1. Comment #35489 by flyingscot on April 27, 2007 at 11:09 am

Another one bites the dust!

Other Comments by flyingscot

2. Comment #35493 by mjwemdee on April 27, 2007 at 11:21 am

I always knew religion was daft; but I'm only just beginning to conceive how MONUMENTALLY daft it is...

Other Comments by mjwemdee

3. Comment #35509 by abaris on April 27, 2007 at 11:52 am

Bill Maher talked about mormonism on his show recently:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xqNbZKIQUs

Other Comments by abaris

4. Comment #35513 by bradpitcher on April 27, 2007 at 12:14 pm

As an exmormon, I have to say this a very accurate and telling account. bravo..
oh and btw, the only reason it appears to be a fast growing religion (IMHO) is that when people stop going, they are still on "the list" and still get counted.
I am quite proud to no longer be on "the list" and if anyone else is interested:
http://mormonnomore.com/

Other Comments by bradpitcher

5. Comment #35514 by nrvous on April 27, 2007 at 12:14 pm

And then of course there was the legendary South Park episode "All About Mormons" It's not viewable online as far as I can tell, but here's a transcript.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon134.html

Other Comments by nrvous

6. Comment #35520 by franciebrady on April 27, 2007 at 12:59 pm

I just read this chapter, and I was perturbed by one small error: Nephi's father in the Book of Mormon was named "Lehi", not "Lephi". A small difference, to be sure, but the Mormon attitude to such a typographical error is "Whoever wrote this mustn't have given it much thought or research, after all they can't even spell the name Lehi."

Hitchens makes reference to Fawn Brodie's book, but I wonder if he is aware of the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson, which systematically and devastatingly proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the so-called "Book of Abraham" is an utter fabrication. I would only recommend that the reader skip the last chapter, where Mr. Larson (whom I've personally met, he's an extremely kind and decent man) suggests that the reader not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and then professes his faith in Christianity.

http://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Hand-Upon-Papyrus/dp/0962096326

Other Comments by franciebrady

7. Comment #35521 by Nails on April 27, 2007 at 1:03 pm

And we wonder how urban myths and superstitions travel so easily and have a habit of anging aoround for evermore.
Maybe religion is just an organised urban myth based on superstition.

Other Comments by Nails

8. Comment #35525 by Smith on April 27, 2007 at 1:23 pm

For those who are interested in watching the South Park episode "All About Mormons" mentioned above by nrvous, click here.

Other Comments by Smith

9. Comment #35527 by trapper on April 27, 2007 at 1:35 pm

the mormons believe that anyone of them who subscribe to their faith can receive phrophecy from god. and that 'sin' ( i.e. anything which they choose to pin that label upon) can be atoned for by blood. a lethal, nasty combination for some of the delusional fanatics of that cult to freely interpret as they may.
the mormon religion is so utterly barmy it is beyond satire or irony, but it is not funny in the way, say, that haberdasherers cult, the jehovahs witnessess are.

Other Comments by trapper

10. Comment #35528 by ghostbuster on April 27, 2007 at 1:35 pm

The Jehovah Witnesses have another great story to tell about their founder, Charles Russell, accussed child molester, occultist, belonged to the Masons--three pretty much forbidden things among JWs--that is if they even admit to it. Isn't it interesting most of these religions arose at about the same time? What is even more unbelievable, is the extent a 20th Century religion has spread---Scientology. Take a look at the spread of that guru guy that put sarin gas in the subways in Japan--forgot the name of his cult. If that could happen within 40 years, is it so hard to see how ludicrous things got over a couple of thousand+ years?

Other Comments by ghostbuster

11. Comment #35531 by Pieter on April 27, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Just so everyone's all set, Christopher Hitchens is set to appear on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on monday night (one would assume) to promote the new book.

Hopefully Jon wont drag him into a conversation on Iraq like the last time he was on (although it was still a good interview!), it's just that they didn't really get to talk about his book (the one on Jefferson).

Can't wait to see it. Cheers ~Pieter

Other Comments by Pieter

12. Comment #35533 by BaronOchs on April 27, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Lordie Mormonism couldn't be parodied. This is really worrying, they opened a new church near me recently as well. How are people so stupid? The importance of secularism cannot be underestimated.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

13. Comment #35544 by carnitine on April 27, 2007 at 2:54 pm

While his points are almost all valid, I really wish he'd done more research. I noticed several facts he got wrong (Lephi instead of Lehi, a second set of plates being provided later, congregations receiving quotas of names, congregations meeting at temples at all, etc).

It is a wacky religion, but I find it be more sensible than most, actually. Hitchens missed an opportunity here.

Other Comments by carnitine

14. Comment #35552 by _J_ on April 27, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Last summer I met a lady from Utah. In idle conversation with her and others, I recounted a few bizarre details about Mormonism that another new friend (who was absent at the time) had produced a few nights earlier to the great mirth of those who had been present. The lady from Utah was rather cross and said that my friend was clearly an idiot.

If I had then been in posession of the above history and had recounted it (with no other convenient source to attribute it to), I doubt she would have been able to find pejoratives strong enough for me. An opportunity missed.

Other Comments by _J_

15. Comment #35556 by _J_ on April 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm

13. Comment #35544 by carnitine

I'm interested. Some of those discrepancies you describe aren't just typos. Can you suggest a convenient source of a more accurate history of Mormon origins?

On the article in general: I really agree with 10. Comment #35528 by ghostbuster. Throughout the latter half of that article I was quietly repeating to myself 'Scientology, scientology, scientology...'.

This depresses me. It's like having your wallet stolen, then having the thief come back, show you how he did it, smile and shake your hand, and then steal your shoes. I have an urge to shake six billion people and shout 'Wake up!'.

Perhaps a mug of Horlicks will deal with it.

Other Comments by _J_

16. Comment #35562 by carnitine on April 27, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I haven't read much in the way of anti-mormon stuff, so I don't have any links to provide. I'm somewhat of an expert on Mormon theology and practice, having been one for more than two decades, and being the voracious reader that I am, so I'm just going off my personal experience here.

Mormon theology is pretty complicated, much moreso than your average Christian religion, but Hitchens didn't really delve into the actual doctrine in this excerpt. This one is just about origins and practice, so it seems odd that he'd get so many things wrong. I suppose it wasn't worth his time since mormonism makes up such a small portion of his book.

Other Comments by carnitine

17. Comment #35564 by _J_ on April 27, 2007 at 3:53 pm

16. Comment #35562 by carnitine

Damn: no shortcuts, then! Fair enough. Ta for the insight, though.

Other Comments by _J_

18. Comment #35565 by Shuggy on April 27, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Another couple of good books are "Trouble Enough: Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon" and "This is the Place: Brigham Young and the New Zion" by Ernest H. Taves. (Prometheus, of course)

The first one includes a textual analysis that shows the whole of the BoM was written by one person. What it doesn't do is compare that with something written by Joseph Smith.

What the two do together is show how the religion founded by Smith was very different from the one that Young took to Utah.

Other Comments by Shuggy

19. Comment #35576 by Shuggy on April 27, 2007 at 4:13 pm

ghostbuster wrote:

Isn't it interesting most of these religions arose at about the same time?

Isn't it interesting so many of them arose in the United States?
Mormons
Jehovah's Witnesses
Seventh Day Adventists
Christian Science
Scientology
and all the ones that didn't do so well.

Europe hasn't had a successful new religion since what - Methodism? and the European ones are much more close variants on mainstream christianity - or does it only look that way now? I know Methodism was considered very radical when it started.

Other Comments by Shuggy

20. Comment #35580 by carnitine on April 27, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Does anyone know of a resource for factual information that proves certain of Mormonism's doctrines false? I know of the Book of Abraham and Lamanite DNA issues, for instance, but would like to know more about them. It seems like all the mormon resources online mostly consist of the hatred of bitter ex-mormons without too much actual information.

I'd be appreciative.

Other Comments by carnitine

21. Comment #35587 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 27, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Hi Guys, latest effort addressing the "lack of moral standard" of atheists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elEYKpo7kFk

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

22. Comment #35590 by savvycfi on April 27, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I have recently been in the process of thinking my way out of this "religion" and found this link very helpful.
http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm

Enjoy!

Other Comments by savvycfi

23. Comment #35599 by k1mgy on April 27, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Here in the US, we might want to take note of the fact that a current (naturally) Republican candidate for president in 2008, Willard Mitt Romney, is a practicing Mormon and apparently a mucky-muck in the religion. It seems so much of a mucky-muck that I am convinced a very large and ugly stone temple was constructed just for him, not all that far from his own residence (the one where - because he's too important to mow his own damn lawn - hired a service to do it for him but, as blunders go, it was revealed that the service hired illegal immigrants to tend to his lawn manicure!).

Built on Belmont Hill, over the objection of actual people who live in the neighborhood and who put up with a much smaller and more compatible building, this monument was constructed as - in my view - an arrogant display of power. It is massive and imposing compared to the small meeting hall that apparently served the faithful just fine, prior. They don't need it, but you can be sure they have plenty of cash and political power to ram it through. Think "tithe".

Topping off this mess is a gabriel character pointing his trumpet directly towards the State House. This steeple was also forced in over objections - the pleading of actual residents who live in the neighborhood. You know, the ones who pay property and other taxes to fund services such as schools, police, fire, ambulance, water. It must have been quite an insult to lose several court fights over the steeple to a bunch that live to suck off the public tit, tax and obligation free.

All this horridness just before Romney was installed (so he could begin campaigning for president). He was, in a phrase, the "absentee governor".

If you don't know already, I am still pissed at the way these charlatans did their deed. I give the building the finger every time I pass it. It's ugly and disgusting, and for the residents, old Gabriel gives the finger back by the nice shadow of steeple, "prophet" and trumpet that makes a swath of shadow across the lawns, and homes in the area.

Romney was (merciful for us) defeated when he ran against Ted Kennedy for Senate some years ago, then went back to Bain Capital to oversee the destruction of the economy and lay off workers (another of his reputations), re-surfacing to be installed as yet one of a long terrible series of Republican (caretaker) governors of Massachusetts. Massachusetts made a huge mistake voting for this bozo and we corrected it in short order.

Willard Mitt is, in these parts, known as the "fraud" governor. Not showing up and basically doing the same croney-based practices of your predecessor; breaking every campaign promise; and basically performing as an incompetent hack might have led to the moniker.

Willard Mitt epitomizes the phrase "flip flop", and has a strong and long reputation to say whatever it is that will please his audience. There is the famous visit to the National Rifle Association recently, where the Fraud Governor claimed he was quite a hunter, owned a gun, and was just one of the boys. Fact is, he wasn't, didn't, and isn't.

Here, he was known for slashing and gutting social programs, not unlike his national equivalent. Just before he left office, it's alleged that he stalled the infamous INS raid on an illegal worker sweat shop so the mess would fall in the new (Democratic) governor's lap. It did, and it was awful. Romney, sport that he is, was the first governor of Massachusetts to refuse to attend the new incoming governor's inauguration. This will be a blotch on our long history of aggressive but in the end decent politics.

I'd say he's a hateful SOB.

Now, he is kissing up to the far-right republican "christian" politicos in the US and this raises deep concerns. He pledged to keep his "faith" out of his governing decisions, yet clearly acted in accord with them when it came to many social issues. It's clear that he will bring his bizarre religion into national office, and this for America will surely spell the completion of the disaster that the current mal-administration has well underway.

If people didn't know that Romney actually believes this crap that Hitchens so well documents, well, now they do. If you didn't know of his reputation here, perhaps this little screed helps.

Like Ashkroft, who was a tongue-talker, and Bush who is clearly deluded, Willard Mitt is yet another horror waiting to happen.

Stay clear.

Other Comments by k1mgy

24. Comment #35604 by Goodwithwood on April 27, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Wow! I never saw the parallels between Mormons and Islam this way accept for the obvious polygamy which is taken from the old Testament and still practiced by Islam which I've always pointed out as being biblical.

I'm just going to make a quick statement before I go on to write a longer blog.
Savvyscfi is right, that link is a very good source.
Here is a link to a post I made on another site about this subject. It has been lacking in responses but it's good. Please take a look.
http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=185307&LastModified=4675600104764933043


GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

25. Comment #35611 by MIND_REBEL on April 27, 2007 at 8:50 pm

Mormons are trouble.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

26. Comment #35615 by DistrictSelectman on April 27, 2007 at 9:47 pm

Lucy Harris smart smart smart

Martin Harris dumb

Other Comments by DistrictSelectman

27. Comment #35621 by automath on April 28, 2007 at 12:37 am

Wow! I never saw the parallels between Mormons and Islam this way accept for the obvious polygamy which is taken from the old Testament and still practiced by Islam which I've always pointed out as being biblical.

There are quite a number of animals that practice polygamy, so I suspect they probably got this idea from witnessing the evidence of their surroundings, different groups then decided it had been revealed to them in different ways. Just goes to show how arbitrary religious teachings really are.

Other Comments by automath

28. Comment #35623 by Prieten on April 28, 2007 at 1:24 am

Regarding Comment #35599 by k1mgy about Romney for President: Considering we atheists are the most reviled minority in America (are we ahead of or behind the pedophiles?), maybe we should strategically endorse Romney and not the candidate that we really want to win...

Other Comments by Prieten

29. Comment #35624 by Azven on April 28, 2007 at 1:33 am

Mrs Harris was a hero. She should be long remembered by sceptics.

Other Comments by Azven

30. Comment #35648 by lpetrich on April 28, 2007 at 5:34 am

Mormonism makes me think of the Mormon cricket, the katydid Anabrus simplex; that association comes from a book on insects which I had read in my childhood.

And I've discovered a nice video that shows, in cartoon form, Mormon beliefs: "What Mormon Theology Is Really All About Cartoon". I've asked some ex-Mormons about it, and they agree that it's mostly accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cricket - the cricket
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7v_V8qSIIo - the video

Other Comments by lpetrich

31. Comment #35708 by ghostbuster on April 28, 2007 at 12:55 pm

The Japanse cult Aum Shinriko should dispell any beliefs that following a cult is equated with stupidity. Many of the followers were scientists, very good scientists that wore gadgets on their heads to hear the words of their Master and drank his bath water. Madam Blatvasky cast her spell on people, especially well-connected, elite people as that well-know occultish Freemasons. Then we have the Hell Fire Club and the teddy-bear picnics of world leaders in California--the Bohemian Grove--and so many other weird groups unknown to the general public. Aleister Crowley, look at his list. Jupiter, there's no end to it.
So, while Mormonism stays within the boundries of mainline religions, we must not forget the ones we don't really know about. Some of the Presidents and other world leaders had neferious connections---give me an atheist, pleeeeease!---and Canada now has a Bush-lite in power with his Focus-On-The-Family connections and what else??
Safe to say, the planet is probably going to get f@#$*d--not one rational person in power where it is going to count.
Where's that new planet?

Other Comments by ghostbuster

32. Comment #35902 by Pilot22A on April 29, 2007 at 8:35 am

I was raised in this wacko religion, and then I grew up and saw it for what it is, just like all the rest, a way for smart people to make a good living off of people who refuse to think for themselves.

BTW, anyone who has read this book, and I have (sad to say, several times) will just love the Book of Ether. Not only is it anesthetizing, but it speaks often of the Land of Moron, yup, moron, and the people who live there.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

33. Comment #35992 by js5535 on April 29, 2007 at 7:34 pm

In my experience Mormons have generally been nice people, although many are still very racist. Dumb as a wall too. As that excerpt clearly demonstrates, Joseph Smith was a complete fraud, much like Muhammad. That should be clear to anyone not raised in those religions.

Other Comments by js5535

34. Comment #36012 by daevos on April 29, 2007 at 10:26 pm

In case anybody was looking for that "All about the mormons" episode of South Park, here it is. Apologies if anyone has beaten me to it. http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=712

Other Comments by daevos

35. Comment #36027 by Suffolk Blue on April 30, 2007 at 1:51 am

Simply put, the Arabs wanted their own religion so hijacked the old books and formed Islam. And the great American Nation, not wanting to be left out, leapt at the chance to form their own some 1100 years later. A bit embarrassing for the American Empire not to have its own religion(s) I expect.

Other Comments by Suffolk Blue

36. Comment #36157 by eye of horus on April 30, 2007 at 10:35 am

Do forgive the idle picking of a minor nit. Dante placed Aristotle in the First Circle of Hell, Limbo, lit by the flame of human reason. A place of eternal sadness, not of eternal suffering. Here were all virtuous pagans like Virgil, and faithful Jews of the Old Testament like Adam, and unbaptized infants.

As a virtuous pagan, I'd hoped a post-Vatican II Pope might be more welcoming to well-intentioned mere mortals who simply could not believe in metaphysical entities. Alas, these are times of the icy conservative demonic. Dante's vision of Limbo has been ruled unbelievable by Ratzinger (Benny XVI).

His Highliness chose to slap Dante down almost on the doorstep of the 700th anniversary of The Divine Comedy! This is the sort of thing which fills Ratzinger's mind, after all he was official watchdog of the faith under JPII.

There ought to be some protests. Who are we to believe, an inspired poet or a party hack? Besides, there's some tortuous real estate in Circle Six reserved just for Popes.

Other Comments by eye of horus

37. Comment #39737 by Senkusi on May 11, 2007 at 7:26 pm

OK, kids. I am a former Mormon. I am 56 years old. I am at least quite well informed about things Mormon.

I am 100% behind the message of "god is not Great." However, as I expressed in an email to Mr. Hitchens (unanswered) recently:

"Christopher,

"I am a FORMER Mormon, and I am 100% in concert with the aims and message of "god is not Great."

"However, my confidence in the objective content of the rest of the book is eroded by the treatment afforded to the Mormon section of the book. I will not detail my concerns here (but will if you are interested), but will summarily state that there are several (many? numerous?) historical and interpretive errors in your account. These could have been avoided (while nevertheless reaching the same ultimate conclusions you reached) with more extended and/or analytical investigation into the relevant material. Didn't you have a Mormon "editor"?

"If your treatment of other "factual" matters in the book is on the same level as the Mormon stuff, I'm afraid you have left yourself open to justified criticism, and have diminished the potential positive effect of the book."

Based on a Google-based inquiry this evening, it seems that there ARE similar problems with regard to other subjects treated in the book.

It is really a disaster when this occurs, as almost no one who is remotely informed about the "facts" at the foundation of their belief will be swayed by the logic of the arguments presented by Hitchens and others as long as these arguments contain, or worse, depend on, these factual (or interpretive) mistakes.

I've just reread the Mormon stuff, and it strikes me as somewhat less weak than the first time through. That all being said, here are a few problems with the Mormon material in god:

1. The Fawn Brodie (not Dr.) biography of Joseph Smith is in the same vein as her Jefferson one, and is held in about the same esteem as the latter: low. There are better, later treatments.

2. Joseph Smith was NOT illiterate and therefore unable to write. There is a boatload of stuff in his writing.

3. The Mormon revelation regarding "blacks" and priesthood was in 1978, not "more or less in time for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965."

Yes, these are niggling points, and should not weaken Hitchens' overall point about Mormonism. Still, a quick once-over by a former insider would have helped immensely.

Other Comments by Senkusi

38. Comment #39741 by ghostbuster on May 11, 2007 at 8:02 pm

The root word of fundamentalism is "fundament" which in Old English means "bottom" and "anus"; leads me to think all fundamentalists are full of s**t. Especially their creators.

Other Comments by ghostbuster