BAD EGGS

This is a quick post as sort of a culmination of some of my recent posts on religious figures leaving their religion and also the various inconsistencies and anachronisms of Mormonism. The first video is a talk given by Grant Palmer (a contributor for mormonthink.com) who was a Mormon seminary teacher for several years and now writes books on the problems of Mormonism, and, most interestingly, has "insider information" on various Mormon higher-ups who no longer believe in the church:

Next is Ken Clark who was a Director for one of the Mormon Church's CES Institutes (similar to seminary, but for adults instead of teens) for over 27 years. In the following seminar he talks about the dilemma he found himself in when, as a CES director, Church authorities told him to be dishonest about the Church's history so as to avoid challenging the faith of his students:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

Part 8:

Part 9:

Part 10:

THE ATHEISM TAPES

Last summer I stumbled upon the following videos on Netflix (of all places) and I have been meaning to post them for quite a while. The videos, aptly called "The Atheism Tapes", are extended conversations between seasoned British actor Jonathan Miller (host) with various scientists, philosophers and even a British theologian from a BBC program on atheism (the introduction explains this more). Enjoy.

British Philosopher Colin McGinn:

American Physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg

American Philosopher Daniel Dennett:

American Playwright Arthur Miller (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible):

British Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins:

British Theologian Denys Turner

THE SECRET OF NIHM

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that has happened in politics or religion."

—CARL SAGAN


 

Some time ago, Mormon scholars realized that the Hill Cumorah, where the Angel Moroni showed Joseph Smith the gold plates which later became the Book of Mormon, does not match the geographical description given in the Book of Mormon for that hill. This has caused a great deal of backpedaling since many church leaders had claimed that this hill was, in fact, the same hill mentioned in the Book of Mormon. They even hold a pageant at the Hill Cumorah every year (see left). This is significant because critics of the Church often say that there is no verified archaeological findings in support of the Book of Mormon, as I have mentioned before, and the fact that there is seemingly no geographical location in the Americas which matches the description in the Book of Mormon only verifies the counter-claim that Joseph Smith made it all up. So let's go over some of the responses Mormon apologists use in rebuttal.

First, with regards to the Hill Cumorah, they claim that there must be a second hill with the same name somewhere else in the Americas. This is odd when you consider that Joseph Smith got the name "Cumorah" from the Angel Moroni who, according to the Book of Mormon, is said to have buried the gold plates at the Hill Cumorah after watching his civilization fall at a hill called Cumorah (it's confusing, I know). Why would the Book of Mormon describe a battle at one Hill Cumorah and have Moroni bury the plates at another Hill Cumorah? Why didn't Moroni clarify this to Joseph Smith at the time? This argument seems to be nothing more than spin and desperation.

So, where did the Nephites and Lamanites of the Book of Mormon live? The general consensus of Mormon scholars is the Yucatan Peninsula in Mesoamerica (see left). It does seem to match some of the geographic descriptions offered in the Book of Mormon. But some such descriptions are a bit of a stretch, which is why some Mormon scholars don't agree with the consensus. Despite any geographic similarities with the Book of Mormon, there are still no archaeological findings in that region which support the claims in the book. Even their best guess is still speculative and tenuous. Isn't it odd that the "Land Northward" is west, the "Land Southward is south east, the "East Sea" is north and the "West Sea is south?

Skeptics have offered another answer. The map to the left contains many of the cities and land marks described in the Book of Mormon and in a way which does not stretch the meanings of words like "north, south, east and west." In fact, compared to the Yucatan Peninsula, this map even matches with the previous claim that there is only one Hill Cumorah.





Here is the same map with today's cities and land marks. It is the same region as the original Hill Cumorah, which is where Joseph Smith grew up. Pay particular attention to the names of the cities and land marks of the two maps. Do you notice any similarities? That's right. Many of the names used in the Book of Mormon are altered names of places near Joseph Smith's home in Palmyra, New York. Mormon Think explains this further and includes a chart of many such altered names, such as "Lehigh" to "Lehi," "Antrim" to "Antum," and "Kishkiminetas" to "Kishkumen." As these maps indicate, the locations of the real places match fairly well with the locations described in the Book of Mormon.

So, which is more convincing, that there are two hills called Cumorah, Moroni hiked between the two hills (a few thousand miles apart) with the gold plates, and the Book of Mormon peoples lived in the Yucatan peninsula despite no archaeological evidence, or that Joseph Smith uncleverly altered names of places near his home (and the first Hill Cumorah) as he made up a tall tale?

