This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← How Mormons will conquer the world

How Mormons will conquer the world - Comments

Romson's Avatar Comment 1 by Romson

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Updated: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:22:02 UTC | #483774

besleybean's Avatar Comment 2 by besleybean

Very true, but I'm not aware of what specific atrocities mormons have committed.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:29:54 UTC | #483786

sgturner59's Avatar Comment 3 by sgturner59

Besleybean, the Mormons and Catholics funded and drove the civil rights train wrecks in Maine and California that took away civil rights from gay and lesbian folks. Those were civic atrocities.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:32:35 UTC | #483787

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 4 by Tyler Durden

Comment 2 by besleybean :

Very true, but I'm not aware of what specific atrocities mormons have committed.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you could research and read about such instances before commenting?

Try google, it's not that difficult to use.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:56:27 UTC | #483791

Long Johns Silver's Avatar Comment 5 by Long Johns Silver

This is a racist and scaremongering, Mormonphobic article. The vast, vast majority of Mormons are peaceful people, and do not want to conquer the world any more than you and me.

Updated: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:24:43 UTC | #483798

besleybean's Avatar Comment 6 by besleybean

I am well aware of the homophobic/racist and don't forget misogynist charges against Mormonism. Still not entirely certain how this equates with suicide bombers, honour kills or genital mutilations etc. I just think we have to be proportionate in our language. I don't like any religion and yes, certain cults may be worse than others. But perhaps if we are specific about our criticisms...

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:31:44 UTC | #483800

Merco's Avatar Comment 7 by Merco

Very true, but I'm not aware of what specific atrocities mormons have committed.

They wasted some of my time when I was walking to work.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:34:10 UTC | #483801

besleybean's Avatar Comment 8 by besleybean

Well yes, again a valid point. All these door knocking evangelists can be a pain. But sometimes it can be nice to haul them in for a good grilling. Did you stop and speak top them, Merco? I once felt very guilty. I was in a rush and a buddhist approached me. I just shouted : I'm atheist and walked on. I realised after, it was rather a dumb thing to say to a buddhist!

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:37:24 UTC | #483802

MAJORPAIN's Avatar Comment 9 by MAJORPAIN

Yes, I do think the language is a bit strong, given the conext. I've seen the trailer for this movie and it does bring up the issue of what cause are they going to go after next.

They came for the gays and lesbians and I said nothing...

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:21:46 UTC | #483812

besleybean's Avatar Comment 10 by besleybean

But they're not ' coming ' for anybody. They're not a state church, let alone the head of a theocracy. Who takes any notice of what mormons say about anything? And anyway, we're not saying nothing. Our laws protect human rights.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:24:49 UTC | #483814

Merco's Avatar Comment 11 by Merco

Did you stop and speak top them, Merco?

Not recently (although I see them around). I was just trying to be funny.

Although in my mischievous youth I would go out of my way if I saw one and ask them to explain a certain scripture to me. Of course, this scripture was in direct contradiction to what they were preaching.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:32:23 UTC | #483818

besleybean's Avatar Comment 12 by besleybean

Not sure where you're based. But I think the general UK view is that Mormons exist for our amusement, to poke fun at.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:35:03 UTC | #483819

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 13 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:48:03 UTC | #483824

justaperson's Avatar Comment 14 by justaperson

Yesterday someone posted a blog about the Muslim plan for world domination. Now it's the Mormons who're gonna do it. CAN'T WE GET ANY HANDLE ON THIS??! ;)

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:43:52 UTC | #483843

besleybean's Avatar Comment 15 by besleybean

The difference being, IMHO, is that there is a real, physical threat from militant islamists. Yes we have to highlight the bigotry and indoctrination of all religious groups, but inflammatory language doesn't always help.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:46:48 UTC | #483845

dreamer-71's Avatar Comment 16 by dreamer-71

Comment 13 by Zurak :

Actually marriage is not even a civic right. Rights in this country are found in the Bill Of Rights. Anything else that's not in that Bill is considered a privilege. So no atrocity was committed.

Yikes. It's comments like this that make me fear for the future of our country.

Our Constitution actually works in exactly the reverse of what you state. Its purpose is to define and limit power to the government, not the people. Article IX states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And Article X states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What this boils down to, is that the powers of the federal gov't are limited to what's spelled out in the Constitution; the rights of the people are not. Rights are inherent; privileges are permissions granted to you by politicians. The Constitution as such limits what the gov't can call a privilege instead of a right.

