LDS name is wrong

Definition of Faith

Mormon sexuality,

BYU Astronomy Dept.

Religion Survey [pdf]


BYU Professor "x"
Dishonesty -- Trust us;  We Know.


 Returning It


Here is how it began...

I heard the professor on a radio talk program about vegetarianism (Jul 22, 2008). I emailed him and the conversation turned to religion. 

I said that the Bible story of Exodus, Noah's ark, and others have no basis in actual history.

The learned BYU-educated doctor disagreed and said he knows someone who is very smart who could prove me wrong.


    BLACK   The professor's emails
    BLUE    My (Josh) emails
 Comments   Emphasis, cartoons, illustrations

BYU diploma held for ransom

It's a holding tank where young Mormons go after high school.  The purpose is not education -- it's  indoctrination -- and to hold the kids long enough so that they may find Mormon mates.  Mormons marry young and prolifically -- as mandated by the Book of Mormon (BOM) and by the history of polygamy and their promise of polygamy in the future.


 Link  Ancient Egyptian documents -- BYU Museum: Facsimile "B"

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

Editor's note:  It's because of a letter (below) from James Lyons that I decided to delete this web page's subject's identity and replace all references to him with [name].  It's not because of the subject's threat of legal action and not because James Lyons tried to shame me.  There's no shame in saying how it is:  Being religious in this day and age is stupid, and it's especially so for a professor who spreads such superstitious poison to the young'uns.


Mormons patent
Jesus Christ

Veiled threat to sue

The first letter...
To: name@BYU.edu
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: from Josh

I heard your interview on the radio this morning. I eat animals but always feel guilty. I'm not a Mormon so I don't know how the scriptures can bolster vegetarianism as is your thesis on that.  And what was that thing -- you didn't want to get into it on the radio -- about the ark and 2 x 2 ?

How can one like me, who does not like the taste of veggies and most fruits, become a vegetarian? I agree and I thank you for pointing out the ethics of this!

If you have an answer, I would like to share that with others, when possible.

Best regards,
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:45:37 -0600

Josh, thanks for your email.

About the
attrocities -- I have some problems with the old testament myself. I was raised atheist and liberal, so I feel that it's ok for me to let go of things that don't uplift. Therefore there is much of the old testament that I simply ignore. I like that Jesus guy though.

About the 2X2 there's actually way too much even for an email, but for example: how could ALL animals fit in an
arc? After they got out of the arc they couldn't have eaten animals either until they repopulated enough. There would be serious incest [sic] problems. All human (and animal) DNA would be traceable to common ancestors 4,000 years ago. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after getting off the arc? How did fresh water fish live in salt water for so long? Where did all the extra water come from? Where did it go? There are just so many problems.

About being veg -- I certainly don't eat only fruits and vegetables. I eat sandwiches and burrito
es and pizza and ... In other words, I don't sit down to a plate of fruits and vegetables (I would probably feel about the same way you would about doing that); I eat the same foods that 'normal' people eat, but without meat in them. I actually am not totally vegan (I have been eating dairy), but to be consistent with my message, I am moving towards veganism again.

But being vegetarian (without being vegan) is not as hard as it sounds -- you will find almost every kind of food has tasty vegetarian options.

I hope that helps for now ...
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: from Josh

RE: Noah and "There would be serious incest problems": Incest is not a problem with animals! Only for humans is close interbreeding called incest.

Avout the things you mention in your 2x2 description --  of course nobody worries about that any more; everyone knows that the biblical flood is made up, like the now discredited Exodus.

The thing that bothers me most is that animals are made to eat each other. Red in tooth and claw, as they say, in order to continue existence. It's so immensely cruel!

This alone argues against the notion of Intelligent Design.

I feel guilt every time I eat a Hamburger or have some of that tasty bacon with my eggs. If I had been an all-knowing omnipotent creator, I would not have made things this way. I would easily have been a kinder more loving god than our current Elohim et al. What a mean god we have in him and in "that Jesus guy".

-- Josh


of historians and writers who
lived during Christ's lifetime
or within 100 years later...

Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Dion Pruseus

Florus Lucius
Justus of Tiberius

Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger

Pompon Mela

Quintius Curtius
Seneca the Elder
Seneca the Younger

Silius Italicus
Soscius Senecio
Theon of Smyran
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus

"Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus (Yahoo Answers)"

Read more about it:  holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm     by By Richard Smith

From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:35:10 -0600

Thanks, Josh, for your thoughts.

Actually, animals can have incest problems too. I'm not sure what part of that word couldn't extend to them, maybe anthrocentric types feel that the 'sin' of it only applies to us 'rational animals.' Can animals sin?

I beg to differ about 'nobody' -- many adult, apparently intelligent mormons take that arc story pretty literally. I dare you to test that theory after raising your hand in sunday school.

David Hume also turns the argument from Design against itself by arguing that if God made this world (thereby explaining its order) why didn't he do a better job, and points out four circumstances in which the world's make appears to be either amateurish or, more likely, indifferent.

Jesus appears much nicer than the 'Jehovah' of the old testament - a pacifist vs. a genocidal dictator. How could those be the same person? Just a thought.
Incest is something only people can do. It's in the definition of the word. I just wanted to educate you on that :) Definition: sexual intercourse between closely related persons.

Nobody with intellectual honesty believes in that ark-flood and Exodus -- I didn't realize I need to be so explicit. Everyone with an education and who is honest knows that these things were made up.

Jesus says some pretty ugly things in the new testament too. Well, he's credited with saying those things -- Nobody really knows what if anything he said, since nobody who could have known him actually wrote anything down. The great teacher himself never wrote moo. Funny, eh?

I don't know from Hume :) I know for that if I had the powers that so-called intelligent Mormons attribute to their gods -- If I had that power I would make a kinder, gentler planet. Hands down and with half my brain tied behind my back!


Mormonism, one of the
world’s fastest growing

But unless you were
raised a Mormon...

From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:19:32 -0600

[...] I know an extremely smart and very educated guy who is researching extensively for a book that 'proves' among other things that the
arc story is real and that it covered the whole earth.

You underestimate the powers of fundamentalism.

I appreciate your thoughts and humor.
Thanks again,

Ken's Guideto the Bible
 by Ken Smith
With precision and pig- iron wit, this compact
volume lays bare all the
sex, gore, and lunacy
of the Bible.


I think your friend is very queer -- the one who is working to find evidence for Noah and water covering all land. (See former astronaut Irwin's quest for the arc; Post-NASA,searching for Noah's ark)

What will your friend count as evidence?

Where did the water go? Tell your friend, before he embarks on this project that he should think, question and read a book. If the deluge had drained into a giant hole, and if, let's say, the hole were as huge as the Great Salt Lake -- then how deep would your friend say that a hole needs to be in order to take up all that water? It would have to be deep indeed -- down, past the center of the earth... the hole would have to exit at its antipodal point, and extend into space for thousands of mile, about three times the distance to our moon. There's no power in this fundamentalist claptrap, unless you count stupidity as power.

Of course simple arithmetic like is not the only thing that makes the Noah story wrong. Since you seem to be defending the Biblical account, I bet you don't know / understand what arguments exits against the Wholly Babble account.

So, may I ask, what is your education level? I ask because I am trying to figure out where you are intellectually. I have a feeling, now, that you and your very intelligent friend both would not know what evidence is if it bit you in the rear. My god -- you are right, there are still people alive today who don't know archeology, geology, anthropology, biology, genetics... So again, may I ask, what is your background (more)? What will your friend count as evidence?

Please tell me you were joking!

-- Josh

At 07:07 PM 8/11/2008, you wrote:

On the geography of
the Book of Mormon

By His Own Hand
 Upon Papyrus:

A New Look at the
Joseph Smith Papyri

Rest assured that my 'friend' (more precise: fellow ward member) is actually quite intelligent and does tons of research in addition to holding a regular job. He does four hour presentations, for example, on the geography of the Book of Mormon, among other things.

Evidence for the arc story includes geology and studies of fossilization. He's a neptunist (about the center of the earth).

Without going into tons of detail about that, you may rest assured that there are many people in every ward (not all of them stupid or uneducated) that believe in the literal
arc story.

As far as your suggestion that I am stupid or uneducated, I would remind you of the origin of this whole conversation. I said on the radio that there were many problems with that
arc story (in response to Laura Jones). You emailed me asking what I meant by that, at which point I sent you about ten different problems with believing that story happened literally (including the argument about where the water went).

All you have to do is scroll
[down to] the messages here to read my arguments against the flood story, yet you seem to think that I was defending it. Bad memory. I ended with "there are just so many problems".

[Yes, [name] -- sorry, you are right.  I did not read your letter carefully, thinking that since it's from BYU  it's all crap.  I was wrong; I'm sorry.  --ED]

As far as my education -- My step father was a physical anthropologist (Ph.D. from UC Berkeley), so I am quite familiar with human evolution, biology, archaeology, etc.. I got a Bachelors degree in Math and Philosophy, and a Ph.D. in philosophy.

The problem here is that I told you that many people believe that story and you decided I was one of them. But rest assured, there are many people all around you (especially in church wards) who believe that story literally.

David R. Keller, Ph.D. website, Utah Valley University
Reverend Dr. VanBuskirk

Thank you for your reply. It's nice to hear form you -- I show your email replies to everybody.

You mentioned that you had been raised as an atheist. Everybody was once an atheist -- by virtue of birth : )

You, it seems, having reached adulthood, acquired education and responsibility, said to yourself -- oh, KOLOB, the planet -- that place where god's wife pumps out, ad infinitum, from between her legs, space-aliens who later will be supraliminally zapped to earth, a-la Kal-El (Superman),  you said to yourself, "yes that makes sense, that's the religion I'll support from now on".

You said to yourself, oh, yeah, that makes sense to me, I don't need proof or even evidence; and yes, Joseph Smith really could translate Egyptian.  You thought, "Granted, his English-Hieroglyphic dictionary appears exceptionally stupid, and dishonest but I think it is nevertheless translated correctly.  And to hell with Bertrand Russell, that great modern philosopher -- who would disagree with everything that I, [name] -- who once attended a lecture on
Ώ-incompleteness.  I, [name]   *believe* because of I have FAITH."

I got carried away. Sorry.

Best regards,
-- Josh

At 04:35 PM 8/13/2008, you wrote:
I will remind you: I made a comment on the radio to the effect that the
arc story was full of holes, but did not want to go into that. The reason is that, as BYU faculty it might not be wise for me to do so.

I, in fact, think that parts of the old testament, if taken literally, are absurd (both morally and factually).

The point I made to you is that there are MANY among us who do take it quite literally, and they are not all idiots (in fact most of them aren't). As far as why they believe what they do, I think it's because it's how they've been taught it's righteous to believe.
[emphasis mine -- Ed]

Here is an important principle of psychology / philosophy that I have learned by observation: If a person is committed to a view (no matter how absurd it may seem from an outsider's point of view) then that person can find all kinds of 'rational' justifications for that view. This is true even to the extent that if those people have control of the sources of information of uninformed people then they can make it even seem absurd to believe otherwise.

This is true not only in religion but also in politics, personal relationships, etc. (for example, if you want to make your ex sound evil to someone he or she hasn't met, it is easy to do so).

