Secularist stars at the NSS conference

As I mentioned earlier, I went to London today for the National Secular Society's conference.  I'll probably write more about it another day, but here's a little comment about each of the speakers.  I should say that the event was attended by nearly 800 people from a range of backgrounds - including at least one gentleman wearing a clerical collar.

Professor Ted Cantle - business-like and well informed.  Being English and male might lead some to wonder how he is qualified to comment about people who are in neither category but I found him convincing.  Multiculturalism is to be replaced by 'interculturalism'. 

Nia Griffith (Member of Parliament), neither English nor male - was an entertaining and informative speaker.  Her best anecdote (of many) was about the Human Embryology and Fertilsation Act.  Constituents were worried that "there'll be centaurs running in the streets".  [Its odd that they will not be cantering or galloping.]

Pragna Patel was more successful than I expected at involving those of us who were not 'Southall Black Sisters'.  [I suppose I'm a little wary of positive discrimination or something - but being white, English and male, I hope you might make allowances for that . . . please?]  Speaking of minority groups who seek favours from the state she said "They use the language of human rights but actually seek to suppress it."  This was echoed by most of the following speakers.  Excellent points throughout the speech and good answers to questions.

Nick Cohen's brilliant speech was one of the highlights of the day.  He acknowledged that journalists and broadcasters were afraid to admit that self-censorship exists.  All like to pose as dissidents in a dictatorship, challenging establishments, transgressing boundaries, but they can't acknowledge that certain topics are just off limits.  He added that 200 years ago you would know that the finest minds in the world also had supernatural beliefs as a broad explanation of the world. Now that is no longer possible.  As soon as you reach some level of knowledge you will know that the greatest minds in the world do not hold supernatural beliefs now.  Religion is no longer able to be involved in high culture.  This makes people defensive and wary of learning.  Religion now knows itself to be intellectually on the back foot.

Maryam Namazie was next but I'll come back to her later.

Peter Tatchell delivered a fine speech as usual.  He emphasised that the enemy was organised faith itself, not necessarily the faithful people.  The clerics are the main threat and it is time we said so.  Afterwards someone commented that he had foundered a little when questioned about the ordinary faithful essentially lending support to the religious leaders, and about funding for improvements to human rights.  I think that was a reasonable assessment.

Richard Dawkins came last - I can listen to him any time.  He was advertised as the keynote speaker for very obvious reasons.  The first half of his talk was excellent, with comments on dealing with potentially violent people "I fear you because you are mad but don't confuse fear with respect."  Actually telling people that they are "behaving like a spoilt brat having a temper tantrum" might not be the best advice.  He spent some time on American politics, obviously with the impending election in mind.  Christian scriptures are genuinely ancient. The Book of Mormon is not ancient but ludicrously anachronistic [and he explained why, in some detail, and with great wit]. Many of the core beliefs are measurably more preposterous than claims of Christianity.  At least it is arguable that Jesus existed. All of that was delivered with his usual verbal dexterity.  The less I say about the second half of the speech, his confusing satire about Tony Blair, the better, but Richard is not a stand-up comedian by profession.

Now back to the real star of the show.  It is clear why Dawkins was the keynote speaker, but the only one of the day to get a standing ovation, along with the longest applause, was Maryam Namazie.  Her speech was exactly what you would expect from her, and on the basis of the four times that I have heard her, she delivers it to the same high standard every time she speaks.  She combines a passion for justice with a deep understanding and knowledge of the subject.  It will be hard to do justice to her but in a few days I will write more about what she said.

Aside from that - it was a great day out and I met a lot of very interesting people who had travelled much further than I had to attend.  Hello to anyone among them who is reading this.  I expect all my readers to try to attend next year if geographically feasible.  Thanks to Terry Sanderson and crew for organising it all at a very reasonable price and reaching out to so many people.

Small note: published hurriedly on the day of the event.  Please forgive the larger number of typos than usual.

Update!  Most of the talks have now appeared on the Pod Delusion Extra site - although at the time of writing (2012-09-30) the best one is still awaiting permission.  Hopefully we can all hear the words of Maryam Namazie soon.

Presidential confusion

Not being a US citizen I can only say that this entertaining contribution, shared on Facebook today, seems to me to be a completely sensible question. Is there a sensible answer?

You might not realise that this caricature of the Mormons is not far from the truth.

Related posts can be found here.

Mr Deity and the Latter Days

And only because I have been talking about Mormonism a lot this week, I present Mr Deity and the Latter Days as a test to see whether you have been concentrating on what I have been saying!

Very clever as usual.  Maybe I am becoming more converted to Mr Deity the more I understand the subject!

Associated posts:
Blood of atonement - Christ's death was not enough...
God the father was once a sinner
Conservation of Intelligences
Joseph Smith's amazing discovery

Blood of atonement - Christ's death was not enough!

Did you know that Jesus is not a remedy for all sin after all?  In Mormonism, the blood of Jesus was shed to atone for the original sin of Adam (the sin of scrumping an apple or the sin of seeking knowledge - whichever way you choose to describe it.)  It was not shed for your sins.

It is difficult enough for anyone indoctrinated in christian culture (such as me) to realise that the concept of atonement through Jesus is itself a strange claim with no basis in common sense or morality.  Ever since I was a small child - or at least for as long as I can remember - I have heard that Jesus came to die for my sins by shedding his blood.  Until recent years I never bothered to wonder what the blood of a 2000 mythical character could have to do with my own redemption, or to claim that I never asked him to do it and really, given the choice I would prefer that he hadn't.  The whole scape-goat ritual of the crucifixion is as offensive to me as anything that can be said about Christianity.  Not only does it seem uncivilised.  To me it is an immoral act.

The Mormons seem to see things differently - although not the same way as me!

In order to be forgiven for some of the sins that we can commit on Earth, they claim that we would have to atone with our own blood.  Jesus's blood is not enough.  Yes his death allows Mormons to be resurrected, but not to received the full forgiveness needed in order to reach the Celestial Kingdom.

The second leader of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young, was very particular about all this.  He preached:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world."

and

Some sinners who are "now angels to the devil" could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have "spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty." 

Until recently, death by firing squad was an option in Mormon Country.

Is it a coincidence that only one of the United States of America retained the firing squad as a 'proper method of execution' until very recently?  That state was Utah, which is where the vast majority of Mormons live.  Death by firing squad was the only method available in USA in which the victim's blood is shed.  In 2004 this option was withdrawn (although there are still three prisoners on death row who could opt for it since it was not retro-active).  Just think of those poor Mormons who will now fail to get to the Celestial Kingdom!

You have to feel sorry for them don't you.   

[Small note to point out irony in the last sentence!]

God the father was once a sinner

The Mormon God of this world, (or perhaps of this universe) is called Elohim.  Surprisingly, Elohim did not create the universe.  Even Mormons do not claim that.  However, apparently we are all the spirit-children of Elohim and one of his heavenly wives, but he personally went through a similar life to us.

In fact he began life as a spirit child, passed through the 'Mortal Probation', (presumably with first class honours)  and went to Paradise.  From Paradise, Mormons believe that you you pass to one of the three levels of Celestial Kingdom if you achieved the mandatory minimum set of requirements.  (These are not to be confused with the Terestrial or Telestial kingdoms, of which more later.)

Elohim took his wives with him to the the planet (Or was it a star?  They can't decide.) Kolar, and his first born 'spirit child' was Jehovah (which is Mormon 'code' for Jesus).  Jehovah is separate and distinct from Elohim and some regard him as a god.  Others claim that Jehovah will have to marry and have spirit children in order to become a god, and yet others claim that this has already happened).  The reason that Jesus can be regarded as a saviour is that his father was physical but immortal (living on another planet in human form), and his mother was the mortal Mary, (who was also the offspring of Elohim).

So all this means that the main god of Mormonism was 'a sinner' who lived a normal human life (albeit not on Earth) and that Jesus is his son.

Returning to the other kingdoms, you might like to know that any non-Mormon who has lived a good life but who did not qualify to reach even the lowest level of the Celestial Kingdom has a good chance of eventually reaching the 'Terrestrial Kingdom'.  Even those who lived reprehensible lives could reach the 'Telestial Kingdom' instead of Hell.  In both of those places you could continue to exist for eternity (yawn!) but you can have no spirit children.  Only those who are exalted have that honour.  Yes - its another Master Race story!

You might also be interested to know that Hell is largely reserved for apostate Mormons - so you can see why it might be hard to deconvert a Mormon!

Conservation of Intelligences

In Mormonism, 'intelligences' come in only in plural and much like the concept of energy in physics, they are conserved.  Or at least, 'intelligences and matter are the only things that are eternal in Mormonism.

The 'scriptural origin' of the term comes from the Book of Abraham, which was a work of fiction translated by none other than  Joseph Smith.  In yesterday's post Joseph Smith's Amazing Discovery, I promised to talk about this.  This time his translation didn't require magic stones or spectacles, but only a knowledge of a language called 'reformed Egyptian' - a fictitious language invented by Smith himself.  The Mormons describe the book of Abraham a:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

In fact, it was completely made up from a funeral document of a very ordinary kind, purchased from a show that passed through his town.  Thanks to the Rosetta Stone and true scholarship, a copy of the original scroll has now been properly translated by real Egyptologists.  It says nothing of interest to Mormons.

According to a well regarded Mormon source, intelligences are defined as follows: 

The word "intelligences" (plural) occurs frequently in LDS literature, having reference to the period of the premortal existence of mankind. The term has received two interpretations by writers within the Church: as the literal spirit children of Heavenly Parents and as individual entities existing prior to their spirit birth. Because latter-day revelation has not clarified the meaning of the term, a more precise interpretation is not possible at present.

Well - how was that for an explanation?  In other words even they can't pretend that they know what they are talking about!

They go on to say:

While the revelations leave no doubt [editorial splutter!] as to the existence of intelligent matter prior to its being organised as spirits, speculation sometimes arises regarding the nature of premortal existence.

. . . which makes it all much clearer!

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave this caution in 1936:

Some of our writers have endeavoured to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created or made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual.

This introduces us to the concept of 'spirit children', who are born into the spiritual realm.  They are the children of 'divine beings' (usually deceased Mormons).  They grow and develop in the spirit realm until they are ready to be born into the real world - the 'mortal probation'.  Their (or should I say 'our'?) memory of the spirit world is 'taken away' so that they can be tested properly in this life.

Whatever 'intelligences' might be, the Mormons believe that they are eternal.  They have existed in that form for as long as god has existed, if not longer. This leads on to another surprising fact.

According to Mormons, the universe was not created by god.  More on this tomorrow.

Joseph Smith's amazing discovery

We have all heard the story of Joseph Smith, and how he founded the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon church) by having a revelation about where he might find a set of coded gold plates.  Millions of people believe in this implausible tale and this demonstrates to me that even decent human minds can be twisted to reach some surprisingly contorted views of the real world.  This makes belief in the bible sound almost completely sane and sensible, although . . . it must be said that there are similarities!

The story that we are normally told involves Smith also having a pair of magic spectacles which allowed him to translate the gold plates into the Book of Mormon which he published in 1830.  The story often goes that he sat behind a curtain and dictated the words of the Book of Mormon to a neighbour, such as Martin Harris, who rarely got more than a glimpse of them.

The classical view of Joseph Smith
translating (image from here)

Carelessly, he lost the first 116 pages.  I won't waste much time wondering what they said but some speculate that they were stolen by Lucy Harris, the wily and wise wife of the neighbour who had been wasting too much time round at the Smiths, writing a book of nonsense.  Perhaps she thought Smith could demonstrate the truth of his claims by simply translating the pages again.   He didn't.

But it seems that this story itself might be apocryphal.  Yes really!

Set aside the question of the weight of this set of gold plates (90 kg or 200 pounds!) and how anyone could have carried them around.  Neglect the fact that the plates have mysteriously disappeared and that the magic spectacles have not survived.  There are other reasons to doubt it.  The Mormons themselves tell of a different method of translation where Smith never even needed to look at the gold.

It seems that Smith had two magic stones which eventually became known as the Urim and the Thummim (as in the contents of the lost Ark of the Covenant).  He almost certainly dug them up while he was digging a well, but perhaps they had been there waiting for him to dig at a revealed spot!  He would put one of these stones into a hat and then bury his face in the hat and dictate in muffled words.

The 'much more believable' (??) view of Smith
inventing the Book of Mormon

The words of David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses whose testimony appears at the front of the Book of Mormon come from this site (and elsewhere):

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe . . . "

Somehow the Mormons must think that that makes the story more believable.

Incidentally, all this took place only a few months after Smith's initiation into the Order of Freemasonry.  Many parts of Mormon symbolism are said to resemble Masonic ritual, although somewhat modified as Smith claimed that the Masons had corrupted the truth over the centuries.

The veracity of these stories is there for all of us to believe or doubt.  I have to say that I don't find it overwhelmingly convincing.  Tomorrow I will mention something about another document that Smith apparently translated.  You might see something about his modus operandi.  However, I do find it amazing that so many people think the opposite way to me.  It can't be true that they don't think about it at all.

So surely Smith's most amazing discovery was that people can be much more gullible than even scam artists expect to be possible!

Why criticise Christianity when there are easier options?

Having had a lot of free time to think (hazily) this weekend, while not feeling 'on top form', something made me realise that the oddities of Christianity are almost as nothing compared with other religions.

I wonder why I spend so much time pointing out the all-too-obvious flaws in Christianity when there are other (even easier) targets.  So many people appear to be readily deluded into believing in other, weirder, things that simply can't be true.

I started to wonder about other candidates and after the obvious threat of Islam, immediately thought about Mormonism.  Mormons might be classed as Christians by some, but any serious study of the subject belies this myth.  I must have heard something about a US presidential candidate while half asleep.  We hear quite a bit about him at the moment!

I should say that I know a Mormon family living here in rural England and they seem nice, completely rational people.  I find it hard to believe that they actually believe in the things that their church preaches.  (I can only imagine that one of them wears the magic underwear!  I prefer not to think about it.)  My daughter has even been to worship with them.  You might ask whether I was happy about that, and to be honest I wasn't really sure at the beginning.  However, I wasn't really worried about her being assimilated as she has always been quite sensible.

I have always known that there is little hope of convincing any Christians of the error of their ways, but the comparison with Mormons makes it all the more obvious.  Just imagine that about 15 million people have been taken in by a much less convincing myth invented by someone called Joseph Smith.  He was a man who had previously made part of his living by predicting where people should go to dig for treasure.  He used to put a magic stone in a hat and then bury his head in the hat to see a vision of the place to dig.

Having spent a little time researching about the Mormons I now realise that the organisation is even stranger than I thought.  With its links to Masonic rituals and symbology, with its rascist and polygamous past, and its secretive culture, how could it fail to be an interesting topic?

I think a series of blog posts on the topic is likely to arise.