Furthermore, it could be argued that marriage is protected by the First Amendment right of free association. Prohibiting person A from marrying person B because of race, religion (or lack of), or gender is a violation of their right to form a recognized, monogamous association with each other.

Now with respect to Mormons in particular, while it's true they have not committed any atrocities in the Nazi sense of the word, like all religions they are enablers and condoners of more extreme religious zealotry and theocracy. All the great civil rights advances, from the right of women to own property, to the right of blacks to be free, to the right of people to marry someone of a different race or religion, have been opposed on religious grounds. Since we are not a theocracy (some non-Mormons livnign in Utah may beg to differ), religions do not have quite the power to take away rights as the gov't does, which makes it all the more important that religion and gov't never be allowed to intertwine.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:56:15 UTC | #483849

Bernard Hurley's Avatar Comment 17 by Bernard Hurley

Comment 12 by besleybean

Not sure where you're based. But I think the general UK view is that Mormons exist for our amusement, to poke fun at.

Oh I thought that was the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:56:53 UTC | #483866

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 18 by Roger J. Stanyard

The Mormons appear to be without any sense of irony. For years they practised polygamy but, nowadays, seem to think that their job is to stop others marrying at all. Freedom for themelves, no freedom for others.

Still, the Mormons have a long history of racism so such hypocracy doesn't surprise me. The entire movement was founded by an obvious fraudster and rogue.

The fundies don't like them, though. They're not "proper" Christians.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:46:27 UTC | #483874

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 19 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Updated: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:35:57 UTC | #483875

Ani Sharmin's Avatar Comment 20 by Ani Sharmin

I'm looking forward to watching this movie. I didn't know about this "time and means" thing until a few days ago. Recently, the Friendly Atheist mentioned this movie in a post. There was a review on The Young Turks as well. I think this is a perfect example of why even a supposedly nice doctrine like Heaven can be harmful, since the arbitrary rules about how to get into Heaven can lead to discrimination.

To those saying that marriage is a privilege and not a right: Even if it is a privilege, we still have to carefully consider who can get a marriage license and who can't. We have to make sure we have good arguments for including some groups and not others.

As an analogy, getting a driver's license can be considered a privilege, but we still have to have good reasons for why some people can get a driver's license while others can't. Arbitrarily deciding that people of a certain group can't get a license (based on race, gender, etc.) would be considered discrimination, even if driving is not a right.

The standard should be whether the person is able and willing to deal with the rights and responsibilities that come with the privilege and not some arbitrary characteristic that some groups want to discriminate against for no valid reason.

-Ani Sharmin

Updated: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:05:31 UTC | #483898

katt33's Avatar Comment 21 by katt33

As with any group, you have extremists. It is not about the faith itself, but about some people having a I think pre-disposition to take things to the extreme end of the spectrum.
When I had crisis moments I would grab on to religion in the extreme, that was my tendency, my way of coping. I learned much more effective and reasonable ways of coping. I don't know if we will ever not have people prone to extremes. I would hate to categorize everyone in any one group as one way. Not really fair.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:07:55 UTC | #483899

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 22 by Jos Gibbons

Comment #483899 by katt33

As with any group, you have extremists. It is not about the faith itself, but about some people having a I think pre-disposition to take things to the extreme end of the spectrum.

But the extremes of something are only about if it contains any bad bits to begin with. The reason Islamic extremism goes wrong is because there are things in Islam to go wrong. The most unpleasant Koranic verses have no parallels in any scriptures Buddhists read, which is why their own record is less ridden with bloodshed. If you're going to fully exonerate faith, as in the opening of your second sentence, please give some evidence it's not what's at work here.

I would hate to categorize everyone in any one group as one way. Not really fair.

If people claim of any propositions which would not otherwise be entertained that they are known by virtue of a trustworthy book's asserting them, those people should expect to be identified with all the book says, as they at least pay lip service to the logic underlying such identification. It is a line of reasoning for predicting their nature which can fail only if they are cherry-picking. But even cherry-pickers deserve contempt along with the rest, for they refuse to concede that the whole charade is absurd.

Updated: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:36:31 UTC | #483907

Duff's Avatar Comment 23 by Duff

As an ex-Mormon let me assure everyone, that in the heart and mind of every devout Mormon is the assurance - and I don't use that word casually - that in the "fullness of times" the "Priesthood" (read- a devout Mormon) will save the constitution and bring about a Mormon theocracy which will raise the US to an exhalted position to receive the SAVIOR to his rightful place as head of the Church, which will be located in Missouri, of all places.

Mormons have panted in righteous expectation since the time of Joseph Smith - who hinted he would be the one to achieve the magical theocracy - then on to Ezra Taft Benson, then to George Romney, and now to The Mittster, who is the latest great Mormon Hope to take over the world.

In their defense, Mormons don't fantasize about forcing their religion on everyone, ala the Taliban, but they hope in the dark little corners of their minds to change the world and bring everyone to their knees in the worship of Jebus.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:40:22 UTC | #483921

besleybean's Avatar Comment 24 by besleybean

I think that's a given. But for me, whatever else it may be, it's not an atrocity.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:09:03 UTC | #483936

Crazycharlie's Avatar Comment 25 by Crazycharlie

comment#2- beslybean

Comment 2 by besleybean :

Very true, but I'm not aware of what specific atrocities Mormons have committed.

On September 11, 1857, an emigrant wagon train of 120 men , women, and children were slaughtered by a local Mormon militia at Mountain Meadows in the Utah Territory. Though Mormon historians will down-play it or outright deny it, the massacre was sanctioned by, and later denied by, then Mormon leader Brigham Young. It's known in American History as, The Mountain Meadows massacre. Google it.

Just look into the history of any religion and you'll find an atrocity.

Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:25:06 UTC | #483942

BanJoIvie's Avatar Comment 26 by BanJoIvie

Comment 2 by besleybean

Very true, but I'm not aware of what specific atrocities mormons have committed.

First I'm a former Mormon, and returned Mormon missionary who lives in Utah, just to tell you where I'm coming from.

Atrocities? Well that depends on perspective I suppose. Here are a few candidates you might look into:

  • the Mountain Meadows Massacre (Actual bloody murderous type of atrocity, possibly/probably ordered or condoned by Brigham Young or other church leaders in the early days of LDS history in the Utah territory.)

  • The deeds of Porter Rockwell (multiple murderer who served as body guard and 'avenging angel' to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young)

  • The LDS doctrine of 'Blood Atonement' (the teaching that Christ's blood was not enough to atone for some grave sins and that a sinner's own blood had to be shed for true repentance - Now seldom taught and usually repudiated by modern Mormons but once a prominent and important doctrine.)

  • Read 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by John Krakauer for a brilliant study of numerous acts of Murder, child rape, forced marriage, kidnapping, massive fraud, etc. performed in the name of Mormon theology (particularly polygamy or 'the principle') both by mainstream Mormons and by various Mormon off-shoots who carry on the legacy of early church teaching.

  • If you widen the definition of 'atrocity' further I would certainly consider the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press and offices (an act of governmental censorship and vandalism ordered by Joseph Smith - under his authority as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois - against a newspaper which criticized the churches positions)

  • Granted these are mostly historical examples and do not reflect the whitewashed public image of the mainstream modern LDS church. Mormons today (mainstream Mormons at least) are mostly non-violent - apart from the nutcases you might find in any group. However, I would have no problem applying the term 'atrocity' to the LDS Church's not-too-long-past positions regarding black people and the priesthood, their teachings regarding gender equality, and their actions in opposition to marriage equality. Prop 8 in California is only one example, where their actions were brought to public attention by dilligent opponents. The Church has long been extremely active working against gay marriage in the US and concealing their actions to the greatest possible degree. See '8 the Mormon Proposition' before you rise to the Churches defense in this matter. They really have behaved nefariously.

    Comment 13 by Zurak :

    Actually marriage is not even a civic right. Rights in this country are found in the Bill Of Rights. Anything else that's not in that Bill is considered a privilege. So no atrocity was committed.

    i think you are a being a bit too restrictive here. There are other places in the Constitution - besides Amendments 1-10 - where rights are delineated. In my opinion marriage inequality rises to the level of a civil rights issue because of the Amendment 14 which guarantees equal protection under the law.

    Marriage may be a 'privelege' but if government chooses to extend a privelege it MAY NOT discriminate in the way in which it does so. all citizens have the 'right' to equal access.

    Your analysis of the situation in California is analagous to the (failed) 'separate but equal' argument used to justify various Jim Crow laws in the 'old' south. Marriage for some and Union for others is simply not equal, no matter how carefully a state attempts to make them analagous.

    Obviously the mere term 'marriage' offers a benefit to those unions so labeled by the state - albeit an ephemeral one. A 'stamp of approval' say. I would argue that Civil Unions - if they really do provide every single benefit of marriage - should be ALL THE STATE OFFERS - equally to all citizens. Leave 'marriage' to the churches or other non-state actors. If the state awards the word marriage to some, it must offer it equally to all.

    Comment 18 by Roger J. Stanyard

    The Mormons appear to be without any sense of irony. For years they practised polygamy but, nowadays, seem to think that their job is to stop others marrying at all. Freedom for themelves, no freedom for others.

    Amen! It blows my mind that the Mormons, of all groups, have chosen to throw their considerable resources into the fight to limit the rights of citizens to follow thier conscience with regard to marriage. The early generations of Mormons were passionately engaged IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE FIGHT! And were sorely persecuted - suffering huge losses of life, comfort and property - because claimed the right to marry according to their own choice. Hypocricy of the foulest kind. Shame.

    Updated: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:59:46 UTC | #483947

    Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 27 by Cartomancer

    I would argue that Civil Unions - if they really do provide every single benefit of marriage - should be ALL THE STATE OFFERS - equally to all citizens. Leave 'marriage' to the churches or other non-state actors.

    Why should we cede the prestigious term "marriage" to the religious, retaining only the anaemic, bureaucratic "civil union" or "civil partnership" for the legal bit that really matters? Religion has absolutely no claim whatsoever on this word - it began as and always has been an entirely secular word.

    Updated: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:20:01 UTC | #483949

    sara g's Avatar Comment 28 by sara g

    I know it's not the mainstream mormons, but the creepy mountain mormons are certainly guilty of kidnap, rape and pedophilia. Not the same as terrorists, but still pretty atrocious.

    Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:40:02 UTC | #483951

    Ani Sharmin's Avatar Comment 29 by Ani Sharmin

    @Roger J. Stanyard (comment 18):

    The Mormons appear to be without any sense of irony. For years they practised polygamy but, nowadays, seem to think that their job is to stop others marrying at all. Freedom for themelves, no freedom for others. Still, the Mormons have a long history of racism so such hypocracy doesn't surprise me. The entire movement was founded by an obvious fraudster and rogue. The fundies don't like them, though. They're not "proper" Christians.

    Exactly. I've noticed this in many groups, including various religions. People seem to think that discrimination is only horrible when it's happening to them, and not when it's happening to anyone else.

    @BanJolvie (comment #26): Thanks for the information. I honestly don't know much about Mormon history apart from what little was included in high school history class. I'll have to add Under the Banner of Heaven to my already too long To Read List.

    Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:40:59 UTC | #483952

    BanJoIvie's Avatar Comment 30 by BanJoIvie

    Why should we cede the prestigious term "marriage" to the religious, retaining only the anaemic, bureaucratic "civil union" or "civil partnership" for the legal bit that really matters? Religion has absolutely no claim whatsoever on this word - it began as and always has been an entirely secular word.

    I said, "churches OR OTHER NON-STATE ACTORS." These could be secular or religious or whatever.

    I'm happy to endorse a 'marriage for all position', so long as it is equally available. It seems to me though, that 'marriage' can remain a secular word without governmental envolvement. In fact, if the 'prestigious term' is at issue, I fail to see why government should be the arbiter of such prestige. Once citizens obtain a 'Liscence for Civil Union' from some appropriate state authority - guaranteeing the various legal rights and obligations which ARE the state's business, the interested parties should be free too solemnize that union (or not) under any name they choose through whatever body, organization, group of friends, etc. they wish.

    Call it a marriage if you want, or don't. Each group could define 'marriage' according to conscience. No one would be 'forced' to perform or recognize the particular marriage choice of anyone else, but all unions would be exactly equal in the eyes of the law. Why look to government to exert it's leverage for social acceptance. Just guarantee rights and let citizens fight for their own acceptance.

    My only point is that if anyone argues that "civil unions are good enough" they should apply that position indiscriminately to ALL unions.

    Updated: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:56:26 UTC | #483955