But wait, there's more. Mormon apologists like to offer the following as archaeological "proof" for the Book of Mormon. The beginning of the Book of Mormon describes the journey of the family of a man called Lehi from Jerusalem to the Americas. During this trek, a man named Ishmael dies near a place called "Nahom." And wouldn't you know it, archaeologists have found Nahom in Yemen exactly as described in the Book of Mormon, which, of course, Joseph Smith could not have known about, thus proving--once and for all--he was a prophet of god. Or so they say...

Actually what happened was they found a tablet near a cemetery in Yemen with the Hebrew letters "NHM" inscripted on it (see left). Ancient Hebrews did not include vowels when writing so we do not know which vowels are intended on this tablet. But there are some 25 or so different combinations which make actual Hebrew words, one of which is "Nachom" (similar to "Nahom" but a bit of a stretch grammatically). As far as I can tell, "Nahom" is not a real word in any language. Furthermore, the region in which this tablet was found is call "Nihm," which is a different word entirely. Mormon Think delves further into grammatical issues with the word "Nahom" as well as other supposed Old World words in the Book of Mormon. At any rate, which is more likely, that Joseph Smith really got it right and out of the couple of dozen possible words the letters "NHM" really mean "Nahom," or that the letters are merely the name of a nearby region called "Nihm" and Joseph made the story out of whole cloth?




BONUS MATERIAL:

Here are some Mormon apologists and scholars attempting to tie "Nahom" to the Book of Mormon as evidence. Notice how they don't talk about the letters "NHM" and other possible vowel combinations, and instead assume it means "Nahom." Is this is a fair portrayal, or leading the evidence? Also, notice that one of the Arab scholars actually pronounces it "Nihm" instead of "Nahom."

DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM

I have been wrestling with a few topics over the past few days. And by "wrestle" I mean I can't decide which topic to comment on first. So, let's start with a fairly easy one: mormonthink.com. This is a great resource for those interested in a different perspective on the Mormon Church. The site is a collaborative effort from many people, some active Mormons, some former Mormons, and some unaffiliated critics. The primary purpose is to present as many perspectives on controversial topics concerning the founding of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon as possible.

I understand that some active Mormons would opt to not view the site as they may be exposed to "anti-Mormon literature" (aka "anything which sheds an unfavorable light onto Mormonism"). To this I say, the truth has nothing to hide. What does your refusal to read anything contrary to your point of view say about your character (or your point of view)? If your beliefs are true, then a thorough examination--even by critics--should affirm your views. Avoidance of sensitive topics only breeds speculation and ignorance.

Now that I have that throat-clearing out of the way (cough), let's get into the meat of Mormon Think. The site has some great information on the founding of the Church and I highly recommend you check out their stuff, but what really interests me are the scientific challenges of the Church.

Martin Harris was one of Joseph Smith's scribes for the Book of Mormon and one of Smith's greatest supporters, as shown in the following clip from South Park:

All About Mormons
Get More: SOUTH
PARKmore...

I don't want you to take this clip too seriously as a historically accurate account, but it does illustrate Harris' loyalty to Smith, and more to the point, how Mormons can spin events to appear more favorable to their Church. This is very common, not just for Mormons. I recall another such incident involving Harris which I was taught in church which has similarly been twisted as a faith-building story.

The story goes that Martin Harris had transcribed some of the characters from the Book of Mormon onto a paper and had them verified by a collegiate linguist, Charles Anthon, who allegedly "stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I [Harris] then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct."

Harris' account continues that Anthon inquired about where the characters came from and Harris admitted to him that an angel had given Joseph Smith gold plates with an ancient record written in reformed Egyptian. Anthon then withdrew his previous statement, tore up the certificate and denounced the supernatural explanation offered by Harris. According to Mormons, this story illustrates the oppression of the Church by scholars (as predicted in Isaiah) who seem to have had a vested interest in denouncing Smith as a fraud, instead of admitting he was divinely inspired. This was standard procedure for Mormons whenever anyone came out against Smith (for fraud, treasure hunting, etc.) denouncing such claims as slander from the wicked. But Mr. Anthon did not slander Smith or Harris based on his account, which you can read here. Anthon simply claimed that Smith was taking advantage of the gullible Harris, and called Mormons "fanatics." Given the circumstances, who can blame him?