Thus many non-idiots actually believe things that seem absurd to those outside of their mind-sets.

As for a more specific answer to your question: how does my 'friend' justify his views about the flood. It is actually quite interesting.

First of all, you asked for 'proof', but that is not typically how even science works -- it's more of an inference to the best explanation of the data. His theory is (as I mentioned Neptunian) that the earth's core is not magma but ice. He claims that this view explains many geologic phenomena better than plutonianism (the magma story). Volcanoes are caused by seismic friction in rocks around the crust, not by a planet full of lava.

Thus, the extra water for the flood came from (and returned to) the earth beneath the surface (which, of course, had melted). As far as the explanation of how and why that happened, he has an elaborate answer, I believe having to do with a temporary slowing of the earth's rotational velocity.
 [It appears that under [name]'s friend's theory that the core of the earth became superheated water (steam) -- due to friction of the mantle with the ice beneath -- and due to pressure thus created by this friction the frozen core it filled the oceans with cold water and then a short time later the water returned to the earth's core freeze again.]

I want to make some points.
1)  He is a religious guy. Therefore, analogous to the intelligent-design people, he is coming at this with an ulterior motive. Therefore, he does not need a 'proof' that this is the way it is (though, as I mentioned, he claims that neptunism can explain some data -- like the bending of seismic waves as they pass through the earth -- better than the magma view), but rather an explanation that counters the objections and allows a justification of scripture. I'm sure you've heard of FARMS, for another example of this.

2)  I don't know enough about geology to be able to demonstrate what's wrong with neptunism (to explain why most geologists don't believe it) or whether his answers to their objections and counter-arguments are adequate. But it is at least an interesting topic.  [It appears that BYU professor [name] can't ascertain if this Neptunism is a reasonable explanation.]

I, again, am not trying to convince you to be a literalist about the bible or to believe in the
arc story -- I don't believe it myself!  [name] thinks that I'm arguing about Genisis.]

I am suggesting that more people believe it than you seem to realize, and some of them are smart people (though they are often religiously motivated). Most of them are also nice people, so it is not necessary to be harsh on them.

I hope that helps answer your question.

RE: "His theory is (as I mentioned Neptunian) that the earth's core is not magma but ice."
---   and YOU consider this guy to be very smart ??? -- that guy who thinks that centers of planets are cold, not hot -- as caused gravitationally, etc. So you consider this person quite intelligent, this friend who is going to 'prove' (your way of putting it) the faith-based Noah story?  Cool.

You say he is intelligent, so let me ask again -- my previous question, which you have so far avoided, no doubt in order to cling onto Mormonism, its KOLOB, LIAHONAS, Pre-Columbian iron and steel and horses, and silk and flax and all that crap, like your moronic ("un-translated") imaginary animals, the "cureloms and cumom".  Your BOM is correct, as fat it's been translated correctly, right?

[ Further needling [name] about the veracity of the Noah arc-story is omitted here -- because I'm now ashamed if it -- Ed.]

Tell me more about the ICE-believable aspect of your smart friend's ideas please.  I know that you are trying to distance yourself from your smart friend's Ideas now, especially that you have now revealed his extremely goofy central-planet ICE idea. What other planets are thought to harbor ICE at their cores...

[ Even more needling [name] about the arc-story is omitted here -- for the same reason -- Ed.]

You claim adherence to the Mormon FAITH. You are a Mormon, yes? KOLOB, Loahona... reformed Egyptian... My god, the list of stupid is endless...

If it's OK with you, please don't wait 1 or 2 or 3 days to answer -- if you know the answer -- but if you have to look up your beliefs, then yes, take some time, It's OK.

[ More insults omitted here -- Ed.]

You, a Mormon may think that a LIAHONA is a real thing, as is the planet KOLOB, space alien gods, etc.  -- these things are real, yes? And  the Mormon celestial kingdom, that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, his 'Egyptian - English' Dictionary,  iron and steel were really smelted in Pre-Columbian America, yes ?

If you say yes, I will say that you are either stupid, dishonest, uneducated, or a lair -- correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sorry there seems to be no alternative; if there is -- please -- tell me !!!

[ Ditto here -- Ed.]

You say that it's not necessary to be harsh with people who promulgate "goofy ideas", because in the marketplace of ideas, the things I consider as goofy are actually quite popular.

RE: "I am suggesting that more people believe it than you seem to realize"
---   You act as it it's valid to vote on what's true and what's not true. As a philosopher, I wish you would explain that! Don't bother -- you should KNOW BETTER than to say a stupid thing like that!!

RE: Smart, "often religiously motivated people..."
---   There are thousands of religions, old and new. Most contradict -- say that the other religions are false, invalid, stupid, evil, wrong... etc... as a philosopher YOU know this, but you use this "religion-is OK" idea to bolster your Mormon-centric view. It's really dishonest and, in my opinion stupid... correct me if I'm wrong. It's politically correct these days, to always add "in my opinion";  that's my opinion.

Best regards,
-- Josh

Now I decided to post these letters as a BLOG

OK I now see you typed this, as part of your previous reply: "I, again, am not trying to convince you to be a literalist about the bible or to believe in the arc story -- I don't believe it myself !"

That's funny -- and forgive me because I missed this -- but you said in previous email that the fundamentalist viewpoint has a lot of veracity. You told me "You underestimate the powers of fundamentalism." I "misunderstand" what you mean by this. So please tell me what this means, if not what it says: I underestimate the powers of fundamentalism.

So, now you are off the hook on answering what evidence you would accept about the veracity of the ark story. You don't believe it and you think that this Wholly Babble story is just that. Good.

But you are a Mormon and thus believe in Moses and his Exodus, yes? so... same question... what evidence would be need to say that Moses was real and the Heebrews... that the Egyptian captivity was real ?

No evidence of the historicity of Moses exists in the archeological record, as you may know, from your background in studies of religion at BYU.

You are a Mormon... so you think that it's true that
KOLOB exists, where the LDS gods and their wives live, and those in the pre-existence wait for millennia in order to be catapulted at uh... fast -- speeds towards awaiting wombs on earth -- ...

And you think that it's true that Liahonas actually were real, and are real... and that pre-Columbian Indians used horses, silk, flax, cows, elephants, iron, steel and such... yes?

And you came to this realization, first having been raised as an atheist, as you say; and in you adult life, post-BYU-"education"
... you now faith-believe such things... correct me if I'm wrong.

Now... same question.../ what would you accept as evidence that these Mormon claims are true?

Please do not take forever to reply -- you should have these answers on the tip of your tongue, yes?

-- Josh

Ps: It's been a quite long time since you replied... please don't keep everyone waiting again for an answer; thanks in advance.

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:17:13 -0600
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: I am going to make a web page

I've been thinking about what you said, nutrition-wise [at the beginning of this email exchange] and I'm inclined not to believe it.

I'm no expert. But I remember what Bertrand Russell said... that a novice should weigh strongly the opinion of the expert... well something to that effect.

Now I see that you are no expert but are pretending to be one.

You have a tendency to think that miracle-based, fundamentalist explanations, should bear a lot of weight. Everyone with an education and a brain knows that's crap!

Reality is not Moses and his Exodus, Heavenly Father and Mother Gonhorra
[ You Tube ] on the planet Kolob [ FAQ ], silk, steel, elephants and horses in pre-Columbian America. And no lost tribes, no Lamanites, no 3 Nephites and all that utter slop you slop about, you and your tax-free faith-based organization.

Why should anyone not automatically distrust everything -- no matter how trivial or benign -- which you may say, knowing your faith and miracle-based proclivity ? In matters of importance your first reflex is to mislead !

I am now going to make a web page to warn others of this kind of thinking, of your "university" and of you.

-- Josh

It seems that you BYU "professors" don't know how things work!

You pass yourselves off as an expert in the field of nutrition, yet you demonstrate, by supporting and adhering to Mormonism, that you don't understand squat about how things really work!

A nutritionist should know something about biology.  A biologist understands genetics; a geneticist understands that pre-Columbian humans are *not* lost Israelites. 

You, Mr. Mormon BYU professor think that American Indians arrived in the Americas after having found their way across the Atlantic, using a 600-year  old GPS-machine which you call the Liahona. 

What a stupid, stupid idiot you are -- and to think that you are allowed to go into a classroom to misinform youngsters and speak on the radio to tell people how to eat healthily !!

Of course, we could go on here -- to show how stupid and DISHONEST you & your religion are... we could examiner your goofy belief in...

Pre-Columbian Mormon coins, such as your made-up Senum, Seon, Shum, Heh-ku-kau-beam and Shiblum.

Soul-space travel

Three "Nephites"

The planets Kolob and Oliblish, heavenly Father and heavenly mother Gonhorra

Joseph Smiths' Egyptian -English Dictionary an the only 3 known words of Adamic -- the language spoken in Heaven.

Let's continue...
The meaning of of -- in English, and the meaning of the Mormon secret

Polygamy on earth and in heaven

Negroes are inferior, but nowadays they can go to heaven anyway --
"Trust us, we know. 
Protective, special, holy momo underwear







The Planet KOLOB

The Lost Facsimile B

 The Limits of Science & the Science of Limits             by John D. Barrow                   


To: Richard <richardo2001@netscape.net>
Cc: name@BYU.edu
Subject: I need to rely on an expert to decide.
Date:  Aug 2008 17:24:32 -0600

"Protecting Polar Bears Get in Way of Drilling For Oil, says Governor"
By Tim Reid May 23, 2008 TIMES ONLINE

Sarah Palin, the GOP Vice presidential candidate in 2008 "...is suing the Bush Administration over its decision [...] to place the animal under the protection of the Endangered Species Act [wikipedia], claiming that climate models predicting the continued loss of sea ice - the main habitat of polar bears - are unreliable."

Palin, according to the article, argues that "The polar bear does not need added protection, and the bear populations have increased significantly over the past 30 years because of conservation".

Until seeing this, I had been reading that the polar bear is having a difficult time because of global warming. It's habitat is melting under its feet
!  And many are drowning every day -- so we're told.

As a layman I can't tell which is right -- the governor of Alaska or the liberal scientists. I need to rely on an expert to decide.

How can I know if one who claims to be an expert on a specialized subject actually is one?

I might ask his opinion about unrelated things of which I happen know something about.   Then, I'm more inclined to accept his claimed expertise in that other unrelated field if he agrees with my opinion on it.

To my mind, [name]'s opinions on nutrition are suspect -- I can't tell if eating pizza -- he says it's ok (above) -- is good for me or not.

However, as some kind of minor authority on Mormonism, I do know what the really stupid things are which he believes -- and to which Professor [name] 'bears his testimony' in church on a weekly basis.

Thanks for your message, Richard, here is what I'd add, about the quality of thinking at BYU.  Professor [hame] adheres to the Mormon dictum: "When out leaders speak, the thinking has been done" !

[I don't really know for sure if that's so.  It's not Mormon gospel.  Not doctrine.  It's a slogan Mormons have used and seem proud of.  I never heard BYU  Professor Dr.  [hame] state  that, I assumed that he adheres to this saying.  But I was wrong.  In later communication he disavowed this slogan -- ED.]

To: name@BYU.edu
Date:  Aug 26 2008, 3:25

My last message to you is posted on this blog.
[is web page -ed]

Subject: Re: I need to rely on an expert to decide
Reply-To: name@BYU.edu
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:31:35 -0600

Thanks for your forward.
I am the  [hame] of which you speak.

I am glad to get a chance to reply.

Here's the story: I did a radio show about mormonism and vegetarian -- making an ethical argument for vegetarian and including mormon doctrine. Josh wrote to me and asked about food he could eat to feel less guilty. I made some simple suggestions. He wrote back asking about a reference I made to problems with the arc story. I replied, explaining that the Noah's arc story was full of holes. I said that I knew people who believed in it (I am not one of them).

He began writing increasingly hostile emails to me accusing me of believing the very things that I claimed (on the radio and email) NOT to believe. He is a very strange person in that regard.

Anyway, I was very busy with grading for a week and didn't reply to his emails for six days. He then wrote three emails (all marked urgent), culminating in his decision to make a web page claiming that I believe all kinds of things that I do not in fact believe and NEVER CLAIMED (or even hinted) to believe. It is a strange thing; almost as if his whole question about what foods he could eat were merely a set up to create a slanderous web page.

Anyway, to be clear, I NEVER claimed to believe all those things that he accuses me of; in fact, it's a bit ironic because I am one byu professor who admits to NOT believing much [sic] of that stuff. In fact, I attempted to tease those beliefs a little bit in my replies to him. So he's a strange person with no basis for his claims.

Since you are not he, there is some chance that you are a reasonable person. So I am telling you the truth. If you know him you might want to set him straight. He made a rather ironic choice of people to accuse of believing all that stuff, as I mentioned, since I am a byu exception (there are actually many other exceptions to fundamentalism at byu). I oppose fundamentalism and think it's silly. As I mentioned to him, I joined the church for spiritual (not factual) reasons.

You, of course, are free to think that Mormonism is stupid. That is fine. There are many things about it that we might even agree on. But what he says of me is entirely false.

As far as my 'authority' about diet, he has me pretty wrong there as well. All I said was that there is something ethically wrong with eating meat if it is unnecessary. Then I replied to him about some 'normal' foods that have vegetarian versions. I NEVER claimed that one SHOULD eat pizza; I merely said that one can choose to have such normal foods without meat.

I also NEVER claimed to be any kind of expert about nutrition. My argument is ethically based. In fact, I explicitly disavow being any kind of 'expert' about nutrition.

So his take on me is pretty much the opposite of reality.

Again, I have hope that you are a reasonable person and understand the things I said. He appears to be incapable of that and wholly-hell-bent on defaming me (and the church) without warrant.

Thanks for giving me the chance to reply.


To:          name@BYU.edu
Date:       06 Sep 2008 4:26

Dear [name] –

You are a Mormon and believe that Jos. Smith could translate hieroglyphs correctly.  You take great pains in explaining / disclaiming the finer points of your meat-free diet. But in the email exchange I see no denial of your belief in the miraculous. Apologist or no, for one to be taken seriously as a Mensch, one cannot champion the notion that the world runs on miracles, Mormon ones or otherwise. You have had several opportunities to deny miracles central to Mormonism… pre-Columbian horses, cows, elephants, silk, flax, iron smelters, steel mills, sena (1 senum, 2 sena; yes ? ), , the existence of multiple LDS gods, the historicity of Jesus, of the Exodus,  the efficacy of prayer…

Yes, it appears that you were tricked into having a conversation, which you did not foresee. You people think that everyone likes or tolerates you. Because religion has the power to increase the tax burden for the rest of us, you think that you are beyond reproach. It’s not so, Mr. BYU professor.

From your mail:

RE: “Anyway, to be clear, I NEVER claimed to believe all those things that he accuses me of; […]

-- So it’s queer that you never, after all this time, explicitly denied adherence to FAITH-based, fact-phobic ideology. My guess is that you can’t because you are inherently innately intellectually dishonest and you would be in trouble with your Primates.

RE: “He appears to be […] wholly-hell-bent on defaming me (and the church) without warrant.:

-- You want warrant? HA!
   "The church"?  HA -- you're not even Catholic!
    Your Mormon church is WRONG and DISHONEST about its Wholly-Babble, about its BOA and BOM. It’s wrong in claiming that Jos. Smith excavated plates made of gold and that he could translate Egyptian to English… (see Smith’s Egyptian-English dictionary ), that The Liahona is a real navigational device… that Kolob exists, that gods exist, that “three Nephites” exist, and that praying works, that Kinderhook was translated correctly… the list is very, very long, my friend. You are stupid for adhering such beliefs, and you are dishonest in promulgating them.

RE:  "As I mentioned to him, I joined the church for spiritual (not factual) reasons."

-- What the hell is a SPIRIT, anyway??

RE: “He began writing increasingly hostile emails to me accusing me of believing the very things that I claimed (on the radio and email) NOT to believe. He is a very strange person in that regard.”

-- I only heard the last few minutes of your radio program. I accused you of believing miracles and other stupid things [Exodus, Kolob] and you said nothing.

My opinion is that you SUNSTONE-type people suspect that there is something wrong with Mormonism but you can’t quite put your finger on what it is that's wrong. Yes, [name],  you did not say explicitly that you are a Sunstoner.  I think you know that it smells, Mormonism; but you can’t quite sense how strong the stench is because you are so steeped in it for so long -- you're hopelessly acclimated to it!

You can’t have one foot in 19th century superstition, [name],  and the other in the twenty-first century. You can’t have one foot in real life and your heart in Mormonism. You should and COULD know better. As it is, you are dishonest. You have been made dishonest – so, it’s not your fault.. Free will (free agency to y’all) is an illusion; people who you love and who love you and who you trust have been lying to you all your life, about very important things! That’s what made you what you are now -- stupid. That’s what robbed you of your innate intelligence. Read a book, think deeply, get an education; it’s not too late.

And if you want to have a real (and more polite) conversation mano a mano (that’s man to man :) let me know.


Monday, May, 1. —
I rode out with Lucien Woodworth, and paid him Ł20 for the Nauvoo House, which I borrowed of William Allen.

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert
Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, 
which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both
sides with ancient characters.

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found.
He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from
the Ruler of heaven and earth.

  ~ History of the Church by Joseph Smith, volume 5, page 372.   The LDS Church says...  History of the Church by Joseph Smith,

Heh-ku-kau-beam of Iron

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2008 05:41:29 -0600
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: you may not think that


You may not think that this is stupid... you may not be able to recognize it as that

-- Josh

Subject: Re: I need to rely on an URGENT to decide
From: name@BYU.edu

You seem to think that I am stupid (you repeatedly make reference to that) and that you are smart.

Let's test you a little. Here is your IQ test (it's all true/false):

1. The following argument form is valid:
'Every A is a B; not all A's are C's, so not all B's are C's'
2. The following argument form is valid:
'He said that many people believe X; therefore he believes X.'
3. The following argument form is valid:
'He can explain why an intelligent person might believe X; therefore he believes X.'
4. 'He is a member of a church where many people believe X and has not explicitly denied X; therefore he believes X.'
5. The following sentence is grammatically incorrect:
'His theory is that the earth's core is not magma but ice.'

6. Someone with a Bachelors' in math and philosophy, and a Masters and Ph.D in philosophy, and who is a professor of logic with a strong background in the sciences (especially physics and anthropology) needs to 'read a book, think deeply, get an education.'
7. 'Mano a mano' means 'man to man'ť. (try looking it up)

It's a bit ironic for you to toss around accusations of my stupidity considering your performance so far on this test (I've already graded #'s 2-7).

I know that you will reply with the test that I believe all kinds of crazy Mormon stuff therefore I must not be intelligent, but you don't know what I actually believe.
I said that I joined the Church for spiritual reasons, and you replied that you don't know what a spirit is. Then just interpret "spiritual reasons" to mean personal / emotional reasons having little to do with my views about archaeology, etc.

I'm not sure that a discussion with you would be worthwhile for me.

To: name@BYU.edu
Not all A's spirit C's, so not all B' believes X.'from Kolob

And it came to pass that verily, I do think you are stupid, uneducated, dishonest or all of those because you think a miracle-based ideology is valid.
And that the planet Kolob is real, etc.. well I already told you.

Deny Kolob and the gilded plates and you will have made yourself a liar. Unfortunately for you, you can't win...

Spiritual reasons? What the hell is a spirit, anyway? Is it what shoots out of Heavenly Father's no #1-wife -- Mother Gonhorra's -- vagina, at supraluminal speed, from Kolob, aimed into the wombs of Earth women and Earth girls? I think yes. Them there is spirits, yes?

I like your "spiritual reasons" much better than your alternate chimera now, to say, oh it's really not spiritual what you meant to say but now it's only personal/emotional that you joined the Mormon religion, as an adult. And it's not spiritual, but only personally emotional that you now say that archeology has only a little to do with the Book of Mormon, the Hill Camorah, or with your goofy Mormon "Refomed Egyptian" silliness. You are so dishonest, [name] !!!

To say it's really not spiritual -- it's only personal/emotional -- is like saying oh, the Secret temple ceremonies really are no longer secret, they are merely sacred (now that they have been published everywhere http://nowscape.com/mormon/mormcr1.htm ).

The polite word these politically correct times, for you, Mr. BYU porofessor is disingenuous. Spiritual means Kolob-centric, I know that -- so no sense in diminishing your meaning of spiritual now, by calling it persona/emotional, slime. I don't care if you are LDS because of an emotion or a wild hair up your arse. It's being LDS what's wrong, dishonest... stupid.

I can't read the rest of your your email because of all the
special characters like your "'", "'" and so on... you need to type normally, instead of sloppily cutting and pasting scripture into your email, and praying that all will come out ok, OK? Everybody with a brain knows that praying doesn't work.

Nobody said that I am smart. Anyone without a lobotomy will think that you are stupid for being LDS. Read a book; get and education.

Be nice.

Highest regards, if applicable

Subject: Re:
From: name@BYU.edu

The so-called special characters are just quotation marks that for some reason messed up in the email transmission.

It is a bit ironic for you to tell me to be nice.
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: Re:
Not all A’s spirit C’s, so not all B’ believes X.” from KOLOB

I have a moderate case of dyslexia, so any kind of extraneous garbage distraction destroys my visual system even more than usual. Knowing what you know about the cause of these distractions (and you should not have emailed them to begin with), I'll tell you how to efficiently (easy + lazy = efficient :) get rid of them .... cut-and-paste your material into a simple text editor such as 'Notepad', for Windows computers. That automatically corrects everything. Then re-cut-and-paste this corrected text into your destination file to email to your victim.

Best regards,
Subject: Re: Re:
From: name@BYU.edu

Thank you for your first (mostly) polite email. (I don't know what's going on with the email thing -- when I sent it it was fine -- I hope this one doesn't add the gibberish).

The way it (typically) works in academia (and in most other circles) is that a person will present a view, then another person who disagrees then seeks to:
a) correctly understand what that person said (to argue against someone based on what that person doesn't actually say is called a straw-man argument).
b) Understand why they hold that view or what their reasoning is.
c) Point out areas of disagreement -- these areas of disagreement can be matters of fact or matters of principle. Sometimes someone is just wrong about some matter of fact (but often facts too are controversial), and other times people can have different points of view about principle or reasoning. Any and all disagreements can be pointed out and then discussed, but it is important that they be pointed out in light of a) and b) already being accomplished, otherwise it is a waste of both parties' time (this is the case with you and me).
d) Express these things politely, or at least with a sense of professional decorum (that's not to say you can't strongly disagree; you just have to use a style that allows the discussion to go forward rather than merely insult people). People who write in the style of angry letters to the editor don't really persuade anyone, they just rile up people's emotions. This is rude, not persuasive. Usually it's very off-putting to those with opposite views and merely riles up the emotions (not the intellect) of those with similar views. It's cheerleading; not reasoning.

For example, you are welcome as a human with a brain, to disagree with the things I say.
You can disagree with me about animal rights.

The Mormon doctrine is strongly pro-animal. And it's strongly opposed to any kind of cruelty to animals, including mistreatment and killing when it is not necessary.

You can also disagree with me (or others) about mormonism. I have several friends who think that mormonism (and all religion) is absurd and stupid. I used to be an atheist myself, and I was raised with science (and I still believe in science), so I can have intelligent conversations about these things.

You, however, didn't actually ask me what I think or base anything you wrote on what I actually believe. You merely attacked and insulted things that I said that OTHER PEOPLE believe. I even said that I DID NOT believe those things. Therefore your approach is the opposite of intelligent or persuasive. Furthermore, you created a web page designed to insult and deride me for things that I never said to you nor anyone else. I teach philosophy. It is almost the opposite of "when prophets speak the discussion ends" -- I never have said that and never do say that. I represent the opposite -- the discussion never ends. No matter who speaks we can discuss what it means; whether it is true; etc. So you attribute to me things that I never said and don't believe and then attack me based on those things that don't represent my views AT ALL.

You must agree that such behavior is both dishonest, and not 'nice'. It's actually much worse than a straw man -- it's actually attacking ME, not my views. You are just trying to slander me and hurt me as a person. That would be a cruel move even if it were based on truth; but since you try to hurt me publicly for things that I don't even believe, it makes you worse than dishonest. It makes you absurd.

Do you see now how your methods have nothing to do with truth and reason and intelligence, but more to do with emotion and cruelty.

If you wanted to discuss the truth of animal rights and/or mormonism you would ask me what I believe and then point out problems with that. But you have done neither. You have merely tried to smear my reputation -- publicly attributing things to me that I never said -- based on deception. How do you expect to ever have a reasoned or persuasive discussion based on such a methodology. What if someone did that to you? What if someone accused you of supporting terrorism or something and posted it all over the web?

Would that person be 'nice'? You also put me in an impossible position for reasoned discussion: if I tell you I agree with mormonism you will publicly insult and attack (including posting my bosses name -- presumably to try to get me fired -- ironically enough, for believing in mormonism!) me for that. If I told you I disagreed with Mormonism then you would publicly attack insult and attack (and try to get me fired) for that. It's a no win. It's quite the opposite of 'intelligent' and 'nice'. It's anti-intellectual and cruel.

To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans...

RE: “You merely attacked and insulted things that I said that OTHER PEOPLE believe. I even said that I DID NOT believe those things.”
--You volunteered that you do not believe in the flood story and in one or two things, fair enough. It would be really sad to have a university professor express flat-earth beliefs or ideology.

If you are a Mormon, it MUST mean that you belive that Jos. Smith could translate ancient texts -- correctly : )
*If* this ---- according to your prophet and seer and polygamist, Jos. Smith, means

“It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the
figures at the beginning, which manner of the figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.”
(see “2 TRANSLATIONS OF PAPYRUS JOSEPH SMITH XI -- "BOOK OF ABRAHAM" http://nowscape.com/mormon/egyptian_alphabet.htm”)


It was not made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Gonhorra, Libnah, Mahmackrah, but not Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of the figures is called by the Chaldeans who sometimes went to the 7-11.

How stupid do you think we are, Mr. Mormon apologist professor, that one should believe that really means what Jos. Smith said it means in his official Dictionary of the Egyptian language?? Or did your Jos. Smith invent an extremely efficient data compression algorithm ?

You don't have to call out, item by item, or deny, for that matter, each of your specific beliefs about your adopted religion. It suffices to say that you are a Mormon. We know what it means to live in that boondocks-hinterland of intelligence. You can put lipstick on a Nephite but he's still Goofy.

You were once an atheist and now you are a polytheists. What on earth convinced you to think that Mormon gods exist? And that Jos. Smith could read Egyptian hieroglyphics ?

RE: “You, however, didn't actually ask me what I think or base anything you wrote on what I actually believe.”
-- You support Mormonism by working for the Mormon Church, by paying tithing and by having converted to Mormonism. Did you go on a Mormon mission ?

RE: “I have several friends who think that mormonism (and all religion) is absurd and stupid.”
-- If people don't tell you that you are absurd / stupid for advocating or supporting mormonism, then I think these friends are not your real friends – and perhaps even I am a better friend than they.

RE: “you just have to use a style that allows the discussion to go forward rather than merely insult people”
-- Why? My style seems to be working as is.
If I had asked you politely about the veracity of BOM cows, steel mills and silk, you would have given me about the same amount of information about why one should believe / support this as you did when I belittled you for believing in that same mormon drivel – or merely supporting it -- supporting the reproduction of this momo meme.

And I can't be honest and say to you that I think you are smart when in fact you beliefs ion and support of Mormonism and faith based ideology. This shows that you are either stupid or dishonest or both. As they say, I can't ignore the 800 pound gorilla.

You should worry less about style and more about content. It should be “function over form” !

I honestly think that one can't say that the ideology you support is rocket science: the millennialist name of your church, the Mormon sloganeering, i.e. “when our leaders speak, the thinking has been done"
*  or [the Mormon saying that]  no answer to a prayer means that the answer is no.
The Mormon belief that your “Heavenly Father” is all-knowing whilst we have free will (free agency, as you people insist on calling it).  Those two things are mutually exclusive, logically inconsistent yet we see that you sheepishly look at your shoe laces when someone points that out.

Other non-rocket science ideas, which you support: Liahonas, pre-Columbian Jews, horses, cows, elephants, iron smelters, carriages, silk… only a really uneducated / dishonest person would support such propositions. So you think you are not STUPID? Perhaps not, but let me tell you, brother: uneducated and stupid are not apples and oranges; they are both fruits of the same continuum.

RE: “Furthermore, you created a web page designed to insult and deride me for things that I never said to you nor anyone else.”
-- That is entirely unintentional. I will re-examine that material on the web and delete everything that’s not true or is not your own words. Please let me know exactly what’s wrong so I can fix it.

RE: “if I tell you I agree with Mormonism you will publicly insult and attack...”
-- Yes, of course.

As a matter of reciprocity, let me point out that it’s insulting to have pimple-faced wet-behind the ears, uneducated mormon teenagers come to door to door to say that we have the wrong religion, that we'll rot in hell if we don't switch right away to Mormonism, which, by the way, requites a payment of 10% of gross income, requires marrying more wives (at least in the afterlife), secret hand signals, goofy protective undergarments -- and requires belief in soul-space travel. Mormonism requires belief in a zillion-plus all-powerful gods, a god’s wife Gonhorra and His heavenly harem of auxilliary wives. Wives who constantly pump out from their vaginas enough souls, zapped from the planet Kolob, into the wombs of earthlings, enough to people all the newborns. THIS is an insult, my friend! It’s insulting and dishonest to promulgate such a Weltanschauung -- and category five stupid. You are aiding and abetting a SCAM. I call it that; MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR has put it more kindly: “Religion is a mental disease”.
And you are not helping to cure that infectious deleterious meme, my dear BYU doctor.

For someone like you I think it’s worse to support religion than for an uneducated pleb / pedestrian. For someone with an education to support any of your mormon drench, the polygamy in the afterlife, the polytheism, the fundamentalism, the millennialism, the hostility to science reason and sexuality, population control… I’m sorry, Mr. BYU professor... I can't see that this can be due to anything except one or both of the following -- and I choose my words here carefully: STUPIDITY, DISHONESTY. And perhaps a smidgen of meanness. You could do better and you should do better. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Best regards,

To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: he wants to kill any white male ... it's time to answer now.

BY [ of BYU ] is against a white man ejaculating into a black woman, other men of other races are OK to cum into black women. Why? Please explain your chosen religion. He's not only "against" this, he wants to kill any white male -- not Asian, etc. ... who does this. Is you r religion STUPID or can you defend Brigham Young, Seer, Prophet and Revelator as regards to this?

Thank you kindly in advance for your reply,
-- Josh

(1848 - 1877) BRIGHAM YOUNG 2nd Prophet and President

"This is The Place""You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely,

disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings

of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man

who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain,

the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so


The above is a quote from the namesake of your learned university.  You know, of course, that every stupid thing you singed up for when you became a Mormon is fair game, yes?

Nothing happened.  So 11 days later I wrote a final letter:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:59:27 -0600
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: One who corrupts the youth

Whenever I talk with someone like you and when I accuse them of having and supporting goofy / inconsistent
[/ hurtful] beliefs like you, and when I point out some of the most goofy ones as I have done many times with you ­ whenever that happens my victim becomes a turtle-ostrich. I don’t blame you for burying your head in the sand and for not defending those stupid, indefensible stonewall-Mormon beliefs. I only blame you for being a Mormon. You are dishonest. You are smart enough to know better and that makes it worse.

And I blame you for being one who corrupts our youths and one who is responsible for increasing my tax burden because y’all don’t pay y’all’s fair share of taxes.

Good bye.
Subject: Re: One who corrupts the youth
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:05:26 -0600

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the “prophets, seers, and revelators” of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy….It should be remembered that Lucifer has a very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to ‘do their own thinking.’…When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.” (source: the official church magazine, Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354)
(which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)

In the August 1979 First Presidency Message N. Eldon Tanner titled the message “The Debate is Over” and wrote, "Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over.” (source: official church magazine after Improvement Era -- Ensign, August 1979, page 2).

You have used the 'making the weaker argument the stronger' and now 'corrupting the youth' lines. It is apt. Those were the lines falsely used AGAINST Socrates in order to have him killed. So they have been used again (by those that can't handle self-examination) against the philosophers.
If you were an honest (or intelligent) person you would post and reply to thing I actually say (or write), and we could have a debate about those things. But in all cases you attribute to me things I never said (and in many cases have said the opposite) and condemn me for things that I don't espouse, while pretending that I do. For example, you attribute to me the line: when church leaders have spoken the discussion is over ... (or something like that -- I don't remember it because I never actually said it) *; I say the opposite. The discussion is never over.
So why would it be worth anybody's time to reply to someone so dishonest as to attribute things to them that are false?
People don't stop replying to you because they can't handle debate about the truthfulness of their religion (I actually can -- but you wouldn't know). They stop replying to you because you are neither smart nor 'nice' nor honest (there is a great irony because the very three vices you accuse me of are actually true of YOU and not of ME). You simply repeatedly lie by attributing false things and therefore commit non-sequitur and straw man fallacies the whole time. It is a total waste of time and an insult to intelligence.
If you wanted to debate the truthfulness of Mormonism you could actually do so (politely) and get a lively discussion going. But you are not trying to do that. You are just another slanderous internet predator who, when he can't actually condemn someone's words, simply makes things up, claiming that the person said them, when they didn't.
To reply to your quotation (you give no source) about interracial marriage, for example, it is invalid to infer that just because Mormons believe that religious leaders are SOMETIMES inspired, that they are ALWAYS inspired. Many church leaders have said many ridiculous things. You don't know what it is actually like or what it actually means to be a real Mormon, only what you heard someone say certain things, so you falsely attribute those things to all Mormons.
Since your only goal is to slander and vilify, to share what I actually believe about the church with you would be a clear case of casting pearls before swine.
If you really want to know why I was on the radio that day, I will show you. If you can handle knowing what I stand for / against then watch both of these:
getactive.peta.org/campaign/iowa_pigfarm_abuse2:  Undercover Investigation Reveals Hormel Supplier's Abuse of Mother Pigs and Piglets   and  goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp   Cruelty to Animals: Mechanized Madness
You see, I was not using animals to promote Mormonism, I was using Mormonism to defend animals.
That is what I stand for: kindness to animals. If Mormons realize that their own religion teaches it then maybe they will change and there will be more peace on earth.
I wasn't on the radio telling the world that Mormonism is true, I was telling Mormons (and other open-minded people) that animals matter and that we must stop abusing them.
That's all.
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 04:17:34 -0600
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: Are you a Mormon?

Are you a Mormon ?
Subject: Re: Are you a Mormon?
Reply-To: name@BYU.edu
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:19:31 -0600

aren't you?
He asked if I am NOT a Mormon. Yes, I am not a Mormon. I will tell him "yes".

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:22:10 -0600
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: Re: Are you a Mormon?

 I ask him again:

Subject: Re: Re: Are you a Mormon?
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:23:06 -0600

I figured you were.

Why? Because normal atheists think
religous people are idiots but usually don't bother with them. The ones that show the kind of hostility you've shown me are usually ex-members (or current, disaffected members).

Yes, I am, as you know, a Mormon (13 years).

I understand your argument: that by even being a member of the church I am at least implicitly endorsing a lot of stupid stuff.

I got that a while back. I think it is a legitimate point, one I've heard before, but I don't think it's altogether subtle or totally persuasive.

But I heard you, and took note.

 To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: "I don't think it's altogether subtle or totally persuasive."


THANK YOU!  For saying this... "I understand your argument: that by even being a member of the church I am at least implicitly endorsing a lot of stupid stuff"...  "I think it is a legitimate point, one I've heard before, but I don't think it's altogether subtle or totally persuasive."

However, I think you are much more (worse) than only implicitly active in endorsing a lot of stupid stuff.  To the extent that state-sponsored religion is harmful, you are also endorsing harming others, for example thru forcing non-religious people to support your church.  You know that churches are tax exempt and someone has to make up the money the government needs, money which y'all weasel out of paying y'all's fair share of.

[A preposition is not something to end a sentence with, dammit.]

Religions are anti-education.  Anti-biology, Anti-genetics, Anti-sex education, and so on.  That's why religions build institutions like your BYU, for example.  And to show that church schools are inferior, I merely point out than no great scientific progress, discoveries, Nobel prizes, etc. have ever come form a BYU. 

[name],  you keep saying things like "I never said that..."  so I thought I'm going to have to start with the basics -- to establish that you are a Mormon (Yes you did say that you converted to Mormonism as an adult).  Next, I thought that I'd have to re-type again, all these tenets of Mormonism, and ask you to say, for each whether you believe in that or not. (By "believe in" I mean a short-cut way of saying that something is true.) That way, I'd kneecap your later denial of those goofy Mormon things. 

I ask you to say whether you accept these 25 things as true (Bear your testimony, bro.) :

A magic ball which, is both a compass and a means of divination.   1.  KOLOB
  2.  Liahona
  3.  Mormon pre-existence; pre-existence on KOLOB
  4.  Three Nephites
  5.  That Mormon Prophets actually demonstrated a prophesy

Jos. Smith translates
his GOLDEN Plates

  6.  Pre-Columbian iron smelters  and steel
  7.  Pre-Columbian horses
  8.  Pre-Columbian elephants
  9.  Pre-Columbian silk
10.  The golden plates
11.  The Book of Abraham
12.  The historicity of Jesus
13.  The historicity of Moses
14.  Pre-Columbian money / coins
15.  Pre-Columbian wheels

16.  That Jos. Smith could read Egyptian hieroglyphics
17.  That Jos. Smith could translate the Kinderhook Plates
18.  That Joseph Smith saw angels
19.  This is a correct Egyptian drawing:

20.  That many gods exist... millions billions of them...
21.  Praying works
22.  Blacks are the seed of Cain
23.  Polygamy (esp. in the afterlife)
24.  An afterlife and a pre-existence
25.  That Mormon underwear is more protective than ordinary underwear

... and if you say that you believe in a substantial number of these then I'd like you to say how you could have been so stupid and dishonest to sign up for Mormonism as an adult -- and be allowed to be called a philosopher.

If you object to be called stupid and dishonest, then you should say why it's not stupid / dishonest to believe or to feign belief in all these goofy Mormon things.

Next we'll work on your Wholly Babble holy bible beliefs.

I'm expecting 25 answers.  That's what I'm expecting.  What I will get "may vary".

-- Josh

   Ps:  BTW, I knew about mano a mano; I did that on purpose :)

From: name@BYU.edu
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:24:26 -0600

Sorry it has taken me a while to reply, again. I have been too busy for email lately.

I am not saying you don't make good points. You do make some good points about truth and honesty. I have thought about what you said.

The trouble, as I have mentioned, is that your demeanor makes it impossible to have an honest and open conversation with you about those points.
[They always "come back" with that.  It's not the content, it's the form!  I'm sorry, but I can't suffer fools and dishonestly gladly - Ed.]

If you want proof of my point just make note of the fact that you have already created a web page devoted to excoriating me for saying things that I don't say and for believing things I never said I believed. Therefore you are not one with whom someone can have a fair and honest conversation -- you have already proven yourself to be
 a) quite dishonest, and
 b) a mere attack machine (rather than a reasonable and understanding human being).

If I tell you that I agree with most of the things on the list then you will say that I am a dishonest idiot. If I say that I disagree with most of the things on your list then you will say that I am a dishonest idiot.
[Probably; but first I'd ask you to substantiate. - Ed] There is no room for me to benefit from the conversation.

So I guess you might as well just apply the dilemma rule of logic and decide that I am a dishonest idiot either way and leave it there. An honest and polite person might have been worthy of a sincere and honest discussion of these issues, but you have proven yourself to be neither. Therefore, as I said, the conversation would be a no win for me and would lead you to the same conclusion no matter what I said.

So I close with the reminder of the irony that you are accusing me of being dishonest. I have never claimed that you believed things that you don't or publicly posted false things about you or posted your bosses name and number (presumably for people to complain about you -- again based on false and unjustified things -- in an effort to get you fired) based on false things about you. So if your conclusion is that I am a dishonest idiot then the pot is certainly calling the kettle black, but the pot is much blacker than the kettle in this case.

Have a nice life.
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: The demeanor

I thought your long silence was because you were working up answers to my questions. But alas, no!

So I'll have to make assumptions,  And it's not fair then, for you to complain that you never said something, when I put standard Mormon words or beliefs in your mouth and head, things that the normal faith-based Mormon in your fantasy-based position would espouse.

I' must assume that you are Mormon enough to agree, believe in -- the 25 really stupid things I posited as your beliefs. Those things which you are ashamed to admit as being your religion, your beliefs.  (I would be ashamed too, but fortunately it's not my problem : ) .

By your silence I think now that you do agree and support all or most these 25 Mormon doctrines... Planet KOLOB, Liahona, Pre-existence on KOLOB, Heavenly Father's wife, Mother Gonhorra, Polygamy (at least only in the afterlife)... et cetera.

These things are really STUPID, yet you do not deny them. That means you believe them.

RE: "...saying things that I don't say and [...] believing things I never said I believed." well, you never said that you did NOT believe in the 25 things. You had / have your chance to say that you don't belive in them --these stupid Mormon Credo items... so you can say if you believe in them, some of them, most of them... what?

About my short list of only 25 STUPID Mormon points, you say that it's my "demeanor [that] makes it impossible to have an honest and open conversation..." You say that the problem is my demeanor !?

Isn't it your brain-mush that makes you believe in those 25 GOOFY Mormon things? Don't you think that -- ok, yeah -- the planet Kolob, soul-space travel and all that stupid Mormon crap, this sounds just great to me, it's true and these things I say in the name of Jesus Christ. Pay Lay Ale?

Is it your demeanor that makes you claim STUPID things like that or is it my demeanor that is a worse problem? Be honest now, my fine feathered friend, Mr. BYU professor.

RE: "If I tell you that I agree with most of the things on the list then you will say that I am a dishonest"

No. I will say that you are an idiot if you agree with Aany of the things on the list.

I say that since you WEASEL, you are dishonest... because your weaseling indicates that you are leaning towards the Mormon Kolob / Mother Gonhorra explanation.  Learn how things work, read a book, get an education!

"I have never claimed that you believed things that you don't or publicly posted false things about you or posted your bosses name and number (presumably for people to complain about you -- again based on false and unjustified things -- in an effort to get you fired) based on false things about you." [sic]

I don't know form that; I don't have a boss or any bosses.

To support Mormonism (or a religion) is dishonest and you are to be admonished and disdained for that, pretending to be an educator, whilst actually corrupting the youth, Mr. "professor".  Only a fool, a clown a charlatan, a scoundrel would do that which you do. [That's my opinion.] Only a fool would have a false religion.

Kindest regards,

Subject: Re: The demeanor
Reply-To: name@BYU.edu
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:31:06 -0600

anyone who reasons as follows: "These things are really STUPID, yet you do not deny them. That means you believe them."

Can only be seen as an idiot. So welcome to the club. And you are more so than me since I have not used such fallacious reasoning with you. (suggestion: you might try getting an education, as you put it)

Also, though I have not denied (and I have explained why) those things I have never written false things about you. Yet you do, making you less honest as well.

I am apparently stupid and dishonest by omission. You are so by commision. That makes you worse.

Enough already. If you can reason like an intelligent human being then this whole conversation is a waste of time.

Go ahead and believe that I am stupid and dishonest -- there's nothing I could do or say to talk you out of that view. You take my silence to mean that. You on the other hand, have proved it with your words.

We are done.
Subject: If you can reason then you waste your time

RE: "Unfortunately, anyone who reasons as follows: 'These things are really STUPID, yet you do not deny them. That means you believe them." Can only be seen as an idiot.'"

Yes, you are right. I was careless and stupid in what I said, sorry and THANKS!.

"And you are more so [an idiot] than I since I have not used such fallacious reasoning with you."

You say that I am a bigger idiot than you and that this is caused by your not having used fallacious reasoning.
Of course, your use or non-use of reasoning with anyone, fallacious or no, has absolutely no bearing on whether anyone is stupid, stupid.
So, Mr. BYU smarty-pants, you see that you can make mistakes too. You decided, as an adult, to join a religion which teaches that people are really space aliens and that pre-Columbian Jews inhabited the Americas. You say about yourself  "I am apparently stupid and dishonest by omission." I say no -- you voluntarily and stupidly committed Mormonism. Nobody becomes LDS from forgetting, omitting to do something.

RE: "...I have never written false things about you. Yet you do, making you less honest as well."

If you will say what and where they are, these false things, I will correct / fix / or remove the things that are false.

"If you can reason like an intelligent human being then this whole conversation is a waste of time."

Perhaps I can reason this way, perhaps not. But I fail to see how my reasoning intelligently or otherwise makes this a waste of time, teacher.

Kindest Regards,

PS: I don't think it's wise or ethical of you and your colleagues to go on the radio and explain your views about any field of knowledge / endeavour whatsoever.

Firstly y'all seem uneducated and unable to tell reality from mythology. I say this because y'all are Mormons who belive in space aliens and pre-Columbian Jews, that praying works, Mother Gonhorra, pre-Columbian iron, silk, coins, horses, that Jos. Smith could translate correctly... ad nauseam.

Secondly, I think y'all should quarantine yourselves on your "campus" to keep your infectious Mormon memes ("momes") from corrupting our youth (see http://nowscape.com/mormon/virus.htm   http://www.christianitymeme.org/ ). Here I have enclosed a partial diagram of your Mormon belief system. Anybody who believes THAT, MUST have a screw loose. Y'all ought to take the hemlock, you corrupters of our youth. That's my opinion.

Re: If you can reason then you waste your time
Monday, October 13, 2008 1:25 PM
From: "[name] "

Re: "You say that I am ..."
What I was referencing there was the idea behind the saying 'it is better to remain silent and have people wonder if you are stupid than to speak and remove all doubt' (I do not take that literally, but there are times when it is true). I was not saying that my not committing fallacies makes you stupid -- I was saying that I don't use lies and fallacies against you, but you do with me, so the justification for calling the other one stupid is not with you. It is actually not my game to try to refute someone by calling them stupid -- that tactic tends to be the province of the insecure. In this case, however, I grew weary of you calling me stupid (or some variant). I have not bothered to catalog the number of times you did so, but it was rampant, so at a certain point I decided to point out the irony. Intelligence is relative -- like chess ability. So why bother trying to make others feel crappy by calling them stupid (if they aren't it's false; if they are then it's just mean).

I am not saying you are stupid (by comparison with the average american). I have merely been trying to point out where you have called me stupid while yourself using lots of fallacious reasoning -- therefore, it's ironic.

As to whether I am educated and have read books, I assume you mean in relation to this issue (I am pretty well educated and have read many books). Here you might be surprised. I have studied almost all of the objections you have raised to Mormonism. In fact, you may have noticed that I never said that those weren't interesting and reasonable objections. I actually am capable of reasoning about such issues. I have just failed to discuss those issues with you because you have already shown your intention merely to vilify and slander me. In such a context it would be truly unwise to reveal what I really think because no matter WHAT I said you would merely slander and attack. If you spoke to me as a friend or even a nice person then you might be surprised how reasonable I am, and we might even agree about some things. That's why I said 'you have the wrong guy'. I grew up with science and believe in science. You and I are not as different as you make it sound on such matters.

As to why I joined the church despite all of those issues, ... I have already told you, but you appeared not to understand. I can only leave it there.

About false things you have written ... there are too many to mention. but you website attributed to me the quotation, something like, "when the church leaders have spoken the conversation is over"... That is false. I have never said that to you or to anyone else.

You also attribute many things about mormonism to me there that I have never said to you or anyone else. It is, therefore, an unjustified vilification, not truth.

If you wanted to be honest you would ask me what I really think and represent it accurately. To attribute things to people that they don't say or pretend to believe is dishonest. You seem to make a hobby of that, therefore have very little credibility.

Another example: you attributed to me the belief in Noah's ark when our conversations started with me explaining why that story couldn't be true. You have not shown any interest in accuracy, honesty, or politeness, and that is why I am not bothering to tell you what I really believe about sensitive issues -- because you would only misrepresent and attack me, therefore it would be a no-win for me. Do you understand?

Re: "if you can reason ..."

I simply meant "can't" here. A simple typo. If you read with what is called charity, you can understand what someone meant to say even if that person wrote it incorrectly.

In summary: writing back and forth with you is a waste of time because you don't represent me fairly or accurately; you accuse me of things that you are more guilty of (e.g. dishonesty); and you are consistently rude. Therefore the conversation has no value for me. Reasonable people seek to understand what someone says and then respond appropriately (even if they disagree). You have shown yourself to be an unreasonable person, therefore talking to you has been a waste of time.

RE:  "If you read with what is called charity, you can understand what someone meant to say even if that person wrote it incorrectly."
I think if you live with what is called charity, you can understand that it's not nice to encopurage people to go door-to-door to explain to others that they have the wrong religion and that they will burn in hell if they don't change to Mormonism right away... and give up 10% of their income, to boot.  And Don't get all prissy. You did the same to me in the last round, Mr. Bertrand Russell.

RE:  "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done"  That Mormon slogan is at the top of this web page.  You never said that. *  I'm sorry if I implied that you had used this slogan even though you (and I, indirectly) pay for the salaries of those who invented it. 

 It's a quote long attributed (1945) to your church, not to you. 

Don't get all pissy about it; you are grasping at straws.  I'm assuming everything else is ok now, as far as my putting words in your mouth.  If you think of something else let me know. 
I don't want to cheat or to trick you.  Cheating, trickery and lying about important things is in the purview of the church and of your LDS church.

RE:  "If you wanted to be honest you would ask me what I really think and represent it accurately."  I want to be honest.  I did ask you what you think about my 25 points, for christ's sake!!  Again, what do you really think?

RE: "You don't know what it is actually like or what it actually means to be a real Mormon, only what you heard someone say certain things, so you falsely attribute those things to all Mormons. [ Wed, 24 Sep 2008]"
Yes. I don't know what it "actually" means to be a Mormon.  What I attribute to Mormons are the precepts of Mormonism, although sometimes a bit more -- such as adherence to the sayings and slogans of your primate apologists -- the idea that your charlatan prophet Jos. Smith could translate the Kinderhook plates, correctly or otherwise, or any language for that matter.  Mormons believe this crap.  You are a Mormon therefore you believe this.  QED.

RE: "As to why I joined the church despite all of those issues, ... I have already told you, but you appeared not to understand."
You said it was for "SPIRITUAL (not factual) reasons" that you joined the Mormon church.  When I asked you what a spirit is you said I should  interpret spiritual reasons to mean personal / emotional reasons having little to do with views about archaeology, etc.  What a Stupid answer THAT is, Mr. BYU professor.  You say that I appear not to understand what a spirit is or what personal and emotional reasons are.  You are correct, I do not understand you -- it seems that you are using Newspeak and Doubletalk designed to obfuscate; euphemism and circumlocution.  I may be stupid, as you say, professor, but probably not so stupid that I can't understand a thing if it's explained clearly.  Be nice.

RE:  "you attributed to me the belief in Noah's ark when our conversations started with me explaining why that story couldn't be true."
No. You only said that you know someone who is very smart who could prove me wrong (my implied assertion that the Noah story is carp).

If I read you right, you want to be counted as a Mormon but also maintain that not all LDS ideology is based in fact.  This is OK so long as you don't throw out too much of your religion. So please educate me as to what is false about Mormonism. The best you could do for me would be to show me a Book of Mormon with the things that are NOT translated correctly... with these things highlighted in yellow or crossed out.  Would you be willing to do this for me? And you could do  the same for the Wholly Babble; but if you'll just do it for the BOM for now that would be appreciated.

The professor's emails are displayed in BLACK; mine are in BLUE .
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:11:35 -0700
To: name@BYU.edu
Subject: Re: honesty

At 07:32 PM 11/5/2008, you wrote:
Sorry to revive this conversation, I was kind of enjoying it being over.
But I noticed in your last email that you asked me if everything in your web page was accurate ...
Therefore I am writing to tell you that it isn't. I haven't looked at it except that one time, many weeks ago. But I assume it's the same.

---   It's not the case. You should look again -- I did fix some things that you complained about.

If that is the case then basically none of it was true -- other than your transcripts of my emails, none of what you posted was an accurate statement of what I believe in. In fact is was quite contrary to what I believe.

---   OK
What you appeared to do was to take things that presumably some church leader said someday and you deliberately made them sound as creepy and absurd as possible. I don't believe all of those things and certainly don't believe in my religion as you portrayed it.

---   OK.  One of these days you religionists ought to get together and decide what's included in your beliefs.  It's no big deal to me if you claim not to be a good Mormon, not to believe in KOLOB and all those points I mentioned before.  Just don't claim to be a Mormon, OK?

Therefore, in answer to your question, your web page is an extremely inaccurate as a portrayal about what I believe.

Here are some things I do believe in:
Kindness to animals.  That's anti-Mormon and in addition anti-Christian (Dominion over beasts)
Love of humanity.   By telling others they will rot in hell because they have the wrong religion
Personal spiritual truth -- meaning learning to grow and learn about how to live a life that creates joy. Again:  WHAT is a spirit?
 Refraining from harming sentient beings without adequte justification. That's a good one... one need not be religious or a brain surgeon to figure that out!

You may post those, because those are things I believe in.


Consider it done.

As far as the Mormon stuff, I don't believe in the things you wrote about my beliefs, and you have no evidence

---   Oh, we're EVIDENCE based now, all of a sudden!  You make me laugh.  Religion is not evidence-based, for christ's sake!  In fact, BELIEF and FAITH is something you have even if there is evidence to the CONTRARY!
 that I believe in those things other than the fact of my membership in the church (therefore any criticisms of me because of being a Mormon would apply equally to all mormons ).

---   YES.  But why would you want to be a member of something as STUPID as "The church" ?
WHAT IS FAITH?praying_hands1.jpg (5670 bytes)
1.  The belief  that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
2.  The
proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it.
3.  The
idea that something can be made true, merely by wishing it to be so.

 1. All religions are based on faith.
 2. Opposing religions are based on faith.
 3. If faith can lead to false beliefs, what value can there be in faith? 

"Faith is something you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." -- Archie Bunker
"Faith is one of the world's great evils."   -- Richard Dawkins




LDS Patent Jesus Christ®

A friend of mine is finishing law school, and she said that to post such things about a person's beliefs is defamation of character and that I could go to a judge to get an injunction against you. She said that the burden of proof falls on the poster to prove that those statements are true.

---   I don't know if they are true or not, and I don't know which statements you are talking about unless you tell me which they are; there are many 'out there' - please be specific. (Your words are cut-and-pasted in here verbatim.)  You said you are a Mormon and so it's natural for me to assume that you hold the beliefs which make you one.  What you want to deny or accept of Mormonism is up to you, and to explain of you want to.

Therefore you have posted things that are not only dishonest but illegal. I, of course, am not planning to pursue any legal action (I am not that kind of person), but I wanted you to know that saying false or unsubstantiated things to defame a person's character is not only wrong but illegal.

---   Thank you; but you knew from day one that I would share this with everyone.
The things you wrote about me were not based on anything I said

---   Yes -- nothing you said except that you said that you are a Mormon.
 and are therefore unsubstantiated. Now you have my actual statement that they are not what I believe, so you know that they are not only unsubstantiated but false.

Since the only evidence you had for attributing them to me was my membership and participation in the mormon church, why don't you just make legitimate criticisms of mormonism?

---   That's what this web page is!
To attribute false things to a specific person who doesn't hold such views just because of that person's membership in the church is strange --

---   No, it's not strange; its quite common...
just attribute those claims to those who actually propounded them.
... I bet you bore your testimony countless times!  Yes or no?  If you have rescinded your testimony I'd like to know. Yes or no?

Go ahead and make a site against mormon doctrines, if you wish, but don't make claims about me that are false or unjustified.

---   OK:  Mormonism For Dummies / Translated Correctly.Com

 ---   I forgot what were these claims... can you be specific.

I am telling you now -- the things on your page (other than the emails I sent you) were not true of me.

I hope that clears things up and that you make the appropriate corrections.


---   Yes, I will make further corrections; please make it easy for me by saying exactly what should be corrected.  Thank you kindly in advance.
I see the Mormon CEO primate-seers as akin to the tobacco industry's CEOs, who, when testifying before the US congress, said, to a man -- oh tobacco smoking? It's actually good for you!  The cock-sucking swines!

The same can be said of Mormon apologists-revelators, who say that Mormonism is actually good for you, it is not a GOOFY made-up fable at all!  Madalyn Murray O'Hair, said "Religion is a mental disease".

Mormons vs. Holocaust deniers:  Holocaust deniers deny that something that happened did not happen, and Mormons assert that something that did not happen, happened.

To: name@BYU.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:28:48 -0700
Subject: flawed thinking throughout, but light years ahead of your Mormonism nevertheless..
From: name@BYU.edu
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:28:36

Let me be clear.

You are a person that not only tells lies but creates web sites based on telling lies about people (at least me, I imagine that you do the same to others).

In your last email to me you sought to justify telling those lies about me by claiming that my Church lies.
How does the behavior of a church you despise justify you in the same behavior?

--- Stupid -- what are the lies?  Let me know and I will fix.

You also claimed that the Mormon church is mean by telling people that they will burn in hell for not believing in it. Strangely, you know full well that is not the doctrine of the mormon church.

--- I did not know that!  I thought that Mormons do indeed promulgate that.  Mormon missionaries told me that!

It is ok to disagree with something. But it is not ok to attribute false and unjustified things to people as a way of making them seem absurd.

Try sticking to truth, and where you don't know the truth thereof you must remain silent or find out the truth.

--- I'll pray harder, longer, for the truth, OK? The TRUTH is... ahem... correct me if I'm wrong... it's that Jos. Smith talked with space aliens and said that polygamy should be practiced by people, and / or by after-life, re-animated dead people on the planet Kolob -- anyway, THAT nonsense is what the church you support claims and promulgates, world-wide.

The Curse of theNEGROES...     

"I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac  if they could afford it." 
ORSON PRATT of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 (I asked you MANY times about these kinds of things and you say nothing!  It must feel like shit to be someone, a "philosopher", with intellect... to be one who can't say squat because his church would ostracize him if he said anything contrarian -- something that's actually true.)

Not being anymore honest than the Mormon church itself, it seems that you are in poor position to make judgments about 'flawed reasoning'.

----  I may be in a better position because I don't use miracles (and 'spirits') to bolster my claims, like you.

To attribute to me the doctrines of fundamentalism is quite ironic, to say the least.

--- YOU are a latter-day Mormon and I attribute, rightly so, fundamentalism, to y'all.  Not only that, I attribute present-day millemialism to you also. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

You obviously don't know me and have no basis on which to write about my religious beliefs (except that I believe in kindness to sentient beings -- something that you claimed one does not need religion to conclude -- but that is my basis for vegetarianism.

If you want to pick on mormons, leave me out of it. You don't know anything about what I believe about that.

--- You help Mormons, support them are paid by them and you are one, as you say! 

"Flawed reasoning" indeed. In fact, ironic reasoning throughout.

It appears that you did no read  BBC the article to which I sent you a link...

A reader's opinion...

From: gene*******@webtv.net
Subject: Re: Fwd: [aachat] Re: Prop. 8 & The Mormon Cult
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:37:51 GMT

In reading you exchange with the Mormon professor, I was struck with a conundrum (?) I've struggled with before, viz: how does one assess his own sanity?

It just (!) occurred to me that the problem we face when dealing with zealots of any sort is not one of intelligence but sanity. It's evident that crazy people can be very intelligent (witness "A Beautiful Mind") and while it looks to us as though they are suffering from obvious delusions and hallucinations, to them, it is we who are refusing to acknowledge "reality".

Having had to deal with some certifiable (i.e., institutionalized) crazies in my law practice, I realize the [near] impossibility of trying to get through to them with logic or any other reasoning process. But I have not (so far) accepted that reality when talking to religious types who seem on their face to be quite sane, but who, on analysis, are often suffering from profound delusions and, occasionally, hallucinations ("I have actually seen God!")

Some time back, I posited the notion that all thoughts, emotions et al. were the exclusive product of the physical brain, and that when that brain is destroyed there are no more thoughts or "afterlife" and hence no heaven nor hell, etc. I noticed that all religious people were (are) perfectly capable of refusing to think about, much less intelligently discuss, the reality of the brain, and only the brain, being the source of conscious life.

So far, the only things which seem capable of restoring sanity are drugs which have the capacity of effectively altering brain activity so as to dispel delusions and the like. So must we develop an "atheist pill" in order to successfully get our "message" across? (But then, it'd be hell trying to find anyone crazy enough to take it, wouldn't it.)

Just thought I'd add a note pointing out that there is substantial evidence (including testimony from an atheist who had suffered a severe brain injury and who found himself having episodes of accepting (feeling) religious fanatic type ideas) that religious fanaticism is a form of serious mental illness.


Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:00:05 -0700
To: gene*******@webtv.net

Hi, Gene --

Madalyn Murray O'Hair said that religion is a mental disease. It's a great slogan and it's the goddamn truth. It's just so difficult to see this as true because just about everybody has this disease! It's good that you pointed this out in my conversation with the Mormon BYU college professor. I was too severe with him, calling him stupid, etc.; he's not stupid, of course. But he is dishonest, in my opinion. And he suffers from that-there mental disease.

But it's easy to simply label this (dual-brain) phenomenon as a disease. To my mind, it's more rightly called a meme, a self-protecting and self-replicating organism which needs human brains in order to survive. I'm talking about that idea of memes which R. Dawkins invented / discovered and popularized
[ The Selfish Gene ]. Perhaps if we create, let loose and let thrive a 'religion-is-stupid-meme', then those two memes can slug it out and compete for the available brain-real-estate. How's that for a theory : )

I'm sorry for taking so long to reply, I've had a hectic month, my father died and I had to do some traveling. I'm going to add your letter to that BYU professor's web page if you don't mind.

*ERRATUM  "When out leaders speak, the thinking has been done"  is quasi-Mormon doctrine (see the LDS magazine Improvement  Era, June 1945, page 354 ).  It's a slogan Mormons have often used.  I never heard BYU  Professor Dr.  [hame] state  "When out leaders speak, the thinking has been done" But he supports those who say those silly things, financially and no doubt, "spiritually" -- ED.]

Source:  http://ww

BYU diploma held for ransom

B y  R e b e c c a   W a l s h    Tribune Columnist      03/05/2009

Run-of-the-mill excommunications get very little notice.

Ward gossip about the guy who sold drugs, the woman who left her husband, quietly fades. We only hear about the celebrities kicked out of the Mormon church -- the outspoken feminists, the skeptical historians. If anything, excommunication makes them more well-known.

Chad Hardy's mistake was becoming slightly famous.

Two years ago, Hardy published a cheeky little calendar of scantily clad return missionaries and it cost him first his church membership and then his college diploma.

BYU is holding it hostage.

"The agreement is that you will uphold the honor code. This is made very clear," says Carri Jenkins, Brigham Young University spokeswoman. "It really is a matter of integrity."

It's a contract of sorts between the school and the student. And Hardy didn't hold up his end, Jenkins says.

If we're speaking strictly in business terms, seems like BYU hasn't either.

The dispute centers on a matter of days.

A faithful Mormon boy, a returned missionary, Hardy attended the church's private university from 1999 to 2002. He left four credits -- a religion class, as it turns out -- short. Six years later, he took a Utah history course by correspondence, bought his cap and gown, walked with his class, snapped a picture with his parents. An adviser shook his hand.

But 31 days earlier, church elders had kicked him out for "conduct unbecoming of a member of the church" (really, it was about the calendar) -- a clear violation of BYU's honor code. So, four years of classes and $10,000 in loans down the drain.

It wouldn't matter if Hardy offended the code of conduct as a sophomore or the night before graduation, Jenkins says. Rules are rules . Students have to be code-worthy on graduation day.

Hardy figures he's being used to keep other students in line.

"They're dragging this out and making an example of me. And I'm letting them do it," he says. "They control by fear. I'm just allowing people to watch."

Last fall, he appealed the university's decision. A week ago, he got the letter from Dean of Students Vernon Heperi -- no diploma. Hardy refused to answer BYU's questions about his sex life, whether he drank coffee after 2002. As far as he's concerned, those details are none of their business now.

So, Heperi searched Hardy's Web site for some proof.

"I find that the material related to this calendar, as well as other material posted on your Web Site, is inappropriate in light of the teachings of the church and the applicable above-referenced Honor Code principles," Heperi wrote.

To be honest, Hardy, 32, doesn't need the diploma. He has a successful team-building business in Las Vegas. "Men on a Mission" has sold just under 20,000 copies; the proceeds are donated to charity. He's launching a pinup calendar of Mormon Vargas girls, "Hot, Mormon Muffins: Taste of Motherhood." He pays his legal bills with donations.

Still, he wants the diploma. He earned and paid for it. He's thinking of going to court.

"If I was a dishonest person, I would play their game," Hardy says. He's been told he can have the scrap of parchment if he'll return to the church.

I believe that's known as ransom.

w a l s h (at) s l t r i b . c o m       Source: sltrib.com

Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 22:19:26 -0700
From:  name@g
To: NOWSC <nowscape@yahoo.com>

Three weeks ago, my bishop withheld my
ecclesiastical endorsement [1] [2] [Dress and Grooming Standards, and the Residential Living Standards], for religious reasons, so now I too have been fired from BYU.

Is it really possible to 'enforce' integrity? Or does that make it not integrity after all. It makes the phrase 'honor code' quite ironic.

What do you think? Institutional integrity or religious McCarthyism (combined with rampant Pharisees-ism)?

Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009
Very interesting. I think he put it quite succinctly - those who behave because they are forced to behave have no integrity. Isn't there a hierarchy principle (Maslow?) that gives reasons for people choosing their actions. At one end of the spectrum is doing what is right because you have a gun at your head, and at the other end is doing the right thing because it is the correct thing to do.

Give this guy a break. Religious people can have high morals (obviously) and can think for themselves. People change. Who is to decide what issues and circumstances this guy dealt with in his life.

You must admit, I hope, that you have changed your opinion about many things, and given enough time you would change your opinion about many more. Wouldn't it be sad if we made up our minds about the issues and stayed that way for the rest of our lives? That is what fanatics do.
At 05:09 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
Some people give it serious thought and decide they are believers. This guy may be one example.
Yes. I think [name] an example of one who is a believer; a TRUE true believer --

He pays tithing and thus supports the Mormon church. He tries to defend Mormon doctrine. As to having given religion serious THOUGHT -- Mr. [name] is a true believer, for christ's sake and a fucking-"philosophy" teacher, to boot !.. I think that serious thought did not obtain, in this case, with professor [name]. But I could be wrong. Correct me if it's so, Richard.

I think that Jos. Smith gave more serious thought to matters of religion in 1820 than did Professor [name], 280 years later. And Mr. Smith got it all wrong -- Regarding that, I'm 100% sure you agree! Correct me if I'm wrong about "Professor" [name] in this regard, getting IT wrong -- that to be a Mormon is a good thing.

I'm thinking that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave international relations (and the Islamic religion a great deal of thought too, and his thought came to the conclusion that Israel... well, you know the rest. I can deduce Ahmadinejad's thoughts BELIEFS about what ought to be done with Atheists like me !

It seems you are ALWAYS wrong in defending the religious fuck-heads (or anybody in authority, actually). Why is this -- I can't understand. We A-theists are against religion no matter where it rears its ugly head.

This guy, [name], found himself trapped in a space-age FLAT EARTH Weltanschauung through no fault of his own. Now, until recently, he was a Professor at BYU, the flattest-earth university in the developed world. Why ask me to be tolerant of this? Flat-Earth-ism (KOLOB-ian soul- space travel or notwithstanding) is fucking really, really, REALLY REALLY stupid, and people who believe it should not be involved in 'educating' teenagers... yes or no? Let's do a Gedanken-Experiment and ask Socrates.

Explaining the Exodus...

 UPDATE 2011:  Name was removed

It's because of a letter (below) from James Lyons that I decided to delete this web page's subject's identity and replace all references to him with [name].  It's not because of the subject's threat of a law suit and not because James Lyons tried to shame me nor because of his name-calling.  There's no shame in saying how it is:  Being religious in this day and age *is* stupid, and it's especially so for a professor to spread such poison to our young'uns. 

He calls me 'sir'.  Being called sir is always a tip-off that someone hates you:  "Please step out of your  car sir, spread your legs an place your hands on the hood".

From: James Lyons <xameslyons@gmail.com>
Date: June 12, 2011 12:52:14 PM MDT
Subject: About [name]

I would like to have a conversation about your page about [name], but it has to be in confidence, and not published in any form.

I await your reply

James Lyons

From: James Lyons <xameslyons@gmail.com>
Date: June 13, 2011 12:42:14 PM MDT
Subject: [name]


I think of myself as a skeptic, a non believing non practicing Mormon some would call me an ex-Mormon and other would call me an atheist... who is also a close personal friend of [name]. Holding [name] up as an example of Mormonism is strange and misguided.

I submit that if you knew him in real life you would take down your page about him because of its intellectual dishonesty. I have no reason to doubt that the conversation took place as stated, but it so misrepresents [name] it approaches libel.

[Name] is not the dogmatic follower that you represent. He is a sweet, intelligent, person who wishes to do no harm, who lives a life full of contradictions.

I think the only reason he remains Mormon is because he gave his word, and he never goes back on a promise.

The blanket criticisms you give of followers seems largely correct, but not completely and not at all of [name]. He does not even slightly resemble your characterization of him.

He no longer teaches at BYU because he is too honest to remain there. I would tell you more but you made it clear that you are not a safe person to tell things too.

I hope you take down the page about him because it causes him pain. And leaving it up helps no one, it only demonstrates how useful the Internet is at spreading lies. It also tells me, and anyone who knows [name] that you sir are a horrible person... shame on you.


 From Salt Lake Tribune sltrib.com

My friend wanted a career change after 18 years as a public school teacher, so she applied to law school at the University of Utah under a program that provided some grant money for non-traditional students. The program required she apply at two law schools, so she also submitted her paperwork to BYU.

As fate would have it, she was not accepted to Utah, but was admitted to BYU.

As she went through the admissions process, she was told she needed a written recommendation from a religious leader of her official denomination or a judge confirming she was an upstanding, moral person worthy of BYU.

Because she was a baptized Mormon, albeit inactive, the religious leader would need to be an LDS bishop. So a mutual friend of ours, who was a bishop and had been a judge, signed the statement and she was on her way to law school.

After her first year, the policy changed. She needed a renewed statement, but this time it couldn't be any old bishop. It had to be the bishop of the ward in which she resided. When she approached that bishop, he told her he could not of good conscience sign the statement because she did not attend church.

So rather than throw away an entire year of law school and the financial investment she had made, she dutifully attended church every Sunday for the next two years, until she got her diploma.

Other Mormon intelligentsia:

Dr. Heinerman wrote about Mormon space aliens. He also has written extensively about health and fruit juices.  Dr. Heinerman is a BYU graduate.

Readers interested in the Mormon space aliens (inhabitants of the moon), should see "People In Space" by John  Heinerman, Ph.D., published by Cassandra Press, PO Box 868, San Rafael, CA 94915, in 1990.  ISBN 0-9459946-08-02.


        Only a fool would have a false religion.

"Faith is something you believe that nobody
in his right mind would believe."
-- Archie Bunker 


The Lost Book of Abraham

A Remarkable Claim

Director: John Grooters

The Holy Qur'an

Text, Translation & Commentary

Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Editor)

Holy Bible
King James Version:
Standard Text Edition

 Holy Bible on

The God Makers
 Ed Decker, Dave Hunt

A "must have"
for every collection!
Get one for a friend!


"I strongly feel that in politics, people don't bother to appreciate the other side's point of view," said [name], a part- time faculty member at BYU. "I don't think the Republicans at BYU understand why we have the beliefs we do. Having this club on campus is really crucial to Republicans on the opposing side to understand why we believe what we do. We're here to make sure our side gets represented."  FindArticles.com/p/articles/

A Liberal Mormon -- Liberal politics and social commentary from a distinctly LDS perspective
BYU Professor [name] on Animal Advocacy July 23, 2008 by Derek Staffanson   A

LDS Prof Says Vegetarian Diet Upholds Mormon Scripture

Jul 23, 2008 by Elizabeth Ziegler
(KCPW News) LDS faithful across the region will celebrate Pioneer Day Thursday with barbeques and rodeos. But BYU philosophy professor [name] says the Word of Wisdom that advises Mormons to abstain from drinking caffeine and alcohol also applies to eating meat and treating animals unkindly.

"The Mormon doctrine is strongly pro-animal. And it's strongly opposed to any kind of cruelty to animals, including mistreatment and killing when it is not necessary," [name] says. "Unfortunately, Mormon culture didn't quite live up to that. So there is a big discrepancy between what the gospel taught and how Latter-day Saints mostly seem to live."

[name] joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a vegetarian who believes strongly in animal rights. He is the founder of the group Mormons for Animals and heads the vegetarian club at BYU. [name] says the radical animal rights movement is off-putting to many in the predominantly conservative LDS faith. He says the most effective animal rights message is just to tell the public the truth.

"There is an ethical component, and there is a health component, and there is a spiritual component, and there is an environmental component certainly today," [name] says. "Animal agriculture is one of the most harmful things we do to our soil, to our water, to carbon emissions, to forest-clearing, it's a very harmful environmental enterprise as well, so all four of those ideas are on the side of kinder diets."

[Name] gave a presentation on the Morality of Rodeos from an LDS point of view last night at 7 p.m. at the Main City Library.
   Vegetarian and Mormon: A Contradiction?

Mormon Stories #072: Spirituality of the Rising LDS Generation Pt. 4 — “Honesty”: An interview with BYU Professor [name]
October 19, 2007 on 1:15 pm | In Faith, LDS, Mormon, Podcast, Testimony, byu, spiritual |

In part 4 of our series we interview BYU Philosophy Professor Dr. [name]. Dr. [name] was raised a “devout atheist” and then later converted to the LDS Church.

In this interview, he discusses his conversion to the church, along with his views on faith, religion, the church, teaching at BYU, and the importance of honesty and openness in all our religious endeavors.

[You Tube] The Spirrituality Doctor
[You Tube] Sunstone interview:
"I want to be a Mormon because when I loved and trusted (an invisible undetectable man in the sky)" god, he lifted me up and I felt him…"

Randi and Richard Dawkins (Baloney Detection Kit)


Find a specific title




  The Sunstone club is for disenfranchised Mormons who sense that there is something wrong with their religion but they don't quite know what.  They can't quite put their fingers on the problem -- it's the TOT phenomenon: tip of the tongue.  They can smell the stench but can't see the big disgusting turd in the middle of the floor.

I'm paraphrasing, but in essence, that's it, sadly.  "Sadly" and "unfortunately" and such -- must be added here to remain politically correct, even though this sentiment should be obvious.

 [2]  Ecclesiastical Endorsement --  It's a BIG DEAL in LDS circles...  BYU says:

All enrolled continuing undergraduate, graduate, intern, or study abroad students are required to obtain a Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement for each new academic year. Students must have their endorsements completed, submitted, and processed by the Honor Code Office before they can register for fall semester or any semester thereafter. Priority registration for the following fall semester can begin in early April. To avoid registration delays students should complete and submit their endorsements to the Honor Code Office by March 15.

If a person is applying to BYU, they should use the new student Admissions Application Part 3 endorsement. The admissions form can be found by clicking here.

If a person is applying to a BYU Graduate program, they should use Graduate Studies (GS) Form E for their endorsement. Form E can be found by clicking here.

Students shall only be endorsed by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record.

Whether on or off campus, or between semesters, all students are expected to abide by the Honor Code, which includes: the Academic Honesty Policy, the Dress and Grooming Standards, and the Residential Living Standards. Students are required to be in good Honor Code Standing to graduate.

Students must fulfill their duty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, attend Church meetings, and abide by the rules and standards of the Church on and off campus. Students who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are also expected to maintain the same standards of conduct. They are encouraged to participate in services of their preferred religion.

Form Instructions
Turn in to the Honor Code Office, 4440 WSC, or fax to (801) 422-0299.

Withdrawn Ecclesiastical Endorsement

A student’s endorsement may be withdrawn at any time if the ecclesiastical leader determines that the student is no longer eligible for the endorsement. If an endorsement is withdrawn, the ecclesiastical leader informs the Honor Code Office who then facilitates notification to both the student and the University. No confidential information or details are provided to the Honor Code Office. The decision to withdraw an endorsement may be reviewed or appealed through appropriate ecclesiastical leaders.

Students without endorsements must discontinue enrollment. Excommunication, disfellowshipment, or disaffiliation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints results in the withdrawal of the student’s endorsement.


Faith is blind   New 'miracle' counters vision loss


 Any inaccuracies here will be corrected if brought to my attention.