responsible for the breakage of irony meters when reading the first two paragraphs on the page to which this link connects.

Posted by: Robin | November 9, 2008 5:12 PM

Best Mormon ridicule ever:

Start posting pictures of magical Mormon underwear with skidmarks.

Pretty much says it all.

Posted by: mandrake | November 9, 2008 5:14 PM

I never can get that right.

http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm

Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:23 PM

Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too. Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door.

maybe i'm a minority but i've never met a mormon i didn't like. I have close friends who are mormons and i doubt they had anything to do with this.

its like saying well george bush started the war in iraq and therefore all americans are responsible, even the ones who said they didn't vote for him ( which i think is 80% of the population right now)

so going out and treating people like shit is the solution?

this blog has devolved into a feeding frenzy on those we deem not like us. I guess that's just human nature. looks like intelligence doesn't innoculate you against it.

oh yeah.

release the hounds!

Posted by: mandrake | November 9, 2008 5:29 PM

I have close friends who are mormons and i doubt they had anything to do with this. (#290)

Wait... wouldn't they have to? Wouldn't any money spent by the Mormon church come from the required tithing?

Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 9, 2008 5:33 PM

A Mormon loftily self-emplaced
on the highest spot in the realm,
self-congratulatorily graced...
were it not for that second "m"

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:34 PM

gypsytag
I think you make some reasonably valid points.
I have met some wonderful mormons too, but when I try to talk to them about my "beliefs" they don't take it too well.
There is not a chance of me taking a ski vacation anywhere in the near future, but I have no problem being a little smarmy to otherwise polite bigots.
I always fire a warning shot over the bow first, so it's up to them how we proceed. If they don't appear to be stereotypical mormons maybe it just turns into an interesting conversation.
I generally prefer distasteful jokes anyway.
Equal opportunity offender.

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:40 PM

gypsytag

So far, seems the hounds are a little more reasonable than the credit you gave.
In the minds of many here, a serious injustice was done on tuesday. Let us blow off a little steam.
Hold your judgement a little longer.

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:43 PM

Arnosium
That was brilliant!
Thank you.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Perhaps I should procure some magic underwear some day, and wear it outside my clothing to a protest. Maybe draw a Superman-style logo on the front.

"Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims?"

I don't know. Why do you have a problem with kids being taught about the existence of gay people and how they'd like to get married?

"Today's topic: Joseph Smith invented fanfiction. Discuss."

Actually, Paul invented fan fiction. Nah, you could probably trace it back even further.

Posted by: Paul | November 9, 2008 5:48 PM

You use such a scientifically eloquent term as the last sentence to cap off your hateful speech, sir. I would suggest you find less ignorant ways to comment on this. I really marvel at the fact that you would create a blog with such jaded and vitriolic content aimed solely at discrediting religion...

Why would you want to make fun of things that LDS church members find sacred? Is that the only way you know how to handle a situation? Try to bully other and insult faith because you obviously don't have the capacity to show faith for anything but what your eyes can see?

Might I remind you that the people of California voted not once, but twice on this issue? The family code was updated in 2000 to make same-sex marriage illegal. Then this year, a handful of judges decided to overturn what the people voted for. Can you think of anything more undemocratic than that?

And now we have people calling us bigots and hateful. Can anyone here understand the definitions of those words? We have never endorsed nor undertaken violence against gays. We are taught to love and care for all of God's children. There is no hate involved in our message. Saying that gays cannot marry does not constitute hate. It is an opinion on the matter to defend rightful marriage.

I see the opposite side spewing hate towards us now, saying all manner of disgusting insults and justifying it by saying that we have demonstrated hate by this just vote.

Although I respect gays as people, their practice is sin, as clearly defined in scripture. As I understand that most people here are atheist, I will still argue that the practice is totally against nature - to an extreme, if everyone were gay, there would be no survival of the species. And yet you want us to accept these marriages as valid?

I would especially now hope that the current and former members of the Church that are speaking against the Church would repent and come to their sense. How could you deny the Spirit you once felt? How could you spit at the face of the Savior and his called Prophet?

I say to all here, that if you do not speedily repent, our Father in Heaven will hold you accountable at the Last Day when you face Him. You will not be able to look upon His face for the shame and guilt you will feel at these horrible words.

To the owner of this blog - the Lord will come before we know it. And even you sir, will have to bow down at his feet and acknowledge Him as your Savior and Lord of all. You will reap the consequences at that day of these attacks against Him if you do not repent.

Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 5:51 PM

So where are all the outraged CookieGate™ Catholic trolls?
I have a hunch they're taking notes from Bill & Pixelfish: "How to enrage a Mormon".
It does no good to put a rusty nail through the Book Of Mormon or the "garments" to offend them like the cracker fetishists. I'm in favor of sending a few Watchtower wielding JW's to Utah, oh hell... send 'em all and let 'em fight it out.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 5:51 PM

Paul, call down the wrath of your imaginary god upon us. We will still be here tomorrow, because your alleged god does not exist. Absolutely no evidence for any god. So take your delusions back to your church. Just don't leave them here. And don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 5:53 PM

As absurd as Mormonism is, it is a fact that Mormons were in San Francisco long before the gays ruined it. So, all the chants about Mormons going back to Utah need to be countered by chants encouraging bellyaching gays to go back to their places of origin (e.g., a hole under a rock).

Gays ruined San Fran.

That's cute. In an ignorantly bigoted way.

Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 5:55 PM

Rev,
I'm not sure being hateful to them will do anything. But calmly explaining the insanity of their beliefs and the actions of their church, the church they are dedicated to, should be sufficient to get the point across.

that's not what PZ advocated. He said be a little more ruder to them.

Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 5:56 PM

Posted by: raven | November 9, 2008 11:12 AM

...

No coffee or wine. I could give up wine with much regret but coffee, forget it, no way!!! Some claim that there is a high conversion rate, matched by a high dropout rate.

1. Depending on orthodoxy, some say it's "hot drinks" and that would include tea. Other's say it's caffeinated drinks so you can drink herbal tea, decaf coffee, but not caffeinated soda.

2. The conversion rate is fairly high. The replacement rate is fairly high. However, the drop-out rate exceeds both substantially.

3. They also routinely excommunicate members and retaliate against their relatives if they don't shun them.

4. They are routinely hypocritical. The Marriott Hotels is one of the largest distributors of porn in the world. Yet they do nothing to Romney, et. al. Yet they recently ex-communicated a man for publishing a calendar of shirtless missionaries. Another Bishop is being ex-communicated because he supported the "No on 8" campaign yet, despite official denials, there are many, many polygamous families EVEN WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM CHURCH and they are not sanctioned.

5. The Mormon church is more business than church. They just built a $2 billion mall in Salt Lake. Which is more than they have provided in relief and aid for the LAST TWENTY-TWO YEARS. They also own about 30 radio stations, Beneficial Financial and a whole host of other commercial endeavors.

They're also whiny arsed titty-babies and have rightfully earned our contempt and scorn.

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 5:58 PM

gypsytag
Your hounds have arrived, but they're mormons.
Okay, it's not bigotry because it's in the scriptures.
What do your scriptures justify about treatments of brown and black people?
What does it say about my Native American ancestors?

PeregANUS
On that subject, I was here first. Go the fuck back where you came from.

Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:02 PM

negentropyeater,

the only way i can expalin it, is that they are assholes. I'm not arguing for the mormons, i'm not defending christianity. religion is an abomination.

All i was trying to say is that these kids that come to your door are human beings and advocating treating them like garbage, just struck me as being wrong, and we're doing exactly what has been done to atheists, and minorities, etc.

if you feel the need to treat these individuals in a hostile manner, then go ahead. i don't.

Posted by: E.V. | November 9, 2008 6:06 PM

Be just a little more hateful to them. that'll learn 'em.

It's okay to vent on a thread(within reason; finding that line and not crossing it requires more judgment {Eric A} than some of the posters possess), but treating someone as you would have them treat you face to face is prudent, humane and isn't in the sole domain of the Xians.
That being said, the "turn the other cheek" homily needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If they keep pushing to talk to you after you've said no thank you, then being more assertive without going full-goose-bozo will allow you to keep your self respect. Just like a date, no means no. If they push you -walk away/show them the door. A screaming match just makes you look like that Crazy Christian Lady on "Wife Swap".
And never be afraid to say "I disagree, the concept of god is a human construct and you and I will never agree on this matter. I don't care to debate it any longer, and no I don't want any of your literature. Thanks. Buh-bye"

Posted by: Herk | November 9, 2008 6:07 PM

There is a connection between the whalers in New York and the city of Moroni and the Isle of Grand Comoro - names Mr. Smith used in his fairy-tale book. Haven't read all the comments yet, so I hope I'm the first to post this and win the prize.

Moroni

Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:08 PM

ggab,
Your hounds have arrived, but they're mormons.

i know and they've brought a whole bunch of crazy with them.
Again, i have no problem with the bashing of religion.

My beef is how we treat people as individuals.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:10 PM

That is far more common among the JWs than Mormons, but I realize that, as a vapid atheist (redundant, I know), you need not actually know what you are talking about but need only pretend to know.

Dodging the point.

We aren't talking about JWs we're talking about Mormons. And it does happen.

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:13 PM

gypsytag
Yeah, I got your point and I agree for the most part.
Like I said, we need to blow off some steam.
The bigots that popped up after your post are going to allow us the opportunity to get a lot of it out of our system.
Perfect timing.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful post, now duck, the shit just hit the fan.

Posted by: pcarini | November 9, 2008 6:15 PM

Although I respect gays as people, their practice is sin, as clearly defined in scripture.

As I understand that most people here are atheist, I will still argue that the practice is totally against nature - to an extreme, if everyone were gay, there would be no survival of the species. And yet you want us to accept these marriages as valid?

As for your extreme example, what if everyone were Mormon? The increased population would be far more than we can feed, for starters. What if all religious people started behaving as though their religion was between them and god instead of trying to force it upon unwilling participants? What if a random stranger gave me a suitcase with a million dollars in it? This "What If" game is fun and all, but eventually we have to come back and live in the real world. Gay people, when finally accepted as equals among us, will never be a majority, the biological imperative involved is too strong.

What it boils down to, in the end, is that you don't like what consenting adults, whom you don't even know, do in their bedrooms. Worse than the dislike, you'd like to curtail their rights because of this choice. The question is simple: What's it to you?

Posted by: Tatarize | November 9, 2008 6:18 PM

The No on Prop 8 campaign lost because it was terrible. Absolutely terrible. It was one of the worst fought campaigns ever. It was reactionary, slow starting, complacent, and had everything going for it. The state went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and the No On 8 campaign didn't bother to point out that Barack Obama opposed Prop 8 until the Yes On 8 people sent around posters saying that "Barack Obama Doesn't Support Gay Marriage; Vote Yes on 8" to half-assed point out this fact? They should have made it well known at least in the black community where the Yes side won by 70%+. Rather than focusing on the heavy Yes supporting districts where anybody you got to was a gain they went around San Fran making sure the base knew that "No" was how they were suppose to vote. In fact, explaining to the people that "Yes" was a vote in favor of stripping rights might have helped too.

Worst of all, WHERE THE HELL WAS MY GODDAMNED YARD SIGN! My entire neighborhood was blanketed with Yes signs and nobody, I mean NOBODY, had a No sign. If I had one offered, I would have taken it, marched into my front yard and planted that bastard in there. Nope. Nobody had them and they weren't available because the No on 8 people sucked ass.

Protest all you want... where the hell was that passion when it would have been useful? Seriously, I was underwhelmed by their campaign. Now the icing on my cake of overwhelming landslide is that I now think that my very progressive state is filled with bigots.

Rather than be pissed at Mormons they should be pissed at that shoddy ass No On 8 campaign. It was pathetic.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/106178/why_the_prop_8_gay_marriage_ban_won/

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 9, 2008 6:19 PM

And yet you want us to accept these marriages as valid?

Posted by: John Morales | November 9, 2008 6:21 PM

pixelfish, I really appreciate your posts in this thread. Thank you.

Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 6:21 PM

negentropyeater,

I agree that their religion shouldn't be respected. it should be ridiculed.

I simply took slight offense to PZ saying that we should be a little ruder to those that knock on our door.

I just don't think its necessary to treat people badly regardless of what their beliefs are.

I have an "A" on the side of my front door and my dog chased a mormon up a tree. We call it the mormon tree now.

but it was a mistake. And i felt really bad that the dog was let out at the exact moment they were walking up the driveway.

But i didn't laugh at the young boy, i apologized. I didn't ask him why he ran if he was wearing magic underwear that should protect him. I didn't do all those rude things that a person could do. No I apologized to him, told him i was an atheist and gave him pointers on how to deal with dogs that charge him.

there is no reason for rudeness, it degenerates into hate too quickly.

Posted by: Kel | November 9, 2008 6:25 PM

Although I respect gays as people, their practice is sin, as clearly defined in scripture.

As I understand that most people here are atheist, I will still argue that the practice is totally against nature - to an extreme

if everyone were gay, there would be no survival of the species. And yet you want us to accept these marriages as valid?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 9, 2008 6:25 PM

I missed this bit of nonsense:

I say to all here, that if you do not speedily repent, our Father in Heaven will hold you accountable at the Last Day when you face Him. You will not be able to look upon His face for the shame and guilt you will feel at these horrible words.

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:30 PM

I'VE GOT IT!!
When the mormons come to my door...I'm going to flirt with them!!
Oooeew, what if they respond? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think a really good BJ with a prostate massage would change their mind about the "unnatural" point though.
Brother, it's heaven.
snicker

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 6:33 PM

BTW, guess what were the TWO states where Obama got his lowest score ?

Posted by: Timothy Wood | November 9, 2008 6:35 PM

Lol. Priests think they have a good thing going. We atheists have Mormon boys and they're so much better. There's even a delivery service.

...There really is something magical about those underpants.

ok. im done. im sorry.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 9, 2008 6:37 PM

We atheists have Mormon boys and they're so much better. There's even a delivery service.

yikes

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 9, 2008 6:37 PM

WYOMING 33%

UTAH 34%

Mormons sure don't like Obama.

Bet you, they must have been praying real hard.
Does that mean that the Mormon God was on vacation that day ?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 9, 2008 6:42 PM

I think you should spend an entire week criticizing the beliefs of Mormonism. Show how the Book of Mormon was written in the 19 th century, how all archaeological and genetic show no close relation whatsoever between Native Americans and the Hebrews, and how the Church's historical treatment of black people (ironically, one group that really supported prop 8). Then use the magic underwear as floor mop.

Posted by: Moses | November 9, 2008 6:43 PM

If you maintain intellectual honesty in your analysis of the Book of Mormon, you will either become a Mormon or be forced to respectfully admit that in 1830, neither a 25-year-old farm laborer named Joseph Smith nor a committee of the top religious scholars of the day could have fabricated the Book of Mormon.

For a preliminary taste of the intellectual feast that awaits you, I suggest a web search on [Book of Mormon chiasmus].

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

Bullshit. The Mormon apologists are among the most laughed at in all of archeology. Constantly straining at every little gnat of a thing that, with a wackaloon interpretation, can be stretched to support their delusion while ignoring the, literally, tons of evidence that it's all made up.

Posted by: ggab | November 9, 2008 6:45 PM

Timothy!! You filthy little minx!
Love it!

Timothy's got Wood.
snicker yet again.

Posted by: Murray | November 9, 2008 6:50 PM

How about we all enjoy some hearty mormon mockery courtesy of South Park?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/712/

Joseph Smith was called a prophet,
dum-dum-dum-dum-dum

Posted by: Rick R | November 9, 2008 6:51 PM

gypstag @ #324- "i know and they've brought a whole bunch of crazy with them.
Again, i have no problem with the bashing of religion.

My beef is how we treat people as individuals."

And here we have the mirror image of the "I don't hate gays as individuals. I just don't think gays as a group deserve marriage equality" bogus argument.

Well, speaking as someone whose rights were stripped on Nov. 4th, I can proudly say that I have a supply of diarrhea ballons all ready for the next set of Mormon missionaries who choose my house for a visit. They've earned 'em.
C'mon, Mormons. Bring it. Not all of those nasty sinful gays live in West Coast cities like San Francisco. Most of us live in the quiet neighborhoods you like to canvas, the ones right around the corner from your churches.

Ringing bells today? Knocking on doors? Feeling lucky?

Posted by: