Wednesday, March 29, 2006

How to select a leader of a church

Let's just suppose that you are a god. (Note lower case "g"!)

What criteria would use to select the leader of your faith on your world?

1) He would have to be born into a lazy, indolent family, who hated hard work and was prone to living in delusional fantasy worlds of their own devising.

2) He would have to be of somewhat dubious character.

3) A convicted fraudster.

4) A thief.

5) A confidence man capable of setting up a fake bank using trickery and artifice.

6) A user of black magic including sacrificing live animals.

7) A predatory paedophile.

8) A multiple-adulterer.

9) A panderer.

Would you use that criteria?

Me neither!

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Why does the Mormon church deny the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Tithing was part of the law of Moses. Jesus taught that when he came to the world, the law of Moses was fulfilled, and thus at an end.

Why, therefore, does the Mormon church DENY this part of the teachings of Jesus Christ? If tithing ended with the coming of Christ, then tithing IS ended. Period. No more tithing.

Thus every penny, cent, Australian Dollar, Canadian Dollar, Franc, Euro, New Zealand Dollar, Pesos, etc., etc., gathered in tithing since the Mormon church was founded was gathered under false pretences. It was stolen.

Every Mormon, in effect, goes without their wages one week out of every ten. That's 5.2 weeks of wages every year taken by the Mormon church from every tithe paying member when it should not have done so!

When will the Mormon church stop this stealing from its own members? The answer, sadly, is never. The Mormon church is addicted to the money and is not going to get rid of this habit, no matter how bad or loathsome it might be.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Has the Mormon church changed in recent years?

When my parents joined the Mormon Church in 1966, it seemed a fairly reasonable organisation. David O. McKay was president. The impression we got of him (at a distance, we never met him) seemed to be that of a reasonable, caring man.

After his death, things started to worsen. It became more restrictive, harsher, less caring, less feeling. There was less Christianity in it. Or was this always how it had been? Was I, as I grew older, noticing what I had failed to notice as a child?

The welfare programme in Britain came and then went. The Mormon church began the welfare programme in Britain right before a slump and as they realised it was costing more than they'd expected, they callously shut the programme down without warning, throwing faithful members onto the dole or Social Security.

They also introduced LDS social services. This consisted of one qualified nurse and a psychiatrist. Yes, ONE one and ONE psychiatrist for the whole of Britain and Ireland. Members with mental health issues were told that there was a five year waiting list to see him. The whole thing was, in my opinion, nothing but a PR exercise.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Spread the ex-Mormon word AND legitimately give RFM a rankings boost!

Do we have a duty to spread the word about Mormonism being untrue? I, personally, think that we DO have such a duty. After all, WE found out enough to get out. Shouldn’t we WANT to help other people to get out?

If you KNEW that a bus you were on had failing brakes, wouldn’t you want to help the other passengers by warning them? After that, it is up to them. You do your best.

How can we safely, sensibly and effectively warn people about Mormonism? Wearing a badge? (aka button) Having car stickers? No, I do not think these are effective enough. What IS effective enough, IMO, is the Internet.

People walking down the street or driving along are in all probability, not searching after the truth. They are on the way somewhere, and probably nor all that susceptible to message of any kind, especially of the ephemeral glance at a badge or a car sticker.

However, people using the Internet are sat before their computer. Often they are seeking for knowledge, searching out information.

And that is where WE come in. RFM is a fantastic resource for people seeking for the truth about Mormonism. But just think if every regular or semi-regular poster at RFM put up an ex-mo blog? And linked them back through to RFM? The effect on boosting the page ranks of RFM (through quite legitimate means) would be worthwhile! We would be able to keep RFM at the very top of the search listings at Google, etc.

Who is up for it?

Letters from a broad...: Sexuality vs. Spirituality: Which is more intimate?

Letters from a broad...: Sexuality vs. Spirituality: Which is more intimate?

Saturday, March 25, 2006

I just bought a piece of Utah!

American Acres, Inc., is a New York City based company, in conjunction with the launch of its new web site,, will be promoting its Own A Piece of America program by offering one square inch parcels of land free to all Internet visitors.

Later this year American Acres, Inc. will start selling legal deeds of land, a "Deed to the United States", entitling the purchaser to "Own A Piece of America" and claim legal ownership to land in all 50 states at one time on one legal document.

Both the individual State Deed and the 50 State Deed (the "Deed to the United States") entitle bearers to ownership in the form of a quit claim deed with each parcel being approximately one-square inch or a 6,272,640th undivided interest in each one acre property.

As indicated on the website Owners won't have to pay taxes of any kind ever, and will not be required to mow, pick up trash, or comply with any local, state or federal regulations. But buyer beware, these mini estates can't be built on, lived on or retired on.

Owners cannot make any improvements or develop the parcels. Owners shall not occupy the parcels and must grant rights of ingress and egress over their parcel. Ownership of the one-square inch "parcels in the "Own a Piece of America" program is available only at, and each parcel is certified by individually numbered, Deeds registered with American Acres, Inc. in the owners name and will be listed in the Landholder Property Registration Roll on the website.

The exact location of the land is indicated on the individual State Pages or Property Location Guide to all 50 States to which purchasers will have access once they are a registered owner. They can check back anytime to see their name and find out who their neighbors are.

Or they can send friends there to check-it-out. The project has taken well over 10 years to put together by president Scott Moger, with the land purchased one acre at a time, state by state, by American Acres Inc. A no action letter was issue by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as well as the Attorney General of New York State stating that the deeds are to be sold as novelty items and not as investments. In fact, there is a long list of Covenants and Restrictions on the website and visitors should take heed. Deeds will be sold on the website for as little as $2.95.

Deed received immediately via email in case you forgot to shop for a present for someone important, to a little more decorative version imprinted with their name and parcel numbers and framed or mounted on a plaque.

So, I immediately bought me a piece of Utah! A fine present to myself, I thought, an Ex-Mormon!

Why Martin Luther King Day is so important By Rev. Bill McGinnis

Alexandria, VA - A few years ago, one of my co-workers (from another country) asked me this question: "What did Martin Luther King actually do to deserve a holiday in his name?"

My reply was this: "Martin Luther King was the unquestioned leader of the American Civil Rights movement during our period of transition from racial segregation to integration. As a Christian minister, he taught non-violence, and his leadership steered us safely through the changes without the kind of catastrophic violence we might have had otherwise.

"He was willing to risk his life for this cause, and his life was taken because of it. He is a true hero to everyone who loves justice."

I didn't appreciate him at the time, during his ministry. I was a know-it-all young white man from a segregated high school in Florida, and I thought he was a dangerous trouble-maker and probably a Communist. Only later did I realize how very important he had been, and how much we all owed to him for leading us safely through those perilous times, which could have turned into a disaster, but did not.

And only recently have I come to discern the Holy Spirit shining within him, leading him every step of his way, even unto death. Because he was so important to the struggle for racial integration in the United States, it is easy to label him simply as a "mid-twentieth-century American integrationist."

But this vastly understates his full importance as a brilliant social thinker for all people, now and in the future. The racial situation in the USA in the 1950's and 1960's provided the setting for King himself to function and succeed then and there. But His ideas are enduring and transferable to us.

They are valuable today in many different settings, and they can be used by many different people. They are not at all limited to black people in the United States in the mid twentieth century.

So how can we grasp the main ideas of Martin Luther King? And how can we begin to apply these ideas to the problems facing us and all people in the world today? For me, the best place to start is by reading (and maybe memorizing) his "Letter From The Birmingham City Jail." This letter was written by King alone, over a period of a few days, apparently without notes, while he was held prisoner in the Birmingham City Jail on charges related to his activities in organising an economic boycott in support of racial desegregation.

A prestigious group of mainstream religious leaders had published a severe criticism of him and his methods, and King was highly motivated to respond. This powerful combination of emotional circumstances seems to have lit a creative fire in King, and a wonderful outpouring of perfectly-expressed ideas was the excellent result: "Letter From The Birmingham City Jail."

In this letter he outlines twelve of his most important concepts, and he summarizes each of them in a few well-chosen words.

1. THE INTER-CONNECTION OF ALL PEOPLE - "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."

2. A GENERAL METHOD OF ACTION FOR NONVIOLENT SOCIAL CHANGE - "In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; (2) Negotiation; (3) Self-purification; and (4) Direct action."

3. THE CREATIVE TENSION OF DIRECT ACTION - "But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth."

"Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealt with." " . . . the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."

4. THE RIGHT TIME TO DO GOOD - "We must use time creatively, and forever realise that the time is always ripe to do right." "Frankly I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was "well timed . . ."

5. THE GRANTING OF FREEDOM - "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

6. THE PURPOSE OF LAW AND ORDER - " . . . law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress."

7. JUST AND UNJUST LAWS - " . . . there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.' "

8. SOMETIMES WAITING MAKES THINGS WORSE - "It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively." "We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation."

9. MODERATION AND LUKEWARM ACCEPTANCE - "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

10. EXTREMISM FOR LOVE - "Was not Jesus an extremist in love? 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.' Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.' Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.'

Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- 'Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God.' Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.'

Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- 'This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.'

Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice -- or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?"

11. ACTS WHICH MAY PRECIPITATE VIOLENCE - "In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made?

Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical delvings precipitated the misguided popular mind to make him drink the hemlock?

Isn't this like condemning Jesus because His unique God consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see, as federal courts have consistently affirmed, that it is immoral to urge an individual to withdraw his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest precipitates violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."

12. THE HEROISM OF NONVIOLENCE - "One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters they were in reality standing up for the best in the American dream and the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, and thus carrying our whole nation back to great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence." ****** Letter Now Available, Public Domain, With MP3 The "Letter From The Birmingham City Jail" was handwritten by Martin Luther King on April 16, 1963, then slipped out of the jail, turned over to his assistants on the outside, typed, copied, and widely disseminated to various organizations and individuals as an "open letter" in order to generate public support for Dr. King and his civil rights activities.

As an open letter, made available to the Public for publication without restriction, it of course immediately entered the Public Domain and was never thereafter eligible for copyright protection. The first version of this letter which I could find was published with King's approval and encouragement, without copyright notice, in May of 1963 by the American Friends Service Committee. It, too, is clearly in the Public Domain. I have several reprints of it, and you can get them, too, by purchasing them from At some later date, Dr. King revised this first version of the letter and created a second version, a more polished version, with numerous minor changes -- which he then published, with copyright notice.

It is this second version which is now widely available in books and on the Internet, with copyright now claimed by the heirs of the King estate. So this second version is protected by copyright, but that copyright does not apply to any of the first-version text which had already entered into the Public Domain, only those parts which were new to the second version. The second version shows a date of "April 16, 1963," in the text, but that is the date of the handwritten original Public Domain first version, not the date of the copyrighted second version.

I am now republishing this original Public Domain first version to the Internet; and I am keeping it in the Public Domain. I could have edited it, and written some comments, and placed my copyright notice on the whole thing, thereby inhibiting its free and open dissemination. Instead, I am encouraging all people to copy it freely, reprint it, repost it, discuss it, critique it, and share it with all people everywhere, as Dr. King originally intended forty-three years ago, when he wrote it in jail and freely turned it loose into the world. An HTML page with the complete text of the letter and its history is located at Public Domain. An ASCII unformatted text version of the letter, Public Domain, is located at A HUGE MP3 file, also in the Public Domain, with 19.4 megs of data and a forty-six minute playing time, is located at with backup at An HTML version of this message is located at Blessings to you. May God help us all. Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director

Sect (Mormons) seek new Jerusalem in London

Someone (thanks! ;o)) ) sent me to following link to a story in The Times:,,11069-2091228,00.html

"The Times March 18, 2006 Sect seeks new Jerusalem in London By Ruth Gledhill, Religion CorrespondentTHEY have survived the Osmonds and a reputation for preppy, suited missionaries knocking on doors. Now the Mormons, the religious sect known for its abstinence from alcohol and its past practice of polygamy, is pushing for wider acceptance in Britain with the installation of an "embassy" in Kensington, West London."

Embassy? Then they speculate on Mitt being the possible next US president! What IS going on?

The absurdity of the position of some Ex-Mormons!

OK, you went through primary, seminary, institute, priesthood, relief society, what-have-you. And somehow this makes you an expert on all other religions?

The average Mormon is taught fuck-all about religion. They are also taught very little indeed about their own religion, too.

And that’s the truth! Almost everything you learnt as a Mormon was a waste of time, because it was either lies, exaggerations or mere exhortations to follow the profit (sic), hand over your money, or how “bad” all other religions are.

Anyone who bases their concept of other religions or philosophies on their Mormon brainwashed training is acting like a fuckwit.

Get a clue!You only ever get poison out of a bottle of poison. Stop drinking the poisoned knowledge you got as a Mormon! Learn some facts for a change, those of you who are deluded enough to think that you know anything about other religions!

Don't make waves! Don't make waves!

Don’t make waves! Don’t make waves! Those three words seem to be in vogue over at the RFM board.

Apparently the only good ex-Mormon is an atheist ex-Mormon. If you became a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu or whatever, the RFM board viewpoint on this would seem to be: “Don’t tell, don’t ask.”

Why? Some ex-Mormons seem hostile to the fact that other people who are also ex-Mormons still find comfort in a religious faith of some kind. It is almost as if they resent the fact that some ex-Mormons still have a religious faith of some kind. Of ANY kind. And just let someone be incautious enough to admit that they became a believer after a period of post-Mormon atheism and BOY! Just hear the screams and howls that such a statement engenders!

Also, I have found myself cautious about what I post on RFM, these days. Post anything that is a little out of the box (and it is a tiny box that the self-proclaimed defenders of the Atheist Faith have created for all RFM thoughts to be placed in) and they’ll come running at you, flamethrowers at the ready, aiming to burn your flesh to the bone. And some of the more pathetic ones post an attack on a person, and then use a different ID to support the attack, to make it look as if more than one person is attacking you!

And a lot of the flaming posts make no real sense. The flaming posts could almost all be the result of a not-very-sophisticated “bot” programme.

“If Post content contains words: “Christian” “Faith” “Religion” then reply will contain words: “Dawkins says…” “Invisible Pink Unicorn” “you must be an atheist to be a true ex-Mormon” and so on.

Those flaming posts are not quite that bad? No. But they are very nearly as bad, aren’t they? You see, when an uberatheist TBM (all of the bad Mormon traits, none of the faith) is losing an argument, the hoary old Invisible Pink Unicorn is trundled out like a hobby horse on a wheeled platform. It is as if when the IPU is wheeled out, you can hear a sigh of: “Oh. Thank God! (sic) Someone wheeled out the IPU. Now we can stop thinking!”

I concede that there may be no God. The TBAs (True Believing Atheists) on the board cannot accept that God might exist. They remind me of a recalcitrant toddler, with his mouth firmly clamped shut, turning his face away from his spoon determined not to even take a taste of what is on offer.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Ex-Mormon board for the UK

A new ex-Momon board has been set up for people living in the British Isles. It has been created by brit-exmo.

If you would like to have a look or to join, just visit

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Do you still think and act as if you were a Mormon?

Do you still think and act as if you were a Mormon? This is something that some people who claim to be totally free from the malign influences of the Mormon church need to address.

The strange thing is that those worse effected by the malign influences of the Mormon church do not even realise that they have a problem!

Others can recognise there problems, but they cannot. And should you even suggest that they might have a problem their reaction speaks volumes!

Here are some of the key points that I, and some other ex-Mormons have noticed:

You still think and act like a Mormon if:

1) You are unable to accept that the point of view of other people is valid. Many TBMs (and some ex-Mormons) seem pathologically unable to understand that, just because they think in a certain way or follow a certain belief pattern does not automatically mean that the other person is wrong. This is a slightly modified example of the “not invented here” syndrome.

2) You have an overwhelming desire to convert someone to your particular modality of thinking. Clue. You are NOT on a mission for your “church” so do not preach.

3) You are unable to accept that you might be wrong about something.

4) If people question you, you start to rant at them and take leave of your senses. People are allowed to question you, even if they might be wrong.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Why the adverts amd why the Paypal buttons? I'll reveal all!

I run several blogs besides Notamormon

My wife wants us to buy a new Aga cooker. They are really great cookers/heating systems. and

They are not cheap. And my wife has set me the challenge of earning enough money through my blogsites to earn enough money to buy an Aga.

Personally, I think I might have difficulties, but my wife has every confidence in my abilities. I hope she is right to have faith in me. I am doing my very best not to disapoint her.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Blog links banned at RFM

It would seem that, unlike every other message board, the RFM board has decided to ban links to this blogsite. And perhaps all other blogsites too. I do not know.

Hey. That's their right. If admin over there wants to continue acting like the Mormon thought police that they say they despise, then that is up to them. Of course, they could try to stop acting like TBMs, but if they do not want to, who are we to stop them?

However, perhaps the name should not be Recovery From Mormonism any longer? Perhaps it should be Must Follow the Herd?

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Here is that banned South Park episode

Please pass this on.

It is easy to see why Travolta and Cruise are a tad upset, however!

Doublethink, cognitive dissonance and Mormonism

Here is a fairly good definition of what doublethink is. This definition of Doublethink also seems to fit the model of the Mormon Church.

I hope the following is a useful example of Mormon Doublethink: “I know that Joseph Smith was/a rapist/adulterer/child molester/panderer/ prophet of God/fraudster/liar/breaker of the Mormon word of Wisdom/thief/charlatan/megalomaniac/user of so-called black magic…”

You see that? Many Mormons know all the bad stuff about Joseph Smith, yet are prepared to put all of that to one side and to believe, at the same time, that he was, besides it all, a prophet of God.

Cognitive dissonance. Many people have said that Mormons suffer from cognitive dissonance. Some of the explanations of cognitive dissonance have ranged from “Well, YOU know! Cognitive dissonance! Duh! Do I have to explain EVERYTHING here?” (As in: “Wow! I wonder what it really means? Best not display my ignorance!”) And some detailed, erudite explanations as to what cognitive dissonance is, which border on the far-too-detailed!

I have found an explanation of cognitive dissonance that fits the Mormon model really rather well. It is by Scott Adams and was used in his Dilbert cartoon series to very effectively illustrate this rather detailed concept:

Now that really did help me understand how Mormons are trained to believe in stuff they surely must know is really untrue!

For a scientific definition take a look at

The Mormon church also uses lies in order to promote its own interests. Please look through my other posts on this blog (some are archived) for some examples of what I mean.

Ten simple mistakes

Ten simple mistakes

There are some simple mistakes that people can make that might have far-reaching and potentially disastrous consequences for them or for other people.

1) Never mistake erudition for intelligence. Some of the most erudite people are like those rural jug bands. Able to make a hell of a lot of noise (some which sounds fairly musical, too) but when you examine it close to, it is just, after all, an empty vessel and so much hot air.

2) Just because someone has an education does not mean that they are intelligent or more clever than you or anyone else. For when all is said and done, if you take a stupid person and give them an education you will only ever get what you started with. You will merely end up with a stupid person with an education! As the old saying goes, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”

3) Just because someone reaches the right conclusion does not mean that their methods to reach the conclusion were correct. For example, a racist person might tell you that a black man is a thief. Suppose that he is right, and that the man is a thief? But what if he reached that conclusion based on the false idea that ALL black people are thieves? Sometimes people are right by accident.

4) Just because person A might believe they are right, dos not make them right, automatically.

5) Do not confuse sophistry with valid, reasoned argument or debate. Sophistry means an argument that is misleading or fallacious. Some people use sophistry deliberately whilst others get caught up in their own verbosity and employ sophistry almost by accident.

6) Some people believe that something is wrong merely because they are too stupid to understand the arguments involved. Ignorance is not bliss. A bunny on a railway line is ignorant and will remain in bliss. Right up until the moment of impact.

7) Substituting quotes for debate or reasoned argument or intelligent debate merely indicates that the person spouting the quotes lacks any real depth in their arguments.

8) Some people employ circular reasoning. “I do not agree with what you say, because I am much more clever than you. And because I am much more clever than you, I do not agree with what you say.”

9) Failure to understand or wilful misapplication of Occam’s Razor. (I am indebted to Scott Adams for pointing this out in “The Joy of Work”) Scott Adams points out that Occam’s Razor “says the simplest explanation is usually right.” I will cite the erroneous application of Occam’s Razor that Scott Adams uses: “The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoxes.”

10) Scott Adams also points out that some people ignore anecdotal evidence with no good reason. “Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it’s not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can’t tell if they cause hives.”

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Letters from a broad...: Why did I write such an offensive novel? Apologies in advance...

Letters from a broad...: Why did I write such an offensive novel? Apologies in advance...

Letters from a broad...: Why I hate church

Letters from a broad...: Why I hate church

An analogy:-

Let’s imagine that you are about to enter your bank, the First Bank of Commerce, to transact some business, when you notice there is an old man standing outside it, holding a placard upon which is printed the words: “This bank robbed me.”

You wonder what is going on. You have always found this bank honest and above reproach in all of your dealings with it. As you approach the man he thrusts a leaflet in your hand.

He shouts at you “Hey, Mister! Don’t go in there That bank will rob you! All banks are nothing but evil robbers, crooks and shysters!”

You are intrigued by him, so you decided to stop and ask him what his problem with the bank might be. “I notice your placard says that this bank robbed you. When was that?”

He says: “All banks rob you. Why, I put my money in a bank just like this one and they robbed me! Take my advice young man, do what I do. Don’t put your trust in the arm or the strongbox of a banker! Look to yourself for your own security! Keep your money under your mattress!”

You notice that the man had failed to answer your question. “I am sorry to hear about your problem. But sir, when did this bank rob you?”

“All banks are exactly the same. It wasn’t this bank that robbed me. It was the Bank of Smith that robbed me. But all banks are the same, I tell you! They all rob people!”

You are slightly irritated by him, now. After all, he hasn'ty been truthful with you. His placard boldly stated that the bank he was protesting against had robbed him, but now it seems that he was not telling the entire truth. It had been another bank that he had had a problem with, not this bank.

You try to reason with him. “But sir, surely you cannot extrapolate from your experience and declare all banks to be, what was it you said? Oh yes! ‘evil robbers, crook and shysters’? I am sure some banks, perhaps the majority, even, are honest in their dealings with their customers?”

At this, he becomes enraged! He starts screaming at you: “How dare you question me! If I say all banks are robbers, than they ARE, robbers, damn you! What are you? Some kind of pro-banking nut? It’s bigots like you who allow bankers to rob the people! Use a mattress to store your money! It’s the only way. Or maybe you are a spy from the banks, trying to shut me up?”

You angrily sidestep this ranting man and walk into the bank, wondering at how anyone could unjustly extrapolate such a specious argument? After all, there were commercial banks, bank, building societies, community banks, savings clubs, and the like. How could he condemn all banks based on his experience with only one of them?

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Why my mother became a Mormon.

I have puzzled over this for years. Whilst I believe that she thinks she had a religious experience when tow young Mormon missionaries knocked on the door, after much consideration I think I know one of the reasons that she joined the Mormon Church.

She was lonely and isolated. In early 1960s Birmingham was still a city terribly devastated by the Second World War. Vast sections of the city were still officially declared bomb site. It was weird. You would walk along a road and, although the gaslights were still in position and still burning (yes, Birmingham still had gaslights in the street into the mid to late 1960s!) one or both sides of the cobbled street were totally flat. The corpses of some people had been left in the cellars of the engineering works or the houses in the tightly packed back-to-back housing in and near the city centre, where we lived.

The government decided it would be too costly to rebuild, so they had new towns built and large sections of the populace of Birmingham were forced to leave our home city and settled in these new towns.

My mother was given a choice of three. And chose the worst option, as it happens. We were used to a bustling city with 24 hour a day bus services, theatres, cinemas and train services and relatively high wages with skilled jobs. We moved to an area of a few buses a day to the nearest town, no train service, no cinema and no theatre. And wages 1/10 of in Birmingham. And no skilled jobs.

And the local people hated us. They reviled us in the street and called us names. I was at school, my father had to make an 80 mile round trip to and from work and my mother was at home, isolated and so very, very lonely. And she knew that the situation we were in was partially her fault, for opting for the wrong area.

The other members of the church she attended resented her, as she was an incomer, so not welcome. Some people were kind, but many were not.

And then the Mormon missionaries came. Clean, nice looking young lads. They came with tales of a golden bible, and of Moroni’s promise.

She went to church and felt welcome for the first time in the area we lived in. That clinched it, I think. Also, it might have been a sort of black humour of sorts that lead my mother, isolated and persecuted as she was, to choose to join a church which liked to exude an air of pious beatification as it exaggerates one or two stories of early persecution into a skein of lies that cocoon Mormonism from the real world.

Perhaps my mother identified with Mormons and Mormonism because she felt she was suffering, as the church were? And after all she was persecuted for being a Brummie. Might as well make it something more interesting to be persecuted of. Like being a member of a loony cult.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Bitter or angry against Mormonism? HELL, YES! YOU BET I AM!

TBM: “You are just bitter and you hate the Mormon church!”

EXMO: “Now, what on earth would I have to be bitter about regarding the Mormon church? And why would I hate it?”

Could it possible be because before my parents joined the Mormon church my mother was a kind, loving and wise person, yet within 20 years had degenerated in to a shrill, hateful sour person who was unrecognisable as the woman who had raised me?

Could that be it do you think? Or perhaps it might be because the Mormon church took my father who was sensitive and creative and fucked him over so much that he became totally dependent on the church for every aspect of his life?

My father used to have hobbies. The Mormon church made certain that he had no time for hobbies. How? Their stupid incessant “busy, busy, work, work” programme of meetings, all part of their cult brainwashing techniques.

Or could it be the fact that my little brother was subject to psychological abuse by the Bishop, do you think? Would that make someone bitter, do you think? Possibly?

I wanted to beat the crap out of him, but my mother begged me not to. Years later I feel anger towards myself for NOT beating up the shit.

Do I feel anger that my parents wanted to move us back to our home city, yet were forced by the local Mormons into staying in an area that they really were not comfortable with and in which we never really fitted in? Who, me? Angry?

Do I feel bitter that the Mormon church forced my parents to stay in an area with a very poor educational system, rather than going back to our home city which had a very good educational system so that I would have been able to get a degree and lived a fuller and better life? Who, me? Bitter?

Am I angry that the Mormon church made my parents stay in an area with low job prospects as well as a poor educational system?

Some people will say: “Well, Matt, that’s a little unfair. You cannot blame the Mormon church for every bad thing in your life, since your parents joined the Mormon church.”

Oh, really? Who says? I say that everyone who is a Mormon or who was a Mormon has been damaged by the Mormon Church to a greater or lesser extent. I call it the MDO, or Mormon Domino Theory.

If you have 1,000 dominos, all lined up together, if you push domino 1 down, eventually the who line of dominos will have fallen over and domino 999 will knock down domino 1000. So, domino number 1 had nothing to do with it, then? Why, yes! Of course it did! It started the whole process off!
Another example. Let’s imagine there are three people on a railway station platform. Person three deliberately pushed person two, knocking them into person one on purpose, causing person one to get killed by a train. Who caused the death? Person two? Or person three? It is cause and effect.

A different example. Let’s picture the following scene. A child is walking along a pavement (aka sidewalk) and a drunken driver mounts the pavement and strikes them, causing them such terrible injuries that they lose most of the use of their leg..

Now, for the rest of their life as they grow up, that person will always walk with a limp. They’ll work hard to compensate for it, but they WILL always walk with a limp. Nobody in their right mind would say: “Oh, for God’s sake! Stop walking with that limp! You have walked with a limp for years, ever since the car ran you down!”

And that is another way to view the terrible damage caused by Mormonism. You get up and leave Mormonism (recover from the accident) but there’s always the fact that you were a Mormon and the brainwashing/cult indoctrination damaged the way you think, the way you react to situations, etc.

You CAN recover from Mormonism, but like the person in the Road Traffic Accident, you will always have a limp of some kind, no matter how hard you try to cope with it and to hide it.

Bitter against Mormonism? Angry with it? Hell, yes. I AM! And I DEMAND the right to be bitter and angry with the cult that destroyed my family and damaged my life.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Four key differences between Jesus and Joseph Smith

Jesus said: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
Joseph Smith said: “My word, little girl. You certainly have big tits for your age.”

Jesus said: “Don’t store up treasures on the earth”
Joseph Smith said: “Give me ten percent of your income. In fact, give me all of your money and I’ll put it in my "bank." You sucker!”

Jesus said: “Love your fellow man”
Joseph Smith said: “You love your fellow man whilst I will love your fellow man’s wife, his daughter, his sister, his niece, his mother...”

Jesus said: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Joseph Smith said: “Take that, you bastards! I’m gonna take some of you with me!”

And those are four key differences between Jesus and Joseph Smith.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Joseph Smith, Rapist.

Yes, that is what I said, Joseph Smith, rapist.

According to the law as it stood in the time of Joseph Smith, it was possible for a woman to be raped not only by force but also by “deception, enticement or other artifice”

What bearing does this have on Joseph Smith? Joseph Smith’s “chat up line” was an original one. Indeed, it was probably unique. He told women that he found sexually attractive: “An angel with a flaming sword has told me to marry you, or I will be destroyed!”

Now, this puts the young lady in an interesting position. The Prophet of the church wants to marry her. The prophet of the church tells her that only she has the power to save the Prophet from certain death at the hands of an enraged angel.

"I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him."- Sister Mary Lightner, Address given to Brigham Young University, April 1905, BYU Archives and Manuscripts.

Of course, from the great distance in time and far from the hothouse atmosphere of early Mormondom, we can see what women like Mary Lightener could not see. That Joseph Smith was a liar and a deceiver.

He therefore used “deception, enticement or other artifice” in order to trick the women into joining him in a marriage which, because it was bigamous, was nothing but sham and a pretence, so that he would be able to enjoy sexual intercourse with them.

If Joseph Smith, sheep sacrificer and convicted fraudster had said to Mary Lightener and others: “Hey, toots, how's about us making the beast with two backs?” They would, almost without a doubt, given him very short shrift.

But this was not Joseph Smith, sheep sacrificer and convicted fraudster. This was Joseph Smith, Prophet of the Lord with his "Flaming Sword" chatup line!

Joseph Smith used “deception, enticement or other artifice” in order to entrap his “marks” and engage in sexual intercourse with them. Which, in accordance with the law as it stood at that time, means there is only one inescapable conclusion. That Joseph Smith was a rapist, just as much as if he had beaten them into submission to his will or raped them at gunpoint.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Joseph Smith, rapist.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

How the Mormon Church might handle the Asian DNA debacle.

The presence of Asian DNA and of no Semitic DNA in the aboriginal populations of both North and South America seems to be an insurmountable problem for the Mormon Church.

However there are a number of techniques available for this problem to be sidestepped or 'dealt with' to the satisfaction of Morgbot Central.

They can ignore it using the “The Lord moves in mysterious ways” gambit.

They can ignore it by pretending that the fanciful allegations (untrue as it happens!) of any immorality on the part of anyone putting forward the DNA argument somehow magically trumps the DNA evidence that they produced.

Or they can state that whilst it might seem on the face of it to be unusual that the Book of Mormon makes no mention of the Asiatic-derived populace of North and South America, that this was obviously dealt with in the missing 116 pages of the book of Mormon and that god will reveal these missing 116 pages only when he feels that mankind is ready for the knowledge contained therein.

Liars and the lies they tell would be a good title for a book on the spin of the Mormon church.

What the Mormon Church stole from my Dad.

My dad was a smoker (40 a day or more, sometimes) and he tried to give up smoking many times, but was always so evil about it with his temper, that my mother always bought him some cigarettes.

My father stopped being a smoker when he became a Mormon. So my attitude to Mormonism has always been a little ambivalent. On the one hand I knew it was a fake, but on the other hand, I knew it had stopped my father from smoking and thus increased his lifespan.

Whilst inwardly debating this point I said: “So, even though the Mormon church was untrue, it did, at least, give my father some extra time on the Earth.”

But then I heard the voice (probably the voice of inner debate!) say: “so, your father got extra time on the Earth. Big deal! What, exactly, did your father DO with this extra time on the Earth that he got?”

Well, that was something I had never thought of before. Exactly what HAD my Dad done with this extra time?

The answer I got was rather upsetting. For he had wasted this extra time. Three hour block meetings every (yes, EVERY!) Sunday. Meetings, bloody meetings, Home Teaching, Bishopric meetings, temple trips, etc, etc., et-bloody-cetera. And all to do with the Mormon Church, of course.

My father had, at one time, several hobbies. But all of these were washed away and subsumed by the hours and hours of tedious Mormon crap that washed over our family like so much spillage from an especially vile sewerage works.

My parents had more time for the Mormon church than they ever did for us, their children.

Had my father said to my mother: “No, I do not think we should become Mormons” yes, there’s a chance he would not have made 76, as he did. But he and me could have gone down the pub together (a male bonding ritual in Britain) gone to jazz concerts, visited the theatre, he could have pursued his hobbies, my parents could have gone on holidays, having not wasted their money on ensuring that the Mormon president and his acolytes had a very nice lifestyle.

Who knows? Perhaps he could have given up smoking with the help of autosuggestion or hypnosis.

The Mormon church gave my father extra years of life. But they made sure that he paid for it big time, the bastards! They stole much more from him than they ever gave him.

Because they stole his life.

Books about the Mormons in Europe

These are some books about the Mormons in Europe. They are all links to Amazon UK. Some of them are probably published by on on the behalf of the Mormon church, so are of restricted use.

On the Way to Somewhere Else: European Sojourners in the Mormon West (Kingdom in the West, V. 8) ~Michael W. Homer (Editor)Arthur H Clark Hardcover - March 30, 2006

Homeward to Zion: the Mormon Migration from Scandinavia ~William MulderUniversity of Minnesota Press Paperback - February 1, 2000 Books: See all 8 results Our Price: £14.00 + £1.99 sourcing fee. Learn more. Usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks

Building Zion: The Latter-Day Saints in Europe ~Bruce A Van OrdenDeseret Book Company Hardcover - April 1996 Books: See all 8 results Used & New from £37.12 Usually dispatched within 1 to 2 working days

Ships, Saints and Mariners: A Maritime Encyclopedia of Mormon Migration, 1830-1890 ~Conway B. SonneUniv of Utah Pr (T) Hardcover - June 1987 Books: See all 8 results Used & New from £115.38 Usually dispatched within 1 to 2 working days

Audacious Women: Early British Mormon Immigrants ~Rebecca BartholomewSignature Books Paperback - May 1995 Books: See all 10 results Our Price: £10.88 Used & New from £9.21 Usually dispatched within 1 to 3 weeks

Mormons in Early Victorian Britain (Publications in Mormon Studies, Vol 4) ~Richard L. Jensen, Malcolm R. Thorp (Editor)Univ of Utah Pr (T) Hardcover - March 1990 Books: See all 10 results Used & New from £101.79 Usually dispatched within 1 to 2 working days

Penny Tracts and Polemics: A Critical Analysis of Anti-Mormon Pamphleteering in Great Britain, 1837-1860 ~Craig L. FosterGreg Kofford Books Inc Hardcover - October 30, 2002 Books: See all 10 results Used & New from £42.67 Usually dispatched within 1 to 2 working days

Men With a Mission: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in the British Isles, 1837-1841 ~James B. Allen, et alDeseret Book Co Hardcover - March 1992 Books: See all 10 results Used & New from £72.64 Usually dispatched within 1 to 2 working days

Mormon imprints in Great Britain and the Empire 1836-1857: An exhibition in the Harold B. Lee Library (Friends of the Brigham Young University Library newsletter) ~Peter CrawleyFriends of the Brigham Young University Library Unknown Binding - 1987 Books: See all 10 resultsLimited availability

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Thank you, Professor Daniel Peterson!

It seems that Professor Daniel Peterson has decided to use a quote from one of my posts at the RFM board ( as his signature on the FAIR board.

Although Professor Peterson did not ask for my permission to cite my post in this way, I will forgive him.

This is the quote he uses:-

"Why all the attention and focus on Prof. Daniel Peterson [on the 'Recovery' board]?"Mr Daniel Peterson issued a challenge to a poster here. DP has ran offThat's why.DP is a blowhard moral coward, IMO, as he called for a debate and when the call was answered, DP ran away like a craven cur.You do not need to say sorry to DCP. He . . . is a bad, wicked man. One day the Devil will claim him for his own . . .(Matt, "Recovery" board [7 March 2006])

Hopefully he will be able to discover the truth and become a Christian. Professor Peterson might like to visit for some writings and information on Christianity.

No matter what, Joe Smith LIED!

If the DNA evidence reported that Jewish or Semitic settlers had reached America, this would not back up Joseph Smith#s claims.

Because DNA or not, Joseph Smith was stil a liar. Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon. Was it based on several other works? Or did he created it all out of his own febrile mind? It really does not matter because Joseph Smith published the damned thing!

Joseph Smith used the Jewish connection because that was in the public eye. Many people has written or spoke on the subject of the lost tribes of Israel, so it was something for Joseph Smith to latch on to.

But what if Joseph Smith had heard a theory that caught his attention? The theory that people had come to America from Asia? What if he had based his Book of Mormon on Mor mon a Warlord from Asia with his band of followers?

The DNA evidence would have backed up this claim of Smith's even though it was just as bogus as the Semite connection with Lehi and his family.

No matter how you cut it, Joseph Smith was nothing more or less than a liar.

Friday, March 10, 2006

Why Mormonism is like fake wine

Let's say we have two bottles of wine, side by side. Both are in clear bottles, without a label both are red in colour.

One is an expensive French wine and the other was made in a back street chemical laboratory by a former wine maker who, due to reasons of alcoholism went to the bad.

The real wine costs £50.00 The fake wine costs £50.00, too. So the price is the same.

How do you tell the difference between the two bottles?

You remove the corks and sniff the bottles. Both smell fruity and have a slight whiff of alcohol about them.

However, the difference will not noted until one tastes both bottles of wine. The real Frenxch wine has a strong, distinctive, pleasing flavour which is warm on the tongue and which "drinks well."

However, the fake wine is vile. It has a nasty harsh taste that makes one shudder. It is alomst impossible to swallow it.

How is the fake wine made? Acids, industrial alcohol and banana skins to give it a fake fruity smell.

Industrial alcohol? If they get it wrong it can cause deafness and blindness or even kill.

This is the difference between Mormonism and most other religions. Other religions are based on ancient grape varietes and nothing else.

Mormonism, on the other hand, is a combination of toxic substances tricked up to make it look like the real thing. You can only tell in the tasting.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

The four-letter word often used to describe the Mormon Church

What are the main differences between Christians and Mormons? To be “saved” a Christian has to believe in Christ. Not much of a surprise there, you might think.

However, for a Mormon to be saved the Mormon must believe in the following:

That you must believe in Joseph Smith, and also in Jesus.

That you will be judged by Joseph Smith ("No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith… He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity and calling, as God does in Heaven" - Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, p.203)

That you must believe in a man who believed he was better than Jesus Christ and who expressed that sentiment thusly: "I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has been able to keep a church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I." - History of the Church, Vol.6, p.408.

And who also claimed that God was his (Joseph Smith’s) right hand man: “I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the guardian knot of powers and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth--diamond truth; and God is my 'right hand man.'" - History of the Church, Vol.6, p.78.

God is Joseph Smith’s right hand man? Now that is a very bold claim to make. Incredibly bold, even. Bold to the point of reckless blasphemy, perhaps?

Let us also look at a more simple comparison. If -for example- a Catholic were to sin he would have to steal, punch someone perhaps, or something worse.

If a Mormon were to sin all he need do is take a sip of tea or coffee or take one swig of a cola drink.

The Mormons also believe that if you want to go to Heaven you had better get used to the idea of having multiple wives if you are a man or to get used to the idea of sharing your husband with multiple wives if you are a woman.

Are Mormons Christians? Some Mormons have argued that because they use the name Jesus Christ in the formal title of their church that this means they must, therefore, be Christians.

That is a canard. There was a rather vicious street gang several years ago who used the name "Sport Club "as the title for their gang.

According to the methodology of Mormon apologists the street gang must in reality be a “sports club” because they use “Sports Club” as the name of their gang.

The Sports Club was not a sports club in much the same way that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons) are not, after all, Christians.

The four-letter word often used to describe the Mormon church? It is Cult.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Mormon trolls. A danger to their community?

A troll is a person who, often through malice, deliberately attacks an Internet community in order to cause discord there.

On an ex-Mormon bulletin board, for example, you will often find Mormons pretending to be ex-Mormons or non-Mormons.

Often they will band together to single out one particular poster to try to hurt and destroy that poster. They use the tag team technique. It is suspected that they use email and or phone communications before, during and after their attacks in order to better plan them.

Why do they do this? Quite simply, it is because they can. They see former-Mormons or questioning Mormons as "FAIR game" and see it as a god-given duty to destroy them or force them back to the fold as broken people.

They will lie for the lord, because they see lying and being cruel and hurtful as being sanctified by God.

This type of "morality lite" Mormon troll is especially dangerous, as it is likely that In Real Life (IRL) that they may present a danger to their local community as they show signs of severe sociopathic mental health issues. If untreated it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of them may "go postal" with horrible consequences.

Other Mormon trolls will ask nonsense questions, attempt to derail threads or will pretend to be a legitimate poster with a problem, only to return to the board and boast about how they tricked everyone who took the time to express sympathy or offer advice.

This type of troll is a danger to the Mormon church as they really only hurt it.

Monday, March 06, 2006

How do others view Mormonism? And why it is worse than Amway!

A crazy cult? Multiple wives? Secret temple oaths? Weird rituals and rites? Funny undewear with magic symbols? Take 10 percent of your money? Fastest growing sect in the world?

The first six are pretty much on the money. Though the latter is a lie that having been repeated so many times by spin doctors like Hinckley over the years, that, sadly, it has entered the consciousness of the world as it it was true.

Hitler and Goebbels knew the golden rule that seems to be Hinckley's maxim: "Tell a lie enough times, and no matter how outrageous it is, it will eventually be regarded as if it were the truth."

Mormonism is seen by some, especially some ex-Mormons, as an MLM scam. "It's just like Amway" has been said.

Well, I can see why some former Mormons would feel this way, but Mormonism is not, in truth, all that much like Amway. It is far, far worse!

If you get involved with Amway (and I am talking here about my experience with Amway in the UK) is that if you join and it doesn't work out, you are out about £30, but you do have a collection of reasonably good cleaning products to use up. With Mormonism the only clean thing is a nicely washed brain...

Mormonism is worse than Amway, because Mormonism is more like the women empowering scams or the power pen scam when people paid £10 for a "special power pen" which entitled them to introduce more people into their downline.

Like any "good" (sic!) pyramid selling scam, Mormonism also has its downline. You don't think it does? Just ask any Mormon male about his so-called "line of authority" which he claims means he can trace his priesthood power back to Joe Smith and Peter, James and John.

Mormonism was created with one purpose in mind. To enrich Joe Smith and his family and his tawdry successors.

At least with Amway, etc., there's a chance that you might make some money. I did know someone who retired from actively selling Amway, and lived off the rake-off from his downline.

Byt Mormonism is just like the empowerment scams and the power pen scams. With Mormonism you pay the corporation 10% of your income. For no material reward.

Surely, then, Mormonism must be the ultimate MLM scam? 10% of your income, for life. And you don't even get a pen, power or otherwise...

How do others view Mormonism? And why it is worse than Amway!

A crazy cult? Multiple wives? Secret temple oaths? Weird rituals and rites? Funny undewear with magic symbols? Take 10 percent of your money? Fastest growing sect in the world?

The first six are pretty much on the money. Though the latter is a lie that having been repeated so many times by spin doctors like Hinckley over the years, that, sadly, it has entered the consciousness of the world as it it was true.

Hitler and Goebbels knew the golden rule that seems to be Hinckley's maxim: "Tell a lie enough times, and no matter how outrageous it is, it will eventually be regarded as if it were the truth."

Mormonism is seen by some, especially some ex-Mormons, as an MLM scam. "It's just like Amway" has been said.

Well, I can see why some former Mormons would feel this way, but Mormonism is not, in truth, all that much like Amway. It is far, far worse!

If you get involved with Amway (and I am talking here about my experience with Amway in the UK) is that if you join and it doesn't work out, you are out about £30, but you do have a collection of reasonably good cleaning products to use up. With Mormonism the only clean thing is a nicely washed brain...

Mormonism is worse than Amway, because Mormonism is more like the women empowering scams or the power pen scam when people paid £10 for a "special power pen" which entitled them to introduce more people into their downline.

Like any "good" (sic!) pyramid selling scam, Mormonism also has its downline. You don't think it does? Just ask any Mormon male about his so-called "line of authority" which he claims means he can trace his priesthood power back to Joe Smith and Peter, James and John.

Mormonism was created with one purpose in mind. To enrich Joe Smith and his family and his tawdry successors.

At least with Amway, etc., there's a chance that you might make some money. I did know someone who retired from actively selling Amway, and lived off the rake-off from his downline.

Byt Mormonism is just like the empowerment scams and the power pen scams. With Mormonism you pay the corporation 10% of your income. For no material reward.

Surely, then, Mormonism must be the ultimate MLM scam? 10% of your income, for life. And you don't even get a pen, power or otherwise...

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Dozens of name generators including the Mormon one!

The above site has dozens of cool name generators, including the Mormon name generator.

By the way, any Mormons passing through? Do be careful. There's some rather saucy photograghs on the Porn star name generator, so please do not say you haven't been warned!

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Book of Mormon Stories, seem like lies to me!

All Mormons, without any exception whatsoever, were taught that the Lamanites and the Nephites settled America, but found the remnants of the Jaradites. They did not find anyone else. Now, it is of vital importance to remember that.

For it is known that the people who settled America were Asians. There were also people from France, but we can leave them out of the picture, at present.

As Lamanite battled against Nephite and also against other Lamanites, sometimes, is it not a little strange that they could have lived throughout all those hundreds of hundreds of years and not met one, for example, Plains Indian? None of the decendants of the Viking settlers? Or the Welsh settlers? The Irish? Or the Inuit? Or the Clovis People?

There can be only one explanation. That the Book of Mormon is not only fiction, but very poor fiction at that.

Let's now look at the claim by the Mormon church and their "Riders of the Purple Sage" aka FARMS, FAIR, etc.

They claim that the Jewish Lamanites simply quite rapidly forgot their Jewish traditions. If this were true, it would be truly astonishing. Why? Because the Jews of Africa, Lemba, Abayudaya Jews, the Falasha Jews, or the Shinlung Jews of India, even though some trace their leaving Israel over 2,000 years ago still observe the Jewish religion.

The Book of Mormon is bunkum.

For more information on Jewish diaspora visit

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Mormons are encouraged to lie... to themselves

Why Fake It ‘til You Make It?

Isn’t that one of the stupidest little maxims of Mormonism? Fake It ‘til You Make It. Why? Why would you want to ever considering Faking It ‘til You Make It?

The strange thing is that this does seem to have some very deep resonance with the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith Junior. After all, Mr. Smith was well-known for faking things. He was found guilty of pretending to be a “glasslooker” and received a sentence for this offence.

So from even before Smith created the Mormon Church, he was quite the adept at “Fake It ‘til You Make It.”

After the faked his visitations from ‘Celestial Beings’ (was it an angel or God? God and Jesus, or just God?) he then went on to mastermind the faking of a bank. A great many Mormons lost all their savings. But, strange to relate, Smith still seemed to continue in his own not very sweet way.

He also faked revelations from God, especially about his being excluded from the Biblical and moral strictures against adultery.

There was the United Order (linked with the fake bank fiasco) which Joseph Smith seemed to want to share everything a man had. Including his wife…

This reminds me of a song by Scots singer-songwriter B A Robertson, about life in a commune. Something along the lines of “you can share my rice, but hey man, I’ll share your wife.”

And make it Smith certainly did. Had he not allowed himself to get killed by a lynch mob, it is likely that Smith would have been very rich by the time he died.

But is it not sad that Mormons are advised to: Fake It ‘til You Make It?” advised by their church to lie to themselves? It is a sort of self-applied brainwashing technique and really does wash whiter.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Life as a Mormon is life in a constant dream state

Those people reading this who can remember their dreams will be able to understand where I am coming from, on this one. Those who can't, well, please just trust me!

You can be living in a dream and you think it is real life until something happens that make you realise hat it is really only a dream. Sometimes this can wake you up.

I can recall one weird dream when I realised I was dreaming, because something really bizarre had happened. I walked up to an old lady who was heading in to town pulling a shopping trolley. I said to her: "excuse me, but I must tell you that none of this is real. It's al ljust a dream!"

The old lady looked at me, smiled and said: "That's all very inteesting dear, but you'll have to excuse me as I must get on as I need to get to the market early. She turned and carried on walking."

I started to laugh at this unexpected turn of events and I woke myself up by laughing and tears of laughter were rolling down my cheeks.

How does this tie in with Mormonism? Because Mormonism is like being in a constant dream state. During this constant dream state, bizarre things happen. Most Mormons do not wake up laughing. They carry on dreaming, confusing the dream (nightmare?) of Mormonism for reality.

The Book of Mormon being a cobbled-together fake? Keep on dreaming. The Book of Abraham being another fake? Keep on dreaming. Blacks not getting the priesthood and then suddenly getting the priesthood? Keep on dreaming! The Mark Hofmann forgeries and murders? Keep on dreaming! Temple ceremony changes? Keep on dreaming! DNA? Keep on dreaming! Limited geography theory? Keep on dreaming!

At some point, ex-Mormons awoke from the dream state of Mormonism. Why not more?