This is neither here nor there, however, since we still have the paper with the writings of "reformed Egyptian" from the Book of Mormon (see left). And what do current scholars say about it? It is nonsensical gibberish.

Even if Harris was telling the truth about Anthon tearing up the certificate in a fit of anti-superstitious rage, we can examine the characters today and see if they really are "Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic" characters, as claimed. Modern-day Egyptologists clearly say the characters are fake, or in the words of Egyptologist Klaus Baer, "doodlings." Furthermore, since the characters are not authentic, any claims by Harris that Anthon said they were translated correctly are either false on the part of Harris or Anthon didn't know what he was talking about. However, Anthon's account that the characters "consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns ... containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways" seems consistent with the views of modern scholars, therefore, it seems Harris was the one being dum dum dum dum dum.

This is not an isolated case. There are other accounts of Joseph Smith attempting to translate ancient texts and failing miserably. Arguably, the most important instance of Smith's failure as a translator is the one that actually made it into Mormon scripture. The Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price (part of the the Mormon canon) is claimed to be a translation by Joseph Smith of facsimiles found on some ancient papyri (see left). According to Smith, this picture depicts Abraham being sacrificed in Egypt and an angel saving him. The jars below the altar are idols of various Egyptian gods. And what does this facsimile actually depict according to real scholars? Embalming. Yup, that's it. It is a picture of a man named Hor being prepared for burial. And the idols of Egyptian gods beneath the "altar" are, in fact, idols of gods, just not the gods Smith claimed. There are more examples on Mormon Think, and again, I highly recommend checking out their stuff.

Do I think any of this will de-convert active, believing Mormons? No. I had heard about the contradictions of the facsimiles before I left the Church and I recall my attitude of "well, we don't know how it all works, but it does, because the Church is true." It is shallow and intellectually dishonest to hold such a view. But many hold it, and it seems to be the very basis of religious apologetics.

Mormon groups like fairlds.org and the Neil A Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship are similarly dishonest and are engaged in the most biased form of pseudo-science. They start with the conclusion that the Mormon Church is true and then seek out information to affirm this and explain away through the most dizzying of spin tactics anything which might discredit the Church. They are neither fair, nor scholarly.










BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Mormon apostle Jeffrey R. Holland (whom I met once outside of a men's room in Eastern Europe--no joke) claiming that the Book of Mormon is true while denouncing all the arguments I gave above in one fell swoop of pathos. Tell me, which is more compelling, an appeal to emotion and a claim that Joseph would not die for a lie, or actual scholarly criticism? Do you agree with Mr Holland that the arguments I offered above or others offered on Mormon Think are "frankly pathetic answers?" Is believing Joseph's story because "there is no other answer" anything less than an argument from ignorance?

SNAKE OIL

"When the masses become better informed about science, they will feel less need for help from supernatural Higher Powers."
—Fransico Ferrer Guardia





"The Music Man" is one of the few musicals I actually liked as a kid. As a budding musician, the song "76 Trombones" became very appealing to me. The story itself is about a man who travels the country scamming innocent people out of their money--a classic traveling salesman and con-artist. This is a common theme in various pieces of literature and film about that era. Remember, this was a time when science was not very widely accepted or understood, so anyone who dangled a cure for common or particularly serious ailments could very easily find someone willing to bite. Consider the following clip from "Sweeny Todd":

The claims offered by the young boy that the elixir could stimulate the growth of hair follicles is very appealing to balding older men. If it were true it is very plain to see the benefits of using it. But what if someone offers a cure for something that is not as apparent as baldness? Well, then the salesman would need to convince the audience that the ailment exists before they can proscribe a cure for it. This could be something seeming harmless, like a mole. But if that salesman is successful in associating fear with that mole, they can convince some that they need his elixir. This is precisely what conservative Christianity has done with masturbation.

When discussing pornography before, I briefly touched on masturbation at the end and mentioned a quote by Former Attorney General Joycelyn Elders, in which she advocated teaching people to use masturbation as a way of controlling sexual desires and STDs, etc. I also mentioned that she was subsequently fired from her position as Attorney General for advocating such a view and condemning advocacy and government funding of "abstinence only" sex education programs.

The apparent taboo in America surrounding masturbation most assuredly stems from the rise of conservative Christianity in the early 1900s. This was before pornography was wide-spread and Christian pastors needed something to blame for the rise of [insert anything Pastors don't like] in society. Scapegoating, it seems, is quite popular among religious folks; compound this with the innate desire to protect our children and pastors can get us to hate just about anything--even natural desires.

If you think about it, condemning something as natural and commonplace as masturbation is the perfect con job. Everyone has a desire for sexual release--this is the sex drive. If a church tells their congregants that such a drive is immoral, or that it leads to immorality, then they might instill in the minds of their followers a constant need to repent, thereby making the church absolutely necessary. It's brilliant. It's like an elixir which only cures baldness for a couple of days at a time, thus perpetuating the need to continually buy more bottles.

Aside from the obvious moral implications of such a farce, there are more practical concerns. What if your audience can't afford your elixir? What if it doesn't work for even a couple days at a time? Applying this reasoning to the condemnation of masturbation, what if someone cannot stop doing it? The message from the churches is that they are sinning and according to the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon, sexual sins are almost as egregious and damning as murder. This creates a cycle of guilt and shame associated with something natural, and, at least for some, nearly impossible to stop completely. Most people will eventually relapse, and when they do, they have to turn to the church to sell them more elixir.

So, let's examine what the Mormon church has to say about masturbation and compare it to what actual professionals say. According to lds.org (an official Mormon website), this is what the Mormon church has to say about masturbation [emphasis added]:

"One example: masturbation is considered by many in the world to be the harmless expression of an instinctive sex drive. Teach your children that the prophets have condemned it as a sin throughout the ages and that they can choose not to do it. Throughout childhood, boys and girls have touched their own genitals frequently to wash and to dress. This is a behavior that usually has the same meaning as keeping one’s feet warm in the winter, enjoying a swim on a hot day, or scratching an itch. We ought to be friendly to our bodies and appreciate the body’s marvelous range of senses. This innocent touching is not the kind of behavior warned against by prophets through the ages. The sin of masturbation occurs when a person stimulates his or her own sex organs for the purpose of sexual arousal. It is a perversion of the body’s passions. When we pervert these passions and intentionally use them for selfish, immoral purposes, we become carnal.

"Masturbation is not physically necessary. There is already a way by which the male system relieves excessive spermatic fluid quite regularly through the nocturnal emission or wet dream. Monthly menstrual flow expels the female’s egg and cleanses the womb. For both sexes, physical or emotional tensions can be released by vigorous activity. Thus, in a biological sense, masturbation for either gender is not necessary. In a gospel sense, it is a sin: “Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of His Church regardless of what may have been said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower. Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice” (Spencer W. Kimball, Love Versus Lust, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 5 Jan. 1965], p. 22)."

Here is a health site which advocates healthy masturbation: "For many young people, masturbation is an opportunity for private sexual exploration before deciding to engage is sexual activity with another person. It is also considered the safest form of sex in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

An article from Men's Health outlines 5 positive benefits from masturbation, and says the following about cancer (mildly graphic): "It prevents cancer. A 2003 Australian study found that men who ejaculated more than five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer. Disease-causing toxins build up in your urogenital tract and when you rub one out, you flush the bad guys out of your system, says Brame."

It is clear that the church sees masturbation as sinful, which to an active Mormon means more than a doctor advocating it. But because of the shame associated with masturbation and the cycle of guilt this causes, more Mormons are speaking out against the Church's official stance on the matter. Several Mormon health professionals have been particularly helpful in generating awareness of the problem.

Here is one I happened upon today which both condemns the shame culture the Mormon church has created, and addresses the apparent conflict she faces as a mental health professional with an obligation to treat patients according to the very best science, yet is told by her church that it is wrong. She says:

"Through the past 15 years, I have spoken to numerous bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, and high councilmen attempting to understand an official stance on this matter. What I have come to understand is the answers I received largely depended on which leader you approach and what their past experience has been with leaders of their own. This type of non-directive nuance on such an important matter is not okay with me. Especially when within the last 6 months I’ve known of two LDS adolescent boys referred to the addictions program offered by the church because they masturbate 1-3 times a week and three LDS adolescent clients tell me they believe their masturbatory behavior to be a sin next to murder!!! If this is what we are teaching our youth – then we are emotionally abusing them. And it needs to stop. I will no longer be a compliant witness to this type of psychological assault. I know my language is strong and I intend it to be. The numerous stories I could share about masturbatory shame run in the thousands and I find it unnecessary, harmful and life altering.

"...Sexual shaming has had a long history within religious paradigms – with disastrous results for many. I am no longer willing to participate in any way, shape or form with such shaming."

The Mormon church isn't offering a cure for a real disease. As with reparative therapy for homosexuality, they are condemning a natural urge and claiming they have the cure. No matter how much shame they dump on you, don't buy the snake oil.

SOME GUY NAMED 'STAN'

"It says here you worship some guy named 'Stan.'"
"Oh, that's a typo. It should read 'Satan.'"
--Family Guy





Growing up, my siblings and I raised various kinds of animals. Dogs, cats, chickens, fish--pretty much anything to which our parents would say 'yes.' Although the list of the types of animals we were allowed to keep was short, we could have pretty much as many as we cared to feed. At one time we had 2 dogs, a litter of puppies, 2-3 cats, a litter of kittens, a 50 gallon tank full of fish and roughly a dozen chickens. We could easily accommodate so many animals on our 2 1/2 acre lot of mostly woods and an open field (large for a metropolitan area).

Every spring at least one animal would give birth, usually our golden retriever or one of our cats. This was great fun as a kid, as we were responsible for caring for the litters of puppies and kittens until they were old enough to be given away. This was before groups like PETA and the Humane Society influenced changes on how animals should be distributed, so we would just take a large cardboard box full of young animals to a local grocery store and give them away for free to anyone passing by. This made for a fun-filled afternoon. That is, until we met some woman who was paranoid of Satanic cults...

According to this well-dressed, middle-aged, rambling housewife, Satan is real and Satanic cults in the area collect animals such as ours for ritual sacrifices. Keep in mind she said this to a group of young children with a box full of kittens. We were more confused than afraid, and upon realizing that she wasn't going to leave until we did, we piled into our car and left her on the side walk. Needless to say, we stopped going to grocery stores and started giving them away at our home.

Fear of cults is nothing new, as indicated by this FBI report in 1992, which did an extensive study into cases of reported ritualized abuse supposedly associated with Satanic cults. Here is an excerpt from their findings:

"The amount of "ritual" child abuse going on in this country depends on how you define the term. One documented example of what I might call "ritual" child abuse was the horror chronicled in the book A Death in White Bear Lake (Siegal, 1990.) The abuse in this case, however, had little to do with anyone's spiritual belief system. There are many children in the United States who, starting early in their lives, are severely psychologically, physically, and sexually traumatized by angry, sadistic parents or other adults. Such abuse, however, is not perpetrated only or primarily by satanists. The statistical odds are that such abusers are members of mainstream religions. If 99.9% of satanists and 0.1% of Christians abuse children as part of their spiritual belief system, that still means that the vast majority of children so abused were abused by Christians.

"Until hard evidence is obtained and corroborated, the public should not be frightened into believing that babies are being bred and eaten, that 50,000 missing children are being murdered in human sacrifices, or that satanists are taking over America's day care centers or institutions. No one can prove with absolute certainty that such activity has not occurred. The burden of proof, however, as it would be in a criminal prosecution, is on those who claim that it has occurred."

Here are a couple clips illustrating this further. First is a clip from "Criminal Minds" (btw, that's Inigo Montoya from "The Princess Bride" in the back of the plane):

And one from "Penn and Teller: Bullsh!t" (explicit):

In fact, no cases of ritualized killings have ever been substantiated, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure if anyone has ever killed another human being in the name of Satan. Animals, maybe. But people? It doesn't seem so. According to some people, the human sacrifice rituals described in "The Satanic Bible" do not involve any physical harm, but rather inflict a hex or curse on an individual who "by his reprehensible behavior, practically cries out to be destroyed." This sounds similar to the use of Voodoo dolls as a means of punishing those deserving of punishment. It is nothing more than ritualized vigilante justice.

Here are a few more references on Satanic cults and violence:

Satanic ritual abuse (wiki)

Satanic Panic (book)

Let's shift gears a bit (you know where this is going, don't you?). In the New Testament, all 4 Gospels describe the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. I assume this is common knowledge, so I won't bother referencing the verses. The commonly accepted reason for such a sacrifice is to atone for the sins of mankind so that we may go to heaven. In the Jewish faith, according to the Law of Moses, the Israelites also atoned for their sins by sacrificing animals (i.e. goats, lambs). Furthermore, similar to Christianity, the Muslim tradition also stems from Judaism and accepts sacrifices described in the Old Testament, such as Abraham and Isaac (although, they would say Abraham and Ishmael). There are nearly 2 billion Christians, 1 billion Muslims, and 14 million Jews in the world today--all of whom accept some form of human or animal sacrifice. So, why are they opposed to other religious groups doing the same thing? Despite the fact that no Satanic ritualized killings have ever been substantiated, it would be hypocritical for Christians to oppose the practice if a case is ever confirmed, since their own theology demands it.

Consider this: according to Christianity, the only confirmed case of human sacrifice between god and Satan is that of Jesus Christ. Judaism has killed at least as many animals over the last few thousand years as even the most aggressive Satanic cults. Not even Anton LaVey, author of "The Satanic Bible," would have condoned the account of Abraham and Ishmael. It seems to me, at least with regards to the question of ritualized killings and abuse, Satanism is on better moral ground than all 3 of the great monotheisms. As I asked in a previous post, between god and Satan, how do you know god is the good one?

DEAFENING SILENCE

"The evidences which this generation have of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and of the existence of the plates, are far greater than the evidences which they have for the truth of any of the books of the Bible."
--Orson Pratt

"Pics or it didn't happen."
--Facebook colloquialism





Imagine a battle field with millions of combatants, 2 million of whom are already dead. Men, women, and even children are armed to the teeth with swords, shields and armor. As the battle wages, every single person is killed except for 100 of the strongest warriors on both sides. Think of the carnage strewn across the field. Millions of bodies clad with heavy military gear baking in the sun. The last hundred or so continue to fight until only their commanders are left. One commander beheads the other and he slumps to the ground in exhaustion. Imagine this is in a children's book.

This is the story of the Jaredites as described in Ether 15, in the Book of Mormon. It sounds over the top; but is that enough to dismiss it? After all, the story of D-Day at the start of WWII is also pretty over the top and equally gory. So, how would you determine if the Jaredites really did kill each other in this way?

Before I get into this by way of archaeology, I want to recap a previous post where I discussed the argument: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I qualified it by adding: "Except when you should find evidence." I also want to touch on something from a Mormon apologist website, fairlds.org, where they mention that archaeological findings cannot be used to prove stories mentioned in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. I agree; New York is not evidence of Spiderman. But, by the same token, contrary evidence suggesting that New York did not exist at the same time as Spiderman would call the historicity of the comics into question (oh ya, I went there). Therefore, while I agree that archaeological evidence is not enough to say with certainty whether the Jaredite story is true, we can use it to determine the likelihood of it happening, and whether archaeology supports the story, or gives reason to withhold belief until further evidence is presented. 

In the case of the Jaredites, Ether (the author of the story) reports that nearly 2 million people died before the final battle. This means that if the story is true, somewhere on the American continents is an old battle field with piles of dead bodies, or perhaps a mass grave which would put the Nazi's to shame. Also, each of the combatants (men, women and children) were equipped with weapons and armor. So, somewhere nearby should be a cache of this gear, unless it was stolen by another tribe. That's a lot of gear. Millions of swords and armor. And in Ether 7:9, these swords are described as being "made out of steel." So, to recap, if the Jaredite story is true, we should find millions of bodies and millions of steel swords and armor.

If such a cache were found, it would likely be the archaeological find of the century, as it would completely change our current understanding of the archaeological record of North and South America. Not to mention, it would give credence to the claims of the Book of Mormon. As fairlds.org points out, it would not be conclusive evidence, but it would certainly support the claims nonetheless.

Currently, archaeology shows that Native Americans did not have steel, or even iron swords. A few tribes have been known to dabble with copper. But this is not consistent with the claim that the Jaredites used a furnace to smelt millions of iron and steel swords. In fact, no steel has ever been found in the Americas dating before Columbus--centuries after the Book of Mormon is said to have been written (2200 BC - 400 AD). We have iron from every other colonized continent in the world from roughly that same time period, but nothing from America. This is peculiar since iron and steel erode very slowly.

The earliest known use of iron was around 2000 BC, but mass use didn't start until 1200 BC in select areas. And we have archaeological evidence of this. And yet nothing turns up anywhere on the American continents for at least another 2500 years. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Native Americans are among the few civilizations who did not go through the iron age--let alone used steel (this is one reason the Europeans described them as "savages"). All weapons found so far have been made of either wood, stone or animal bone; which, aside from the stone, deteriorate much more quickly that metal. How can this be? Perhaps a better question is, "How can this be if the Book of Mormon is true?" Is god hiding the evidence? Is he purposely making it look like the Book of Mormon isn't true just to try your faith (similar to Young Earth Creationists and Dinosaur fossils)? Does this make any sense?

The fact is, there is virtually no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon stories; yet, if the Nephite, Lamanite, and Jaredite civilizations were as vast as described, then we should find considerable evidence. I have been focusing primarily on the Jaredites, steel, and iron, but there are other similarly unsupported claims in the Book of Mormon, as outlined in this wiki-link, which says:

"Critics and supporters disagree as to whether archaeological findings support or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Some Mormon archaeologists and researchers claim various archaeological findings such as place names, and ruins of the Inca, Maya, Olmec, and other ancient American and Old World civilizations as giving credence to the Book of Mormon record. Critics and non-Mormon archaeologists disagree with these conclusions, arguing that the Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are not substantiated by the archaeological record between 3100 BC to 400 AD in America, including the ass, cattle, horses, oxen, domesticated sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, silk, steel, swords, scimitars, chariots and other elements. Further, scientists note that genetic studies show that Amerind peoples are most likely of Asiatic origin,which appears to conflict with the Book of Mormon account of their ancestry. Mormon archaeologists deal with the genetics problem in a variety of ways."


To me this is very telling; but in an effort to be fair, I have to admit that it does not necessarily mean Mormonism is false. But it does seem unlikely, and until supporting evidence emerges, belief in Mormonism should be withheld.

As I see it, the evidence so far seems consistent with the contrary claim, that the Book of Mormon was written by a man who knew little to nothing of the ancient Native Americans, and lied about having an ancient record with a divine means of interpreting it. Furthermore, to claim that ancient Native Americans had access to advanced technology (i.e. smelting iron and steel) without any evidence, is like claiming Australian Aboriginals had sports cars and Internet before the English discovered them. Pics or it didn't happen.

LEGEN--WAIT FOR IT--DARY

"Ya know, if you think about it, the Jews kind of deserved the Holocaust, because they killed their savior."
--Person sitting behind me at a BYU concert



I have a feeling this one might get a little heavy, so let's start light. Here is Mr. Deity and the Promised Land:

Several months ago, back before Netflix totally screwed up their DVD policy, I watched a BBC film called "God on Trial." Set during the Holocaust, a group of Jews in Auschwitz awaits execution and discusses the nature of their covenant with god, as his chosen people. A lengthy debate about the Exodus and Moses, and taking over the Promised Land, ensues; ultimately deciding that god has failed to uphold his end of the agreement. It was interesting to see a Jewish perspective on the Exodus. Over the years I have heard many different rationalizations attempting to validate the genocide of the Canaanites by the Jews, ranging from, "the Canaanites had it coming," to "god was testing the Jews' loyalty." An emphasis is usually placed on context, as if there exists a context which could possibly make genocide OK.

I think it is safe to say that if such a grotesque act of war were to take place today, we would do everything we could to stop it. Oh wait, that is exactly what happened during WWII as the Nazis attempted to take over Europe, and kill all the Jews in the process. This is one of the more poignant points made in "God on Trial," as one of the men postulates that the Holocaust they are experiencing is justice for all the tribes they wiped out. Sometimes irony kills your family.

Now, I'm not saying the Jews deserved the Holocaust--far from it. In fact, there is good evidence that the story of Moses and the Exodus never happened. Besides, Hitler said many times that the Jews deserved to die because they killed Jesus. And I don't feel that the "sins of the fathers carry on to the sons." If this were the case, then I would be morally responsible for the deaths of many slaves and Native Americans during the 1700's. No, this is absurd. But one has to ask oneself, whether the stories of the Exodus, in light of the subsequent Holocaust, make more sense as being literally true, as Mormons and many fundamentalist Christians profess, or that the whole thing is just a fantastic legend or myth passed down many generations from a primitive, ignorant tribe of marauding Bronze-Age Palestinians?

C.S. Lewis once said ("Mere Christianity") that Jesus Christ must be either a lunatic, a liar or the Lord. Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist Experience added a fourth option: Legend. One of the tried and true methods of getting people to remember important stories is through embellishment, making them more interesting and memorable (Ya know, like Robin Hood). Having left the Mormon church, I have reconsidered my entire world view, and I am no longer convinced that the stories in the Bible or the Book of Mormon are true. They make more sense, rather, as fables and traditions. 

Is it more likely that god actually gave the Israelites Manna from Heaven, or that it is a myth of some Jewish ancestors? Is Jesus more like Daniel Boone or Paul Bunyan? How does a believing Christian deal with the competing creation myths of the Hindus or Native Americans? How can you say that the stories in the Bible are more true than the Odyssey, if they are equally over the top and lack any evidence whatsoever? How does faith justify believing absurdities?

BILLION WITH A "B"

As I have mentioned before, I am not much of a reader. But there are lots of books out there which have caught my attention, and if I were to have a "to-read" list, they would be on it. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "Hitch 22" by Christopher Hitchens, "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, as well as the "Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" by Bobby Henderson, would all have to be included in this invisible, immaterial list. Interestingly, all of these authors have something in common--they were all influenced by Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan (1934-1996) was an astrophysicist who wrote many science books and produced many documentaries about the cosmos and rational thinking. Challenging cultural norms and traditions, he was among the most outspoken atheists prior to 9/11. And yet you wouldn't think it to listen to his voice.

Pale Blue Dot:

On god:

On evolution:

And, just for fun, the real reason for his fame:



Lastly, one of my favorite refutations of a supernatural immaterial god, which is outside of space and time (a common view in mainstream Christianity), is from one of Sagan's last books, "The Demon-Haunted World." This excerpt illustrates how one should rationally approach outlandish or otherwise extraordianry claims:

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

“Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle—but no dragon.

“Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

“Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

“Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

“Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.” And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative—merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons—to say nothing about invisible ones—you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages—but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”—no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it—is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

ISLAMABAD

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Let me start by defining a phobia as an irrational or unjustified fear. Let me follow by declaring there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

In the late 80's, Sir Salman Rushdie wrote a book of fiction called "The Satanic Verses." In the Muslim faith the satanic verses refer to passages in scripture which are deemed to be incorrect. Therefore, the prophet Muhammad is presumed to have been under a misapprehension cause by Satan when writing these passages. Rushdie's book was declared blasphemous and a violation of free speech by an Ayatollah (Muslim leader) in Iran and a Fatwa (death sentence by any Muslim so inclined) was ordered. Although Rushdie never was harmed, thanks to police protection, several people associated with the book's publishing (mostly translators) were attacked and some were killed.

To illustrate the impact this Fatwa has had, consider this endorsement made by Cat Stevens (now Yusef Islam), writer of the classic rock song "Peace Train:"

In August of 2004, Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh directed a short film written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a woman raised in Islamic Somalia) about abuse of women in Islam, called "Submission." In November of 2004, Van Gogh was stabbed to death mid-day in the middle of a street in Amsterdam. Ayaan, whose life was threatened in a letter stuck with a knife on Van Gogh's body, has been in hiding ever since.





Tell me if you think this admittedly provocative exposé calls for vigilante murder?

In 2005, a Danish newspaper published a dozen cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad. This "blasphemy" was so egregious for the devout that after the initial protests and political bullying by Muslim leaders in Denmark were ignored, months of civil unrest escalated to fire-bombings at Danish embassies in various countries and hundreds of deaths.

All the while, in America--the birth place of free speech--publications showing these cartoons were pulled from the shelves of bookstores and the satirical American cartoon "South Park" had their first ever banned episode (episodes 200, 201; I am told these are available on DVD with Mohammad replaced by a teddy bear; also, the Scientology episode was reinstated after being briefly pulled for legal reasons, so it doesn't really count as "banned").

As I have shown, Muslims have done everything they can to make us fear them. In fact, I'm fairly certain a quick google search will show that many Muslim leaders have said this outright. They don't hate western culture because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor do they hate us for supporting Israel. They hate us because they view free speech and free expression as threats to their religion and world view. It is just a matter of time until one of these hate-filled Muslim leaders succeeds in acquiring an atomic weapon, as promised.

There is nothing paranoid or irrational about fearing someone who has attacked and has promised to attack again with exponential force. "Islamophobia" is a meaningless word made-up by moderates who are too fearful to expose the real problem. Islamofascism is, however, a real word suggesting a real, demonstrable threat. Again, Christopher Hitchens puts it best:

Continuing: