Pharyngula

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | September 10, 2010 9:36 AM

Nah. I like Dan Savage's idea better.

Let's make them gay by proxy.

Everytime we have ghey sex with Brownian a Mormon looses his brown cherry.

Posted by: Patrick | September 10, 2010 9:42 AM

I atheized Pope John Paul II. I hope he doesn't mind the other people in the queue were just normal people and he doesn't have a bulletproof bubble to protect himself from them.

Posted by: andytech | September 10, 2010 9:50 AM

I felt it only fitting to atheize Joseph Smith, Jr...

Posted by: Dahan | September 10, 2010 9:51 AM

I went with Pope Innocent III.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 10, 2010 9:53 AM

If I atheize all my Mormon ancestors, will it interrupt the space-time continuum and prevent me from being born into a Mormon family? That would significantly reduce the amount of money I've spent on therapy.

it's worth a shot

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | September 10, 2010 9:59 AM

Take that, Fred Phelps!

Posted by: cairne.morane | September 10, 2010 10:04 AM

Pope Lucius III (instigator of the Spanish Inquisition) ... atheized.

Posted by: Becca Stareyes | September 10, 2010 10:08 AM

One thing I was always curious about, is if you believe in posthumous baptism, why bother proselytizing to anyone before*? You have the hoards of believers from straight-up reproduction to do the baptisms-by-proxy, and surely if people have seen Heaven/Hell, they'll jump at the chance to get the Good Ending, rather than making nebulous promises about 'yeah, it'll be worth it when you die'? Plus, less legwork and fewer doors being closed in your face!

* I can see why baptism after death would upset the family/friends.

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2010 10:11 AM

Someone make sure to atheize Glenn Beck, Bush, Dobson. They aren't dead but so what?

Plus all the clowns that wrote the bible and koran.

Posted by: RLFoster | September 10, 2010 10:16 AM

I'm using a different strategy -- I'm going to post-baptize Adolf Hitler into a Mormon. Imagine what Joseph Smith and Herr Hitler would talk about. One bigamist fraud with a god-complex talking to a sexually repressed Austrian Catholic with a god-complex. I'd convert to the LDS cult just to sit in on it.

Posted by: daveau | September 10, 2010 10:17 AM

Dibs on Donnie & Marie!

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2010 10:21 AM

One thing I was always curious about, is if you believe in posthumous baptism, why bother proselytizing to anyone before*?

It seems to be busy work to keep the Mormons going to the temple. It is also a ritual that children can participate in, so it keeps the kids busy as well.

This is one of their mind control techniques. They schedule meetings constantly throughout the week, family home evening on Mondays and many others. It keeps them too busy to think, constantly involved with their religion, and constantly surrounded by other Mormons.

The LDS church is a huge time consumer as well as money consumer for its members. This might be one reason why they have a high dropout rate.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 10, 2010 10:24 AM

I think death atheizes people automatically.

Posted by: bellerophon | September 10, 2010 10:30 AM

It won't let you atheise anyone with "Mohammed" in their name either

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 10, 2010 10:30 AM

They did Hitler AND as many jews HItler killed as they can find.

If you don't see why that offends Jews, congratulations you're mormon

Posted by: Et in Arcadia Ego | September 10, 2010 10:31 AM

Jesus was impossible , but I guess "Ιησους Χριστος" just bit the bullet . Welcome to the dark side Yehova .

Posted by: Martin | September 10, 2010 10:35 AM

As if the spirits in their hereafters can't think for themselves or live their own afterlifes.

Of course, when questioned about the inappopriateness of Mormon-izing the dead of other faiths, the traditional response has been, "Well, the soul of the deceased is free to accept or decline the invitation."

Posted by: Truckle | September 10, 2010 10:42 AM

Posted by: Gaebolga

PZ, have you been reading The Secret?

Noooooooooo......

;)

Posted by: DN King | September 10, 2010 10:48 AM

I always wondered if Mormons would accept the kind hearted invitation a group of animistic natives might give over the grave of one of their loved ones. I think not, and would expect violence to break out more often than not.

I would go sit on a Mormon grave and read The God Delusion and/or God is not Great to find out, but unlike the Mormons, I have a little respect for the emotions of others and a few strings of moral fiber.

Posted by: MoonShark | September 10, 2010 10:52 AM

I took care of Thomas Aquinas. What a whiner. *poof*, heheh.

Posted by: SquidBrandon | September 10, 2010 10:53 AM

Buddha was also protected from atheization, but Siddhartha Gautama was not.

Posted by: MoonShark | September 10, 2010 11:00 AM

Also got C.S. Lewis and René Descartes. Jack Chick needs to kick the bucket before we can add him...

Posted by: mel.unique | September 10, 2010 11:01 AM

If anyone deserves to be kicked out of ANY heaven and disappear in a puff of ectoplasm, it's that @$^@$! Brigham Young.

Not that I'm still bitter, but if there is an afterlife, I'd bet a lot of my handcart-dragging ancestors are.

Posted by: musicant | September 10, 2010 11:04 AM

@41:

You need to change the "https://" in your link to "http://"!

Posted by: donbutton | September 10, 2010 11:10 AM

Martin Luther, done.
John Wesley, done.

Posted by: ronster | September 10, 2010 11:15 AM

There is no need to atheize anyone. I believe that all people are atheist. There are no gods, so we cannot be anything but atheist. Of course, not everyone will acknowledge that, but it does not change the facts.

Posted by: MrFire | September 10, 2010 11:18 AM

I just atheized the beautiful creature known as Disco Music, who as we all know was brutally murdered in 1979.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 10, 2010 11:21 AM

Of course, not everyone will acknowledge that

That's what makes someone a theist, though.

Posted by: Kevin Anthoney | September 10, 2010 11:22 AM

Pope Lucius III (instigator of the Spanish Inquisition) ... atheized.

I atheized Ronald Reagan.

Jerry Falwell is now an atheist. Tammy Faye is next!

Can we start atheizing some decent human beings, please? Somebody we'd want on our side like, er, um ... any suggestions?

Posted by: llewelly | September 10, 2010 11:39 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 10, 2010 9:42 AM:

I atheized Billy Graham. While technically he isn't dead ...

Don't let that trouble you. Oskar Schindler was "baptized for the dead" many times while still alive.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | September 10, 2010 11:47 AM

I atheized Mother Teresa. I'm pretty sure she wanted to be atheist.

Only right. Hell, it sounds like she pretty much was, toward the end, even...

It's not probably that rare. Riff on this all the time, so I'll keep it short, but: religions seem to be generally more about publicly agreeing to go along with the attached cosmology than actually believing it, or at the very least that's probably a pretty common phase in the socialization of adherents (look, just play along, try to fit in... it's easier, after all... and maybe you'll start to think you really believe, soon enough), so 'believers' who in the final analysis don't really so much believe may be pretty common...

Regardless, the Teresa story especially sometimes tempts me to come up with the inverse of the Lady Hope myth for other figures, special for the more annoying proselytizers who like to pull that crap in the standard direction.

(/Y'know... 'I heard Oral Roberts de-converted on his deathbed,' that kinda thing...)

Posted by: dinkum | September 10, 2010 11:49 AM

Er... you guys realize that now we will have to share hell with these people, right?

Oopshit. That's a good point.

Posted by: gussnarp | September 10, 2010 11:52 AM

@AJ Milne - I have a hard time believing the Pope actually believes in the Catholic God and doctrine. Or any of the Cardinals, most Bishops, a good number of Priests, and all Franciscan monks. The Catholic Church prides itself on the way it educates these folks, and it seems to me that the upper echelons of the Catholic Church have learned enough philosophy and theology that they may be able to give a learned argument in favor of God (as far as that's possible at all), but they also must realize how empty that argument is. Learning that Mother Teresa didn't actually believe in God anymore was no surprise, and I would be very surprised if the Pope and many others didn't fall into the same camp.

Posted by: cracycarl | September 10, 2010 11:55 AM

You can't Atheize Jesus Christ: "We're sorry, but the interphilosophical treaty of 1926 prevents us from atheising anyone with "Jesus" in their name."

"You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus."

Posted by: mattheath | September 10, 2010 11:56 AM

O we should totally have Gerard Winstanley! And Wilberforce

Posted by: Brother Bill | September 10, 2010 12:02 PM

I was aware of the Mormon belief in intervening for dead souls. That explains their intense interest in geneological research. They have the most complete records and so no doubt constitute a quorum for determining the ultimate fate of dead people. But I'll bet that a concentrated effort here will place this site as #2 so "Try Harder."

Posted by: sqlrob | September 10, 2010 12:08 PM

You can't Atheize Jesus Christ

That's because He's already one

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | September 10, 2010 12:12 PM

Re #66, yeah, that, too.

Said it before, but in my wilder moments, I sometimes suspect that genuine religious belief may be extremely rare, and possibly not even that significant to the overall story, here... That now and then, sure, someone with an actual organic mental disturbance--transient or otherwise--may really be convinced they're hearing voices from beyond or somesuch, and sure, such events may have occasional influence on the larger phenomenon of religion...

But otherwise, and for the mass of adherents, what they call 'belief' in the context of their religious cosmology is rather more psychologically complex than what they mean outside it, not really that much like what others generally mean by the word. And that 'believe' in this former context translates rather more closely to: 'have long ago agreed to avow/feel I should avow, and am therefore still working on convincing myself'...

But also, again, how widespread this is, how good a description this is, how truly divergent this is from non-religious patterns of cognition, these are all open questions, fair enough.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | September 10, 2010 12:18 PM

I atheized Saul of Tarsus. He's the one who took it to the next level, so with open-mindedness and rationality, he's gonna have some 'splainin to do.

Posted by: blackfonzie | September 10, 2010 12:33 PM

I couldn't atheize "God" or "Yahweh," so I tried Our Lord, died 1882 (declared dead by Nietzche).

Posted by: lexicalninja | September 10, 2010 12:34 PM

We're sorry, but the interphilosophical treaty of 1926 prevents us from atheising anyone with "Mohammed" in their name.

I call bullshit.

Posted by: desertfroglet | September 10, 2010 12:39 PM

If only someone had done this earlier.

Congratulations! Martin Luther has been scheduled for posthumous atheization.

Posted by: bbgunn071679 | September 10, 2010 12:42 PM

Also took out Wayne using his real name, Marion Mitchell Morrison. Just in case.

Posted by: OmiOne | September 10, 2010 12:50 PM

@#6 I also atheized Joseph Smith, Jr ;) does the double negative rule apply?:)

Posted by: Multicellular | September 10, 2010 12:57 PM

In Hypatia's memory I atheized Cyril of Alexandria.

Posted by: Tom | September 10, 2010 1:15 PM

#91
I think to be an atheist you have to be able to do the 'ist' bit. Death takes away that privilege.

Posted by: cairne.morane | September 10, 2010 1:20 PM

"Er... you guys realize that now we will have to share hell with these people, right?"

I have to admit that would be serious concern. If any of us actually believed in hell.

Just in case I atheized Hypatia (Hypatia of Alexandria).

Posted by: glenister_m | September 10, 2010 1:24 PM

I think Judas E. will appreciate my attempt.

Posted by: MultiTool | September 10, 2010 1:39 PM

I atheized King James I of England. Who's gonna make your Bibles now? Huh?

Posted by: Doodle Bean | September 10, 2010 1:44 PM

Thanks for the link, PZ. It was amazingly satisfying to atheize my fundie grandparents!

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 10, 2010 1:47 PM

@81: Says the person who is unacquainted with both dictionaries and humor. LOL away.

Posted by: Tracy Hall Jr | September 10, 2010 1:53 PM

Dear Dr. Myers,

I expect a scientist to take a scientific approach to everything, but your repeated anti-Mormon rants are never based on investigation of what we actually believe.

Since we do not pretend to any authority to force our beliefs on anyone, living or dead, your argument that Mormons force baptism on the dead is a logical fallacy: a straw man.

Freedom of choice, which we call "moral agency," is a fundamental doctrine of Mormonism, and we believe it extends beyond the grave. While we claim authority from God to to offer the ordinances of salvation to the dead, we also proclaim that God will never force the dead to accept the offer: the ordinances only become valid upon the full-informed, free consent of the dead. We don't know exactly how that consent is formalized, but we are certain that it involves no compulsion.

Joseph Smith declared, "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned." (Doctrine & Covenants 121:41)
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/41#41

So go ahead and "atheize" my ancestors! By so doing, you pretend to having more power over the dead than Mormons have ever claimed.

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 10, 2010 2:07 PM

you pretend to having more power over the dead

PZ actually is pretending; "atheizing" is a joke. You're the one who is taking this nonsense seriously.

BTW, nice Joseph Smith quote. Maybe someday you guys will exercise your moral agency to actually take his advice in your dealings with others.

Posted by: realinterrobang | September 10, 2010 2:07 PM

you pretend to having more power over the dead than Mormons have ever claimed.

Yeah. The difference here is that we're pretending (as in we know it's all make-believe) and you're claiming (as in you think it's not).

Be sure your sin rhetoric will find you out; the tell always tells.

Meanwhile, will you come back and let us shred you some more if we point and laugh at you? If so, I'll start. *points and laughs*

Posted by: sqlrob | September 10, 2010 2:25 PM

Since we do not pretend to any authority to force our beliefs on anyone

Prop 8 anyone?

And what about these baptisms?

Posted by: gilraenthecat#916d1 | September 10, 2010 2:31 PM

J.R.R. Tolkien has now been atheized. I think he will be a welcome addition.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | September 10, 2010 2:34 PM

Since we do not pretend to any authority to force our beliefs on anyone

Prop 8 says hello, liar.

Posted by: Aquaria | September 10, 2010 2:48 PM

Can we start atheizing some decent human beings, please? Somebody we'd want on our side like, er, um ... any suggestions?

I atheized Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Posted by: Tracy Hall Jr | September 10, 2010 2:52 PM

@ # 16 Becca Stareyes:
"One thing I was always curious about, is if you believe in posthumous baptism . . . "

Your question begs the question, because there is no such thing as "posthumous baptism." We call it "baptism for the dead," not "baptism of the dead." It is no more than an offer, and it is not valid without the fully-informed and free consent of the dead.

Mormons do not accept the traditional Christian notion of an instant assignment, upon death, to a binary state of heaven or hell. Instead, we believe that the spirits of the dead go to a "spirit world" to await the final judgment and resurrection. Only then will our spirit and our body finally be reunited and be admitted to one of "three degrees of glory." Until judgment day, there is still an opportunity for everyone to repent.

Yes, to many there will be an "aha" moment at death when they realize that they are still conscious, but there is no clear revelation of the glories of heaven: we still "see through a glass, darkly," and God and Satan will still contend for the souls of men. We do believe that there is a division in the "spirit world": that the righteous enjoy a peaceful wait in "paradise," and the wicked endure darkness and misery in "hell," but that misery is only a continuation of what they chose in life – not a sudden plunge into any escalation of misery.

Everyone who ever lived will eventually receive an equal opportunity to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to receive, by proxy, the ordinance of baptism. But even in the spirit world, humility and faith are needed. We believe that almost all men will eventually accept Christ as their saviour, but it appears than many will endure centuries of needless suffering in hell before swallowing their pride and choosing to move in with "those foolish idiots" in paradise.

" . . . why bother proselytizing to anyone before*?"

Because millions of Mormons are needed to do the job! Baptism requires immersion of a physical body in water, on earth, and it's going to require thousands of temples and millions of proxies to get the job done for everyone who has ever lived.

"*I can see why baptism after death would upset the family/friends."

If you accept our claim that we do baptisms for the dead (you'll never witness it, as our temples are only open to members), then you really ought to accept our claim that it is only an offer and has no validity without the fully-informed, free acceptance of the recipient. It's like paying your bail to get out of jail: you don't have to accept it. It's like mailing you a check. If you don't think it's valid, there's no need to be offended: just tear it up!

As for all that leg work and all those doors slammed, we believe that this will go on pretty much the same way in the spirit world, for a long time yet to come, until judgment day.

So if you tell a Mormon he is going to hell, he might just answer, "Why thank you! I'm looking forward to it!" (Doctrine & Covenants 138:57)
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138/57#57

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

Posted by: Susan | September 10, 2010 2:55 PM

@TracyHallJr
You really have no friggin' idea of how batshit insane you sound to a normal person, do you?

Posted by: irenedelse | September 10, 2010 3:01 PM

TracyHallJr:

Your question begs the question, because there is no such thing as "posthumous baptism." We call it "baptism for the dead," not "baptism of the dead." It is no more than an offer, and it is not valid without the fully-informed and free consent of the dead.

Please, enlighten us: how is this "fully informed and free consent" obtained from a dead person?

Ouija? Channeling? Ghosts?

Posted by: gussnarp | September 10, 2010 3:04 PM

you'll never witness it, as our temples are only open to members

There are a lot of dumb things about religions and many of them might as well be called cults, but any religion that keeps their actual practices wrapped in a cloak of secrecy so no one can see them until they join is just a cult, with every negative connotation that implies, no matter how many members they have.

Posted by: irenedelse | September 10, 2010 3:10 PM

@ gussnarp: Absolutely. "Temples only open to members" is a cultish feature for any religion. Look at the RC church: for all their faults, at least they let anybody attend a Mass, whether you take part or not, as long as you don't disturb the ceremony.

Posted by: daveau | September 10, 2010 3:19 PM

...and it is not valid without the fully-informed and free consent of the dead.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 10, 2010 3:21 PM

@TracyHallJR

Oh, well now it makes PERFECT sense.

Posted by: Logic H. Science! | September 10, 2010 3:32 PM

I did Galileo, Darwin, Ted Kennedy, Charleton Heston, and David Koresh. Random assortment; this is fun!

Posted by: bbgunn071679 | September 10, 2010 3:48 PM

Mr. Fire @ 119:

I hope you'll be taking him to breakfast tomorrow morning.

Nope. He never took me dancing.

Posted by: wet_bread | September 10, 2010 3:52 PM

Thomas Aquinas. Done.

Posted by: Tracy Hall Jr | September 10, 2010 4:14 PM

Quoth #27 "raven:"

"They also conduct marriages for the dead. As if the spirits in their hereafters can't think for themselves or live their own afterlifes."

"Raven" mocks that which he or she does not understand. Latter-day Saint proxy ordinances for the dead impose nothing on the dead: freedom of choice is an eternal principle. No proxy ordinance is valid without the fully-informed and free acceptance of the spirits of the dead.

With regard to marriage, the proxy ordinance of "sealing" is offered only to the dead for whom we can find evidence that they were married in life, had children together, or lived together as husband and wife (common-law marriage). If the sealing ordinance is freely accepted by both husband and wife, the marriage, which in life was only "until death do you part," becomes valid for eternity.

Current LDS temple policies allow us to perform a proxy sealing ordinance for every marriage that existed. A woman can be sealed to every man to whom she was married in life, and a man can be sealed to every woman to whom he was married in life. The couples will have to sort out, between themselves and with the Lord, which if any of their marriages will be eternal.

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com
= =

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2010 4:14 PM

Tracy Hall lying:

Since we do not pretend to any authority to force our beliefs on anyone

Doesn't stop you Mormons from doing it constantly.

Utah was carefully Gerrymandered by experts so all the pagans are crowded into a few districts. The result is a state that is 60% LDS with a legislature that is virtually all Mormons.

Depriving people of the right to vote is pretty low but well within the nonexistent moral grasp of the LDS church.

The role of the legislature is to find out what the church wants and do it for them. This is a functional theocracy built on block voting of religious fanatics and Gerrymandering. NonMormons are second class citizens and freely discriminated against. Alcohol is hard to find. There is always a seminary outside of every high school. The state of Utah was late letting cable TV in. They were afraid the outside world might influence their members.

But it could be worse. A prophecy, the white horse prophecy, states that they will one day rule the USA. Many LDS believe it fervently. Good luck with that one, Mormons are outnumbered 70 to 1.

Posted by: MrFire | September 10, 2010 4:17 PM

Until judgment day, there is still an opportunity for everyone to repent.

As a movie character once put it: "Are we talking Eastern Time?"

Because millions of Mormons are needed to do the job! Baptism requires immersion of a physical body in water, on earth, and it's going to require thousands of temples and millions of proxies to get the job done for everyone who has ever lived.

Since you've already pulled so much out of your ass, why don't you go one step further, have one single fucking person go through the ceremony on behalf of everyone who has lived or ever will live, and be done with it?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 10, 2010 4:24 PM

Tracy Hall Jr.

Tell us about Xenu, the DC-10 shaped space craft and Engrams.

Oooops. Sorry. That's Scientology.

Whatever, they're both equally ridiculous and cultish.

Posted by: daveau | September 10, 2010 4:28 PM

No proxy ordinance is valid without the fully-informed and free acceptance of the spirits of the dead.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Again. You keep saying that like it actually means something.

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2010 4:30 PM

you'll never witness it, as our temples are only open to members

Who cares? You'll never witness the atheizing for the dead ritual in PZ Myers' back yard or the rituals of my pagan cult that I made up last week.

Oddly enough, some on this thread will and have. There are a lot of exMormons, including ones posting today, here. Haven't been able to find statistics on the dropout rate but it seems high.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | September 10, 2010 4:33 PM

Notice how it says "priesthood". Not a word about what regular folks (i.e. Mormons) can do to others.

Practically all adult male Mormons are members of the "priesthood".

(And oft-remarked-on characteristic of cults is that they use ordinary words in idiosyncratic ways, impeding communication with outsiders.)

Posted by: Tulse | September 10, 2010 4:50 PM

But only if someone remembers to baptize them... What about all the lucky poor folks who lived & died never knowing a mormon?

What, you think god should fix everything?

Posted by: sqlrob | September 10, 2010 4:55 PM

Just how do you come to know our minds

Insane wankers tend to have a set pattern.

Posted by: Iris | September 10, 2010 5:05 PM

pixelfish:

It takes a lot of honesty and bravery to look the culture you were raised with in the face and say, "I only believe in aspects of you because you've convinced me and my ego that I'm special."

QFT.

Posted by: pixelfish | September 10, 2010 5:10 PM

Actually Tracy is probably right that most Mormons won't break out in violence over the idea of somebody trying to perform other religious rituals over their ancestors...but that's probably more out of native smugness for Living the One True Gospel. After all, Mormons are the only people in the world to refer to Jews as Gentiles.

(When I was a wee tyke, we cheerfully sang hymns at all the protesters at Temple Square and laughed scornfully at the Baptist Convention that came to SLC to teach us about Jesus.)

Despite this cheerful arrogance, or perhaps because of it, they really don't seem to get how their own religious practises enrage other folks, particularly those who have strong mores about ancestors and ancestoral lines. Usually, there is more befuddlement that we can't get along because why would you object to Uncle Isaac being baptised Mormon? Yeah, he was killed in the Holocaust for being Jewish, but if he'd had the chance, he'd obviously be baptised Mormon.....nope, a number of LDS people don't see what's offensive about that.

Posted by: raven | September 10, 2010 5:11 PM

The other of many flaws in the theology is that they will never, ever get everyone who ever lived.

Some people died long ago before records even existed or in places where writing wasn't invented. Many records have been lost over the millennia.

Although, presumably god could just go poof and provide them. But he never bothers to do stuff like that.

Posted by: Judy L. | September 10, 2010 5:15 PM

Yeah, I like Dan Savage's approach better: proxy buttfucking dead (and live) mormons.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/27/today-in-magic-underpants-inc

Posted by: FelixO | September 10, 2010 5:18 PM

Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Atheised!

Posted by: Iris | September 10, 2010 5:25 PM

Michael Jackson: Atheised.

Heee-heee, whacha-ooh.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | September 10, 2010 5:33 PM

Oooops. Sorry. That's Scientology.

Whatever happened to Mormontology by the way?

Practically all adult male Mormons are members of the "priesthood".

(And oft-remarked-on characteristic of cults is that they use ordinary words in idiosyncratic ways, impeding communication with outsiders.)

But that can't possibly be, Andreas! Tracy has just assured us that the priesthood would never impose upon outsiders who'd rather get gay married instead of dead married.

Are you saying that Tracy is lying?! How rude! ::reaches for smelling salts:: ::misses fainting couch:: *ouch* Bugger!

I know! It's all those Mormons in the Catholic Church who're too blame for Prop 8! Problem solved! (That particular priesthood obviously cannot have been preaching about the referendum in Church, since that would be politicising and they're not allowed to do that when they're tax exempt.)

--o--

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need go have a lie-down after all this doublethink. It's exhausting.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 10, 2010 5:57 PM

Mormon apologetics: They cite this bible verse

1 Cor. 15: 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Comment from an ex-mormon:

It turns out that that Bible verse, 1Cor 15:29, is one that Protestants and Catholics don't know what to do with. Their best guess is that some early Christians really did some kind of baptism on behalf of dead relatives who died before they heard about the Gospel (sounds like the Mormon story, right?).
     But then the Protestants and Catholics correctly point out that Paul doesn't approve of their practice, and he doesn't disapprove of it....he just mentions it. It's just sorta floating out there, and no one knows what it means. I don't believe there are any other references to it in early Christian literature. My guess is baptism for the dead was just a local practice that died out within a few decades.

Mormon missionaries deliberately leave out the bit about necrodunking when they're after new converts. Comment from an ex-mormon:

Under the new "Preach My Gospel" system, lessons are called lessons, not discussions, and talk of temple work doesn't come until the fifth lesson, which is explicitly not supposed to be taught until AFTER baptism. ["milk before meat", which can be translated as "lie by omission"]

Another comment from an ex-mormon:

It is likely that baptism for the dead did exist in ancient times. The fact the Joseph Smith read and recognized that, and copied the intent, does not make Mormons a true church. Indeed, the question you should ask is, why does the Mormon church require the use of Masonic Temple Rituals and Ancient Death Penalties (practiced in Mormonism until 1990) to apply baptism for the dead. Additionally, ask why did Jesus join John the Baptists two hundred year old religion, which required baptism, something that they (the Essenses) did for two hundred years before Jesus entered the scene. The Essenes long taught, before Jesus, that they should be meek and humble, that a quorum of twelve should lead and that sex was forbidden, even for procreation (thus they died off by 100 AD). Also note the early Ebionites (those who actually saw Jesus first hand, true Jesus followers who rejected Paul and the New Testament for good reason) Paul bastardized the actual religion they new Jesus taught, a Jewish religion as the Essense were a Jewish sect. Paul did a great job starting his religion and having never once met Jesus yet can tell you what happened in Gethsemane while everyone was asleep, today Paul’s Church is known as "Christianity" but it truly is Paul’s Church.

Maybe that will make our visiting mormon put on a thinking cap.

Posted by: MadScientist | September 10, 2010 6:57 PM

Anyone know Moshe's "last name"? Why does the site assume people have 2 names? The ancient Romans had names like Marcus "The Mole" Tullius, but many civilizations of that age (and even some current ones) simply had names like Marcus The Mole. Even then, if there we only one Marcus in town, he wouldn't have a second name. Even I lived in a small town where we had "Peter the Cross-eyed" and "Peter the Fatso" - to this day I have no idea what their other names were (nor do I care to know).

Anyway I have these people on the list:

David Ben Gurion
Moshe Dayan

It's a start. Do I need to use the Hebrew script to make the conversion legitimate?

Posted by: Athena | September 10, 2010 7:43 PM

I just atheised the Rev. BDC's fingers. Now he won't have any more typos.:^)

Posted by: Seth R. | September 10, 2010 8:35 PM

And by the way pixlefish...

If your dead great, great, great grandpa wants to become a Mormon in the afterlife, I think that's really none of your damn business.

After all, it's his afterlife, not yours.

You sound like one of those snotty teenagers who refuse to allow their dad to date again after the divorce, because they're more concerned with "treasuring the memory."

Yeah... well the world doesn't revolve around you.

So you can take your "sweet memories" and stuff it as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9 | September 10, 2010 8:46 PM

Haha. Thanks for clarifying it Seth. Totally makes sense. The dead person has to accept it, while they're dead. That's not crazy at all.

Posted by: lexicalninja | September 10, 2010 8:53 PM

If your dead great, great, great grandpa wants to become a Mormon in the afterlife, I think that's really none of your damn business.

methinks that if this after life where your choice to become a Moro..Mormon is transitional, and someones great, great great ANYTHING is still there, they're probably not gonna git the drift, ya herr meh? Think harder. If you're stuck in some transition space and you see everyone poofing to happy-land when they decide to be a Mormon, you're gonna be a Mormon. Unless you're a moron. And before we hear, "They have to truly have the faith and not be faking it because god will know," I am going to have to ask where my magic faith-o-meter is located and have my heathenism rolled back like the odometer on a '81 pinto sohs I kin gets in quickah! Other people's sweet memeories are all that is left of you, on any plane, after your meat decomposes. I don't normally get rude, but COME ON, DUDE!

Posted by: pixelfish | September 10, 2010 9:28 PM

Oh, Seth....you don't get it. I personally don't believe my dead ancestors want anything. They're DEAD. As in like a doornail. They're not going to convert. They're not going to want to convert. (And anyway, all of them up to about six generations back were Mormon already.) The wetware that held their personalities are rotting in the earth. Whatever synaptical connections their brains were running on have long since expired.

All my questions are designed to elicit "what if" by extending the implications of the theology. IF you believe that there is an afterlife (which, hello, I don't, being an atheist) what do you think about this extension of this principle you claim rules the afterlife? Why do you believe god does paperwork? Why does the physical act matter more than the spiritual conversion? Check the implications of your theology and see where they take you. They took me to a place where a bureaucratic asshole would apparently keep good people from progressing to their just desserts until their descendants jumped through some inane hoops--sound like somebody worth worshipping?

As far as my hypothetical Uncle Isaac, I'm referring to the recent cases of Holocaust victims who were baptised despite the protests of their relatives. These cases are the basis for the LDS hierarchy taking a stronger line about who can and can't be baptised. The policy about finding the immediate relatives is fairly new--it wasn't active when I was a kid and my grandparents went on their geneology mission. It's not my specific anger that I'm referencing, but the cultural outrage of people whose relatives have been co-opted by ignorant (if well-meaning) LDS geneologists, baptising folks whose relatives they KNOW would not have converted while alive. Yes, this policy has changed in recent years, but only after a LOT of flak and media attention.

Finally, unlike certain stick-up-the-ass LDS church members, I don't care what consenting adults do, but thanks for projecting. ;)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 10, 2010 9:44 PM

Except that Mormon temple baptisms do not convert the dead person into a Mormon. They merely offer the ordinance to the deceased - which the person can then feel free to accept or reject.

How can a dead person accept or reject anything? They're fucking dead! They've passed on! These people are no more! They have ceased to be! They've expired! They're stiffs! Bereft of life, they rest in peace! They're pushing up the daisies! Their metabolic processes are now history! They're off the twig! They've kicked the bucket, They've shuffled off their mortal coil and run down the curtain! THIS IS AN EX-PERSON!

Posted by: deborahmarkus | September 10, 2010 10:26 PM

'Tis Himself, how long exactly have you been on this planet that you've never heard of someone expressing a belief in a supernatural life after death? I'm an atheist, but the screaming on this point is really beginning to bug me.

If anyone here was lucky enough to be reared by atheists, I can see that this idea might be incomprehensible; but I, not being able to atheize the people who brought me up (since they're still alive) was raised with religious beliefs and really don't understand the professed obtuseness here. I know what it's like, emotionally, to believe in an afterlife. Having examined the idea closely, I see no reason to continue believing it. But if I'd run into the kind of nanny-nanny-boo-boo attitude I'm seeing a lot of in these comments, it probably would have taken me longer to get past the beliefs I was raised with.

An atheist's philosophy is solid and strong if it's well thought-out; sneering only makes it sound as if you feel yourself to be on shaky ground.

Tracy: several people have asked how you can reconcile the claim that the Mormon church doesn't inflict its beliefs on others with their actions regarding my home state's Prop 8. I think we'd all be very interested to hear your reply. I understand ignoring the taunting and name-calling, but this question is of real importance to the topic at hand.

--Deborah, the big fat atheist homeschooler

Posted by: lostinspace | September 10, 2010 10:34 PM

Tracy Hall said:

"But you are welcome to sit on their graves, at N40.22232 W111.64249, and mumble whatever incantations you wish. Please do not deface their headstone.

If that's too far for your pilgrimage, send me your location, and I'll find a Mormon grave for you that is more convenient to your quest."

Now that is classy!

Posted by: lostinspace | September 10, 2010 10:49 PM

"*The late Muhammed ibn Abd Allah (632)

That should settle islam. "

Please, nobody tell any Islamic gentlemen about this. Or Pastor Terry Jones. Specially not Terry Jones!

And please nobody atheize Terry Jones, I wouldn't want to share any real/virtual/hypothetical/non-existent Eternity with him. Let his God work out what to do with him.

Terry (Monty Python) Jones, OTOH, is welcome to share my eternity.

Raises the question, how does the atheizing page tell them apart? (How do the Mormons?) Or do they just do everybody of the same name in one batch? Inquiring minds want to know

Posted by: Seth R. | September 10, 2010 11:43 PM

Well, pixlefish...

If you don't believe in an afterlife, then maybe you ought to stop acting so offended by what we choose to do with it. For an atheist to act like he cares at all about this particular practice as being offensive is utterly hypocritical.

So don't come to me pretending you really give a damn whether a dead Jew's religious preference is being respected or not. What is it really to you if a Holocaust victim is having imaginary rite A, or imaginary rite B applied to him?

After all, you think it's all crap anyway. Right?

I mean, dying in a Nazi gas chamber doesn't make a theist any less deluded in your book, right? So why play the sympathy card here? It's not like you ever had any sympathy for their religious beliefs anyway. So why even bring up the posthumous baptism issue to begin with?

Shouldn't you simply be confining yourself to general observations about why theism in general is wrong? Why sweat the details? Especially if the details are more or less harmless?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 11, 2010 12:22 AM

Seth and Tracy keep pointing out the minutiae in their theology--"Don't you guys know that the deceased has to accept the baptism?"--as if it rendered our arguments about the inanity of baptising the dead by proxy null and void.

My thoughts exactly, pixelfish. Because the objects of proxy baptism have to accept the offer before the baptism takes effect and mormonizes them ... that little logic warp makes the whole ritual reasonable? And it's also somehow more morally defensible? Only in the funhouse brains of mormons.

Tracy, I'll grant you one point: Of course proxy baptism that gave the dead person no choice would not make sense!

But neither does proxy baptism that supposedly gives a dead person a choice. Friggin' nuts either way.

And the whole "moral agency" argument is not really an argument, but an assertion. Within mormon culture "moral agency" is even a fake assertion since all kinds of pressures are brought to bear to remove a person's individual agency, to, in effect, make the members church broken, to make them obedient ... to make them obedient while encouraging in them the delusion of agency.

Not all of them perhaps, but too many mormons are good at self-delusion. It's a skill they develop over time. Makes them prime marks for pyramid schemes, not to mention other scams.

Tracy is especially fond of the theory that Repetition Equals Truth. No matter how many times you say that the dead non-mormons hanging out in your imaginary outer darkness might (or might not) welcome the attentions of zombie mormon missionaries, and might (or might not) welcome a near drowning proxy baptism performed by a deluded 14 year old girl -- no matter how many times you repeat this claptrap it will never be true. It will never make sense in a reality-based universe. It's useless. It's a waste of time.

And when mormon adults pressure 12 year old girls and boys to perform "temple work" ... sheesh, that's child abuse.

The whole atheize thing is a satire. Just as it can't be taken seriously, neither can baptism by proxy. Equally dumb. Equally ridiculous. Get it?

BTW, here's a clue for future use: If you are incapable of having a sense of humor about religion, you've lost your perspective. You have become dogmatic. This is a sad way to go through life.

Posted by: Seth R. | September 11, 2010 12:32 AM

Gee raven, I'm sitting here in my kitchen crying about the terrible loss it will be to Mormonism to miss out on an outstanding example of humanity and rational thought like yourself. Our religion is indeed impoverished by your absence.

And incidentally, the Khymer Rouge were atheists. You did know that, didn't you?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 11, 2010 12:35 AM

deborahmarkus #186

Tis Himself, how long exactly have you been on this planet that you've never heard of someone expressing a belief in a supernatural life after death? I'm an atheist, but the screaming on this point is really beginning to bug me.

I'm 62 years old. I'm an ex-Catholic so I am aware of the concept of life after death.

This is the second time I've quoted a Monty Python sketch and been chastised for it. Perhaps I should stick with American comedy.

Seth R. #192 & deborahmarkus #193

It's true that, as an atheist I don't accept life after death. I also think it's demeaning to non-Mormons to have their deceased ancestors "baptized". I'd be quite annoyed if some Mormon "baptized" my dead father. He would have been angry if thought he might have a Mormon post-death baptism. He despised Mormons for their racism and their lies about pre-Colombian America. If I want my father or any other dead family member to get a Mormon baptism I'll let the local cult leader know. Until then, stay away from me and my ancestors. And don't call me, I'll call you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 11, 2010 12:43 AM

Seth R. #196

And incidentally, the Khymer Rouge were atheists. You did know that, didn't you?

And incidentally, Joseph Smith and his bestest buddy Brigham Young were sexual perverts. Whenever they decided their old bedwarmers were getting stale, they got a revelation from "Heavenly Father" that they should fuck some new woman. Often the new woman was married to someone else but that didn't stop Joe and Brigham. If they wanted fresh meat then they got it.

Makes you proud to be a Mormon, doesn't it.

Posted by: raven | September 11, 2010 12:47 AM

And incidentally, the Khymer Rouge were atheists. You did know that, didn't you?

No. Probably because it is false according to google. IIRC, Pol Pot was mainly raised as a Catholic. I see you somehow forgot that the Taliban are typical religious fanatics. They remind me a lot of Mormons in blind, authoritarian cultishness.

Search ResultsRefuting the myth that Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists ... Aug 6, 2010 ... Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a .... Yes, Hitler was raised Catholic. I could argue that he was not ... www.examiner.com/.../refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists - CachedIs atheism the answer? Part 3 - National freethought | Examiner.com

Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist and Catholic. In this regard, Dr. Ian Harris, a Reader in Religious Studies at the University College of St. Martin, ...
www.examiner.com/freethought-in.../is-atheism-the-answer-part-3 - Cached

Gee raven, I'm sitting here in my kitchen crying about the terrible loss it will be to Mormonism to miss out on an outstanding example of humanity and rational thought like yourself.

Good. Multiply that by 294 million other Americans and there is hope for the USA yet. What keeps Mormons in check is real simple. They are outnumbered 70 to 1 by nonMormons who like living in a secular democracy. The bunny rabbit breeding program to outbreed everyone else isn't working so well, conversions aren't so great, and defections are high.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 11, 2010 1:23 AM

@201

Since you have so much faith in your stance and that the Church is open about dissent you surely won't mind giving us the name of your Bishop so we can inform him of your dissatisfaction with their decisions, no?

Care to take a guess at what happened to some others who publicly bitched about it?

But you know, if you are inline with the one true church and all, there should be no problem with the higher ups being informed of you speaking out against them. So yeah, name and address of who I should contact plz and ty?

Posted by: deborahmarkus | September 11, 2010 1:32 AM

Hi, 'Tis Himself --

I like Monty Python, too (and that particular sketch is killer funny); but I guess I just lumped it in with all the comments people were making about how dead = dead. Which in turn seemed all tied in with the "Look, you idiots, you're all just delusional freaks"-toned posts. (I don't mean you said that; just painting some broad brushstrokes.)

As I said, I'm one of what's probably the majority of Americans who were raised religiously. I believed in life after death for almost two decades; I don't think I was stupid to do so, but I see every reason to think I was mistaken. So the "wow, look at the morons who believe in the spirit world" postings kind of bugged me, because that did used to be me. Not the Mormon part, but religious is religious.

My main squeeze and I have been talking about the Mormon baptism-in-proxy thing pretty much all day. We're both atheists, so neither of us has a dog in the fight; but I didn't understand how Mormons beliefs were any weirder than anyone else's (once you enter the theistic realm, anyway), and specifically I didn't understand why their ideas were raising so much rancor.

My husband brought some points up that helped me see what I was missing. If the Mormons were saying, or believing, that the baptism-in-proxy was more like what baptism really is in every other Christian church -- a sign that you've officially joined that church -- it would be offensive for exactly the reasons stated. It would feel kind of like when a former friend of mine mentioned that she "talked to the dead" a lot, and they talked right back to her; and if she outlived me, she was sure she and I would have some great chats too. I was absolutely infuriated at the idea of a woman who subscribed to astrology and a whole host of other irrational beliefs claiming that she spoke for me when I wasn't around to say that no, she jolly well didn't.

But since the baptism-in-proxy seems to be being treated as different from conventional baptism -- different even from the baptism that the Mormons participate in on their own behalf -- I don't think it's analogous.

I have had Mormon friends, and they've mentioned that (among other people) every American president has been baptized in proxy. But if you asked them if, say, George Washington was a Mormon, I don't think they'd say yes.

If they *did* say yes, point taken and they're rewriting history in a most presumptuous and arrogant way. But I think that the baptism of George Washington is regarded by Mormons as quite different from that of a member of the church who participated in her own baptism directly.

Not a Mormon, so I could be wrong.

And just to keep things fair: Wow, Mormon visitors, those last couple of postings weren't exactly Christ-like, were they? Who are you letting set the standards of your behavior? Whatever happened to "live *in* this world, not *of* this world"?

--Deborah "I'm Not Your Huckleberry" Markus

Posted by: skeptifem | September 11, 2010 1:38 AM

tracy

I doubt that he and my mother hang around their graves: they are much too busy in the spirit world, teaching the gospel to our mutual ancestors.

see, this is what I don't get about LDS teachings. It sounds like life and death are both tedious repetition of the same shit over and over, and you are supposed to be *overjoyed* at the thought of it. Our world being one of many others, with mormon dudes making their own worlds if they are righteous enough, leaves me with wayyyyy more questions than answers. Their god is just one of many, so the deep "why are we here? where did we come from???" type questions are left completely unanswered in any real sense. At least the other religions make something up to fill the gap, mormons just accept the problem without any scrutiny. Its fucking ridiculous.

Posted by: pixelfish | September 11, 2010 1:45 AM

@Seth: You don't leave an organization with which you agree on many other issues simply because you disagree with them on one particular issue.

It might be "one particular issue" for you, a philosophical exercise if you're straight, but for some folks, it's a life changing issue. Staying in that organisation in this case means giving them ten percent of your income, the cultural lever and carte blanche to train your children to accept the same repugnant views as "divinely inspired", and the tacit support of numbers through membership. I chose to resign as a member in part because of the homophobic, racist, sexist history of the church.

(Atheism arrived in my life post-resignation, although I did cite crisis of conscience and disbelief in core doctrinal issues when I sent in my resignation letter. At the time I resigned, I was attending a Buddhhist sangha. And it still wasn't easy because culturally I had been raised Mormon. My equally heretical cousin and I used to think we could just be quiet non-believing members to retain our cultural ties, until we started realising the nasty baggage that comes with that.)

Posted by: pixelfish | September 11, 2010 1:57 AM

@Ing: Seth mentioned the Khmer first, but thanks for helping clarify what bugs me so much about the "Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists" argument. It's one that gets brought up frequently. I was trying to reach for something similar because as far as I can tell my atheism looks nothing like Pol Pot's atheism.

Greta Christina's answer to the same is that Nixon was responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam, but do we blame his being a Quaker? While the religious have been killed by atheists, nothing about atheism specifically says you have to kill religionists.

@deborah: re - the baptism thing. As an ex-Mormon, I can definitely say that Mormons may very well claim somebody by baptism. When Mother Theresa died, my bishop claimed in sacrament meeting that he had no doubt that she was already be prepared to accept the gospel and that she would soon be leading many spirits in accepting the gospel. (Madonna, who is still very much alive, he claimed would be leading Satan's version of Relief Society. Ohhhh, the chuckles.) Other figures I've heard this claimed of: C.S. Lewis (Mormons looooove quoting him--do you know how many times I've heard snippets from The Great Divorce in sacrament meeting), the Founding Fathers, Anne Frank, Martin Luther King (particularly egregrious given the Mormon church's Civil Rights history), JPII, and William Shakespeare. I swear, it's like Pokemon....you gotta catch 'em all.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | September 11, 2010 2:19 AM

And incidentally, the Khymer Rouge were atheists. You did know that, didn't you?

Not this argument again. Once again, it wasn't Pol Pot's disbelief that lead to his action. It was his belief in an agrarian utopia feed by folklore. Do you see the difference there? Incidentally, one of his henchmen was a Christian and many of the others were Buddhists. Furthermore, none of that matters because they killed Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists alike (don't for a second believe that there wasn't any atheist amongst the intellectuals killed.) They were killed for a utopian belief. It was not because of atheism.

To add this, I personally hate it when Christians use this Godwin. To me and many others, it's like saying that we should have allowed colonialism, we should have converted, and we should accept the west ideals of the norm. This Godwin smells of imperialistic hegemonists sentiments.

Finally, the standard accepted spelling is "Khmer" not "Khymer". There isn't a vowel between the Kh and M in most dialects, and if there is, it's been heavily reduced. So it wouldn't appear orthographically.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | September 11, 2010 2:39 AM

The whole Mormon "block committee" minding your business reeks of the social and mind control in Communist China, which used the exact same techniques of privacy invasion, meetings, "confession," and ideological repetition to keep everyone in line. Except in China you had to ask for permission to get pregnant and in Mormonism you get pressured to get pregnant (again).

Posted by: deborahmarkus | September 11, 2010 2:46 AM

Hi, Pixelfish --

Thank you so much. The Pokemon reference cracked me up.

--D.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 11, 2010 3:10 AM

deborahmarcus @ #215:

What I'm not understanding is how this practice is a case of the Mormons singling out the Jews as any "wronger" (heavy quotes there) than anyone else is. To the Mormons, aren't Jews just like Catholics, atheists, Baptists, Quakers, and all other non-Mormons in one respect -- namely, they're not Mormons, and therefore can't get to the "best" level of Heaven?

IIRC, I think the problem isn't so much that they're baptizing Jews, but that they're baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims. Or was it the survivors? Either way, taking people murdered or threatened with murder for their beliefs and pretending they were members of the mormon cult. And doing it after promising they wouldn't. I seem to recall something about them using records for this purpose that they were given access to on the condition that they NOT do so.

Posted by: pixelfish | September 11, 2010 3:23 AM

@PhantomReader and @DeborahMarkus: Here's a few links on the Jewish/Mormon controversy from a Jewish perspective:

http://www.avotaynu.com/mormon.htm
http://www.jewishgen.org/infofiles/ldsagree.html

From these links, it seems that in 1995, the LDS church made a deal of sorts with the Jewish community, and they were either unable to enforce the deal with their membership, or they were unwilling to treat the violations of this deal as a problem. Which, regardless of what I think of either sects' beliefs, isn't a particularly good move on the LDS church's part. Many of the Jewish community feel that the LDS rites are as silly as this thread has declared and can't imagine their ancestors converting, but are irritated because the Mormons are so entrenched in the geneology community and their vast records are often looked on as definitive, so a record that doesn't indicate that "conversion" was via baptism by proxy is falsifying their historical record.

Okay, now I really really should go to bed.

Posted by: Harbo | September 11, 2010 4:11 AM

Pascal, the nasty gambling bastard..

Posted by: raven | September 11, 2010 8:57 AM

wikipedia:

The White Horse Prophecy is a statement purported to have been made in 1843 by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, regarding the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the United States of America. The Mormons, according to the prophecy, would "go to the Rocky Mountains and ... be a great and mighty people", identified figuratively with the White Horse described in the Revelation of John. The prophecy further predicts that the United States Constitution will one day "hang like a thread" and will be saved "by the efforts of the White Horse".[1]

Many people outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) have speculated, on the basis of the White Horse Prophecy, that Mormons expect the United States to eventually become a theocracy dominated by the LDS Church.[2] This question has arisen periodically as prominent Mormons have sought political office in the United States — such as during the 2010 campaign of Rex Rammell for the governorship of the state of Idaho

One of the Mormon tenets that makes people nervous is a key prophecy that they will one day rule the USA. Many of them believe it fervently and state it in public. They also believe they are god's chosen people, the Real Jews. The Israel Jews are now gentiles and the rest of us are gentiles and pagans.

This would all be amusingly bizarre except for one thing. We've seen this movie countless times. A group of ideologically driven people take over a country and a few years or decades later, millions of people are dead and the country is heading back to the Dark Ages.

Commies, various Fascists, and the perennial staple, religious cults of various beliefs. Last century it was mostly political theory groups. This century it seems to be religions. Various Moslem groups have taken over countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, etc.. It never ends well.

When some group claims to be god's chosen people and that they will rule over you, pay attention. George Sanayana, "those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." And some say 1984 never happened because George Orwell wrote a book titled, "1984".

I doubt it will happen or soon anyway. The Mormons don't have the numbers despite making every male kid spend two years converting their xian and pagan neighbors to LDS and a bunny rabbit breeding program.

Posted by: skeptifem | September 11, 2010 9:53 AM

OH YEAH, and if god still allows polygamy in heaven why is it that there is an almost equal amount of boys and girls born?? Wouldn't he have worked out that bug in the system a long time ago? I mean isn't the gospel supposed to spread throughout the world and whatnot? It simply won't work, probably because the idea was invented for the convenience of gross dudes instead of being based on any supernatural laws.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2010 10:14 AM

I merely pointed out that our beliefs in baptism for the dead are more or less harmless.

lies are more or less harmless.

The Catholic Church, too, likes to lie about how many people are actually catholic; it gives them more political clout.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | September 11, 2010 10:45 AM

"In order for the high-status men to claim multiple women for themselves, other men have to be deprived of even one partner."

But they're nae Trrrue Mormons, aye?

"I seem to recall something about them using records for this purpose that they were given access to on the condition that they NOT do so. "

And of course, since this is all done in their special members-only temples, then who is to say that they're NOT still baptizing whoever they want and filing it away somewhere that no one else looks? It's not like there are any real-world consequences to doing it. When you get right down to it, the only mistake they made was actually telling people about it.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 11, 2010 11:41 AM

And of course, since this is all done in their special members-only temples, then who is to say that they're NOT still baptizing whoever they want and filing it away somewhere that no one else looks? It's not like there are any real-world consequences to doing it. When you get right down to it, the only mistake they made was actually telling people about it.

The LDS Church makes a point in their press releases to put the word "public" or "genealogical" in front of "database" whenever they discuss removing Jewish holocaust victims from the list of those for whom proxy baptism was done. This means there's probably still a private (as in "not available to the public") database in which all the victims of proxy baptism are still listed.

The LDS Church has said that one of its new rules is that members have to certify that they are submitting legit names for proxy baptism. So, they're depending on brainwashed members to say, "Yes, I certify that this ancestor's name is legit." (After all, the member thinks, we're all related if you go back far enough.)

Several safeguards have also been initiated. Church members are now asked to certify that their submissions for proxy baptisms meet church policy. Should any inappropriate submissions be identified, the new system allows the record of the baptism to be removed from the public database and the submitters are contacted to ensure such errors are not repeated. To that end, church staff also regularly search records to identify inappropriate submissions and prevent such baptisms from being performed. [from Deseret News]

So far, such inappropriate submissions as Mary the mother of Jesus have been allowed. In addition, more than 200 women have been sealed to Joseph Smith. (Remember our visiting mormons noting up-thread that people can only be sealed posthumously to those to whom a this-world marriage can be proven? Does this mean Joe Smith married more than 200 women, and not just a few dozen? Helen Radkey found records of 239 women being sealed to Smith, and these were official LDS records.)

Posted by: Seth R. | September 11, 2010 5:36 PM

Lynna, only half that comment was aimed at answering your question about Prop 8. The other half was directed to someone else.

And just so you know, I have extensively studied the history of Mormonism, I've heard all the criticisms, all the "dirty secrets" and all the attacks on the religion's validity.

I doubt you could throw me a criticism of the whole thing I haven't already heard a dozen times.

Still here.

And so are a lot of the people I associate with. Not everyone who learns the full history of Mormonism rejects it you know.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 11, 2010 5:43 PM

Not everyone who learns the full history of Mormonism rejects it you know.

Yep, there are delusional ignorant fools out there. To many of them. Being smart enough to cast off idiocy is hard work.

Posted by: Sastra | September 11, 2010 6:08 PM

Seth R. #236 wrote:

I doubt you could throw me a criticism of the whole thing I haven't already heard a dozen times.
Still here.

Haven't read the whole thread, but I'm curious. Assume for the moment that Mormonism is, in fact, a "false" religion. It has many valuable and workable aspects for you, perhaps, but the supernatural claims it makes are simply mistaken, and your own personal experiences can be explained within a natural framework.

What would have to happen, for you to figure this out? What would it take?

Or was your commitment to believing so strong, and you so clever, that you could probably think your way around anything?

Posted by: Seth R. | September 11, 2010 6:17 PM

I think I'll ignore the comments that only consist of insults. These seem to be nothing more than the local yes-men here at the blog attempting to kiss-up to the other atheists here and make themselves more popular.

Best of luck to them.

Someone pointed out that "why have a prophet if he's just going to make mistakes?"

This reflects fundamentalist Evangelical assumptions about the role of prophets. The fundamentalist mind seeks for guarantees of certainty from religion, and when that religion fails to provide that iron-clad 100% guarantee, the fundamentalist usually throws a fit and concludes that the entire thing must be rubbish.

This is a rather juvenile outlook on the world. Mormon doctrine - truly understood - does not provide any 100% guarantees, and gives no excuses for shutting your brain off and letting some authority figure do your legwork for you.

We have no doctrine of scriptures being perfect and flawless, nor do we claim that any of our scriptures are flawless.

We also have no doctrine that prophets will be perfect in everything they say. In fact, our belief in the general condition of humanity indicates the opposite. We believe that prophets can and do make mistakes, and it is the duty of every Mormon to weigh whatever a prophet happens to be saying, and determine for oneself whether it is really true or not.

We view prophets and scripture as resources and guidelines to be utilized. But our doctrine never said that having scripture or prophets was a 100% guarantee and an excuse to turn your brain off.

True, there are Mormons who have the fundamentalist mindset and try to turn scripture and prophets into these sort of flawless sources. And when they find out that this isn't so, they sometimes explode and become bitter atheists on the Internet.

But it was never the concept of prophets that was the problem - the problem was their screwed up fundamentalist thinking.

Which many of them seem to retain as atheists.

You can take the fundamentalist out of the religion. But it seems to be much harder to take the fundamentalism out of the person - no matter whether they are in religion or not.

Posted by: Susan | September 11, 2010 6:32 PM

local yes-men here at the blog

Pretty ironic coming from a god-bot. Ultimately, what do churches demand but yes-men?

Posted by: Susan | September 11, 2010 6:37 PM

Atheized Butch Cassidy, Philo T. Farnsworth (and his wife Pem, to be fair), and all four King Sisters. Gordon B. Hinckley too but that was just for spite, not to do him any favors.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 11, 2010 6:44 PM

This reflects fundamentalist Evangelical assumptions about the role of prophets.

Since all biblical prophesy is written down after the fact, your assertion means you think looney tunes alleged prophets are anything other than liars and bullshitters. Not a good start for trying to persuade intelligent folks, who know how holy books are put together.

We also have no doctrine that prophets will be perfect in everything they say.

Sure, and I have a bridge across the East River for sale. If any prophecy is up for questions, all of them are bullshit until proven otherwise with proper physical evidence.

We view prophets and scripture as resources and guidelines to be utilized.

The best utilization is as toilet paper. It is all bullshit until proven with conclusive physical evidence.

Which many of them seem to retain as atheists.

And your physical proof for your inane assertion is where???

Posted by: John Morales | September 11, 2010 7:33 PM

Seth:

But our doctrine never said that having scripture or prophets was a 100% guarantee and an excuse to turn your brain off.

But it's a doctrine.

Are you suggesting that you can make up your own mind as to what bits of your religion to believe and which not, whilst remaining within doctrine?

Posted by: skeptifem | September 11, 2010 7:48 PM

one more thing, seth...

True, there are Mormons who have the fundamentalist mindset and try to turn scripture and prophets into these sort of flawless sources. And when they find out that this isn't so, they sometimes explode and become bitter atheists on the Internet.

You are saying that people who leave because of evidence conflicts are flawed. It is THEIR fault for taking this whole "metaphysics of the universe and fate of my soul" religious thing too seriously? Do you not see the problem with saying that? A religion cannot be important and at the same time disposable, which is exactly what you are advocating. Those two things are mutually exclusive when it comes to ideas.

If you cannot think of a reasonable position for leaving the church, then you are the fundamentalist one. Being able to see other points of view genuinely is a real sign of maturity.

You skipped my question about heaven, btw.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 11, 2010 9:30 PM

The mormon handcart expeditions provide more examples of failed prophecies, and the tragic results of mormons having believed those prophecies.

The plan about to be adopted by the P.E. Fund Company, of substituting handcarts for ox-teams in crossing the plains, has been under consideration for several years... The plan is the device of inspiration, and the Lord will own and bless it.

[Mormon Apostle Franklin D. Richards, President of the European Mission, in charge of the handcart emigration, writing in the Millennial Star, a Mormon newspaper published in Europe, December 22, 1855]

The last two of the five handcart companies left too late in the season (in July), and arrived in Nebraska in mid-August. The design of the god-and-prophet-inspired carts was faulty, and the lack of iron for the wheels meant many wheels wore away or broke. The cart design and the idea to not use iron even for axles came from Brigham Young.

Brigham’s plan was official, not casual, and original sources provide the details. It was spoken in the “Thirteenth General Epistle” on October 29, 1855. It was printed in the Millenial Star on January 26, 1856. The prophesy included the phrase, "nothing shall hinder or stay them.”

Levi Savage was an experienced man who had made the trip before. He tried to instill reason into the whole plan, but no one would listen to him. In particular, he insisted that the companies that arrived in Nebraska in mid-August would have to winter over there. But Apostle Franklin Richards would hear none of Savage's warnings.

On Loup Fork of the Platte River, Franklin D. Richards in a comfortable mule-drawn carriage overtook the Willie Company on August 26….Hearing of Savage’s opposition to the late start, the apostle now called a meeting of the Willie Company and “reprimanded me sharply,” the Ohioan said. He [Savage] was compelled to ask forgiveness “for all that I had said and done wrong." ( Forgotten Kingdom, pg 110)

Richards, with his fast transport, reached Salt Lake in October and prophesied at General Conference:

... they expect to get cold fingers and toes. But they have this faith and confidence towards God that he will overrule the storms that they may come in the season thereof and turn them away, that their path may be freed from suffering more than they can bear. They have the confidence to believe that this will be an open fall.” (BYU Studies, Vol 37, Number 1, 1997-98, pg 55)

The passes over the mountains would remain free of snow because God would overrule the storms? This idiot prophet was confident. People died, and people suffered needlessly as a result. The handcart trek for the two late-starting companies was akin to organized torture.

There was poor William Whittaker. He was in the tent with several others. He and his brother, John, occupied one part of the tent. In the other part another family was sleeping. There was a young woman sleeping and she was awakened by poor Brother Whittaker eating her fingers. He was dying with hunger and cold. He also ate the flesh of his own fingers that night. He died and was buried at Willow Springs before we left camp that morning.” (BYU Studies, Vol 37, Number 1, 1997-98, pg 46)

This is not noble. It's just stupid.

Ephriam Hanks drove a relief wagon from Salt Lake. He describes meeting the emigrants:

Many of the emigrants whose extremities were frozen, lost their limbs, either whole or in part. Many such I washed with water and castile soap, until the frozen parts would fall off, after which I would sever the shreds of flesh from the remaining portions of the limbs with scissors. Some of the emigrants lost toes, others fingers, and again others whole hands and feet.” (Forgotten Kingdom, pg 118)

Every year mormons celebrate this disaster, conveniently forgetting that Brigham Young designed the handcarts for failure, and other apostles eschewed good sense and experience in favor of prophecies about God controlling the weather. Not to mention that the money for provisions was always mysteriously disappearing or coming up short. It was unethical to send those people out to die or to lose their limbs to frostbite.
     Mormon prophets are not just flawed human beings, they are criminals.

Posted by: pixelfish | September 11, 2010 9:32 PM

I see Seth is saying that we never expected the prophets to be pure and flawless, and expecting flawless prophets is what turns fundamentalists into bitter bitter atheists.

Actually, I never expected the prophet to be pure, because I did actually buy the line that sometimes he says stuff as a man, and sometimes he speaks for Heavenly Father, and oh, yeah, if he leads the church astray, Heavenly Father will remove him from the picture. But all that said, the Church generally provides several baselines for if he's supposed to be speaking as Prophet. One is conference talks--almost everything that gets said at conference (and which incidentally is gone over with a fine tooth comb before it hits the teleprompters) is supposed to be taken as Today's News Today. The Proclamation to the Family is held up in that vein. And both of these sources of late state that homosexuality is bad, mmmkay. This is not in debate, this is what the church is holding up as current doctrine. Just as for a number of decades the church position was that black folks couldn't hold the priesthood because of the sin of Cain. You can't say that they were speaking as fallible men on these positions, because according to the widely held standards of what the church considers to be ongoing revelation to the members, these were both instances of doctrine being given from the top down to the members. In notes from the pulpit, in Conference, in the correlated lessons that come down--this is what is being taught.

Seth has decided--with a spark of humanity--that the church is wrong on the issue of homosexuality, but continues to hold that everything else is fine and dandy. Well, these are pretty big issues for the prophet to be mistaken about, and I don't think it's a cry of fundamentalism to note that there's a good chance this is an organisation of men, created by men, most of whom believe honestly that what they are doing is right, but incapable of admitting that their beliefs are harmful and not inspired by a divine source worthy of worship.

Getting back to when I was a believer, whether or not the prophet is speaking as a man, I still had a kind of expectation that he might be of a grade higher than the average joe off the street. So Ezra Taft Benson's raging racist John Birchy politics made me raise a few eyebrows. I would have expected that the pool of men that the Prophet was raised from might be particularly humane and forward-thinking, but as I grew up, I realised they were hide-bound and clinging to ideals from the 50s. Boyd K. Packer's views of normal human sexuality would make me wonder as a believer why he was in that group. Ditto Dallin H. Oaks and Bruce Hafen's recent remarks. Reading the transcripts from David O. McKay's day as the leadership ponders the racial issues of the time....seriously, I did expect that a god worthy of worship would found a church that was progressive and ahead of the human right's curve, instead of at least a decade or so behind. And that's without getting into the fun historical issues of Joseph Smith (horndog, scam artist, violator of the first amendment) and Brigham Young (another horndog, tyrant, racist) and the foundation for the church as it is today.

Incidentally, dinging people for leaving the church because they CAN'T support the so-called prophet, seer, and revelator is specious reasoning at best. It's the fourth question they ask "worthy" temple recommend holders: Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? It's built into the church's cultural expectations: The prophet is supposed to be the least flawed individual in the whole church, even if he is still just a man. And when he proves by historical record to be fallible, mean-spirited, or narrow-minded, it's not unreasonable for a thinking and independent individual to come to the conclusion that this organisation truly is the work of men.

Still, I'm not sure how one jumps from "Hey, I'm disillusioned about these mortal men," to "OMG! Fundamentalist atheism!" That's just some sloppy straw-manning on Seth's part. He equates pointing out flaws in doctrine with expecting prophets to be flawless. You could run that circle for days if you bought into that proposition, since any evidence to the contrary of his position would be then cycled into his definition of fundamentalism. "You point out this flaw! Ergo, you demand perfection! Ergo, you are a fundamentalist and I can reject what you say." Niiiiiice.

He claims that the fundamental mindset expects 100 percent guarantees from its answers, although nothing could be further from the truth with atheism, since we always expect that new incoming evidence could prove old ideas to be wrong.

Posted by: Seth R. | September 11, 2010 10:41 PM

"How do you know that your next prophet will be a Mormon? How do you know it's not one of the atheists here?"

Believe it or not, I don't rule out the possibility.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2010 11:48 PM

This is a rather juvenile outlook on the world. Mormon doctrine - truly understood - does not provide any 100% guarantees, and gives no excuses for shutting your brain off and letting some authority figure do your legwork for you.

Cool. So you get to deny even the authority figure of "God", if you think that "God" is wrong?

We also have no doctrine that prophets will be perfect in everything they say. In fact, our belief in the general condition of humanity indicates the opposite. We believe that prophets can and do make mistakes, and it is the duty of every Mormon to weigh whatever a prophet happens to be saying, and determine for oneself whether it is really true or not.

Why you would even begin with the presupposition that anything said or written by a so-called "prophet" -- from with Joseph Smith on down -- ever was correct and non-mistaken?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | September 12, 2010 9:10 AM

MrFire #59:

I just atheized the beautiful creature known as Disco Music, who as we all know was brutally murdered in 1979.

*chortle!* *snort!* *snarf!* You now owe me one (1) cup of coffee and one (1) laptop.

Posted by: raven | September 12, 2010 11:27 AM

wikipedia unfulfilled religious predictions:

Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, made several dozen prophecies during his lifetime, many of which are recorded in the sacred texts of the Mormon faith. The prophecies included predictions of the Civil War, the fall of the U. S. government, the coming of Jesus, and several less significant predictions. Church apologists cite many prophesies that they claim came true,[37] and church critics cite many prophecies that they claim did not come true.[38]

The Mormon prophets don't have a great record for actually predicting the future. In fact, they were often wrong. The Mormons have some convoluted explanation that might sound convincing to a 5 year old about how that can happen.

There is no evidence that the Pope or Mormon Pope has any more ability to predict the future than I do. I, at least, predicted the last stock market crash and pulled my assets out a few months before. So did several million other people although the financial wizards of wall street were mostly not among them. But I'm not claiming any supernatural powers here.

And as we all know, xians never, ever follow their own magic book. Even back then, false prophets were a problem and the bible tells one how to tell a false prophet. They are wrong. And what to do about them. They are to be killed. Today most religious leaders would have been put to death including those idiots who predict the Rapture every few months and are always wrong.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 12, 2010 7:49 PM

Some of the financial wizards did know - that's why they bundled their bad debts inside other investment packages, bet on those packages to lose money, and then sold the packages to customers.

Posted by: Arviragus | September 13, 2010 11:00 AM

Just got Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (1997)...she was already pretty much there anyway.

Take that Bill, ya big blowhard!

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 13, 2010 1:30 PM

Seth speaks nonsense.

If the core tenants of Mormonism are true Smith read the history of America and the church from ancient supernatural sources. Such sources made wild claims about the American history which were false. Why on earth would you follow the church of someone who based the whole thing on a story that is clearly insane?

Posted by: bokononist | September 15, 2010 4:54 PM

I did:
George Washington
John Adams
Abraham Lincoln

They definitely would have appreciated it.