Saturday, 30 April 2011

"We can believe or reject evolution, it doesn't matter, the church has no official position."

i've been recently messaging back and forth with a somewhat brainwashed and non-rational mormon who goes by the youtube username TheSkepticChristian (NOT!). he wrote the following claim to me:
"We can believe or reject evolution, it doesn't matter, the church has no official position."

and a personal-christian contact of mine on facebook wrote something similar to me today:
"I am rather conflicted because of understanding both views (atheism and Christianity)."

here's my response:
evolution by mutations, genetic drift and natural selection and the literal, young earth, old testament creation by YHWH are mutually exclusive models.

furthermore, a key element of natural selection is death, (the survival of the fittest). according to the old (genesis 2:17) and new testament (romans 5:12), death was introduced with the fall about 5800 years ago. according to the current model of evolution, we are but one of millions of interrelated species. the old testament tells us that we're not related to any other lifeform on earth whatsoever, but that we are created in god's image and are his children and he is our father.

an exmormon named chulotc (on responded to me with the following:
When I was a kolobian it was easy to rationilize evolution and maintain my core belief system. Elohim organized matter which already existed (preserving thermodynamics), that matter coalesced into stars, supernovae, smaller stars, planets, moons, etc.

The conditions were such that biological life manifested and eventually evolved into higher primates, two of which elohim placed in a garden and put kolobian spirits into.

wherein i responded:
the problems with this are that the book of genesis claims:
1) adam was the first man, the father of humans.
2) YHWH created adam from the dust, he wasnt an evolved, living man, plucked from a group of other living men and put into a garden of eden. he didnt have a homo sapien father and mother and neither did eve because YHWH created eve from the rib of adam.
3) adam was immortal to begin with and death entered the world after eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
4) creation of animals and man happened on different "days" or iterations, whereas with evolution, homo sapiens and animals (and plants, etc) have been evolving side by side in one long continuous process.

then there's the anachronism in genesis 1:1-5 that the earth was created *before* the sun and then in verse 16, that the stars (the rest of the universe) were not created until the fourth day, long after the creation of the earth and sun.

according to nasa, about half the stars in our milky way galaxy alone are older than our sun.

Thursday, 28 April 2011

"mark hofmann didnt dupe the mormon prophet and apostles"

Terry Anderson 6 months ago
@Richard Packham
I remember listening to GBH making a reference to the salamander letter during GC and he specifically said that it didn't really matter whether the document was real or a forgery, as it related to the Restoration claims. From this I gathered that they weren't convinced if its authenticity. I don't see why they had to receive a revelation (or at least publicly say so) when the forgery was eventually uncovered anyway. Revelations are not always necessary when we can also use our own resources.

nick humphrey 0 minutes ago in reply to Terry Anderson
"it didn't really matter whether the document was real or a forgery, as it related to the Restoration claims"
this is absolute hogwash. with that logic, anyone can make anything, tell the church it is a forgery and still expect the church to pay them lots of money for it as long as it "relates to restoration claims". c'mon, stop deceiving yourself. they were duped into thinking it was real that's why they "bought it". there's no magical holy ghost that uncovers hidden truth, this is just one example to support that. there are no consistent, testable, supernatural powers.

"Revelations are not always necessary when we can also use our own resources."
then apply that reasoning to the rest of your life.

i like this users comment too:

Patrick 6 months ago
The criticism for me is not that Prophets and Apostles got duped. I'm perfectly willing to let people be human and stupid at times. Everyone is. I've was always taught the pseudo-doctrine that Prophets are only perfect in teaching doctrine...(yeah, I know that one has issues too.)

For me, the biggest issue was and is that the Church censors its history by preventing access to historical documents. To me, this is dishonest, bordering on lying, to its members and the world.

If knowledge is light, why is the Church hiding it under a bushel?

"in billions of years anything can happen" doesnt explain anything!

here's my response to a young earth creationist argument:
nick humphrey Apr 27, 11:08 am
On Apr 27, 9:18 am, rmj wrote:

> The old "in billions of years anything can happen" argument. Irrefutable
> because it says nothing.

as opposed to the everything happened in the last 10,000 years =)

"there is no one single way to disprove a church/religion"

here's my response to the claim that it is impossible to disprove a religion. the key is disproving direct or indirect scientific claims.
Your comment is misleading. There is no single piece of logic that will ever prove/disprove a church. It is just one piece of the puzzle
judastefarianist 1 year ago

@judastefarianist actually the evidence that homo sapiens began approximately 200,000 years ago and not 5800-6000 years ago is a great single way to discredit judaism, christianity, islam and any other old-testament-based/abrahamic religion.
nickleus1977 1 sec ago

my response to apologist explanations about why "prophets" have been wrong for so long about native american ancestry/dna

here are my and fairlds' comments on Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
your channel's flagship video (this video) is 2.5 years old. here's a quote from Ugo Perego's most recent conclusion on the subject, from the fairlds website: "the DNA of Lehi and his party has not been detected in modern Native American populations"
nickleus1977 8 months ago

@nickleus1977 And I agree with him. We will never detect Lehi DNA in the Americas, simply because we don't know what Lehis DNA looked like.
fairldsorg 8 months ago

@fairldsorg the issue is not lehi's dna, it's finding mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) in native "americans" today that matches mtDNA in jerusalem.
nickleus1977 8 months ago

@nickleus1977 I am not sure how much Ugo has looked into the SNP data that is mentioned in this video, therefore, cannot comment on his beliefs. I am also curious why you are only interested in mitochondrial DNA?
fairldsorg 8 months ago

@fairldsorg 1) who from fairlds am i conversing with? =) 2), the book of mormon claims, and it has been taught for over 170+ years by church "prophets", that the natives of the americas and even neighboring islands are direct descendants of the house of israel, that the americas were reserved for these peoples, that nobody may be brought there w/o "God"s approval (9/11?). DNA (tangible, physical, testable evidence) tells a completely different story. for the record i'm interested in ydna too =)
nickleus1977 8 months ago

@nickleus1977 " it has been taught for over 170+ years" yes but you have to understand the Gospel, and the purpose of the church, and that the prophets of God are also human.
TheSkepticChristian 4 hours ago

@TheSkepticChristian i was a mormon for 32 years or were you being sarcastic? =) the gospel and the purpose have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. that the "prophets of YHWH/elohim" are human is a weak apologetic argument because they have the problem of then explaining why the "holy ghost" has "confirmed these 'truths'" from the "prophets" to members for 170+ years =)

then i got this message from an apologist TheSkepticChristian (although i think you'll agree that he doesnt seem too skeptic):
Consider the following statement by Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
"[A person may have] a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but . . .
unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A
desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an
understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal
choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are
meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to
the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in
which they pray for guidance and don't receive it. For example, this is likely to
occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either
choice is acceptable.
"We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator
has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we
receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord
has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or
bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of false revelation"
("Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall," Ensign, Oct. 1994, 13--14)

Todd Compton said:
"First, I include problematic events in my faith perspective not by viewing church leaders as infallible,[20] but by recognizing that they can make serious mistakes. I accept inspiration of many sorts coming to church leaders on occasion. But an oversimplified view of revelation and inspiration is that they come to mindless, will-less puppets, receiving revelation passively, like blank containers for inspiration to be poured in from on high. Instead, I believe God allows church leaders complete free will, which means they have to work through decisions, using all of their resources of thought, doing their homework or not doing their homework, being tested in their moral insight. And because they have free will, sometimes they make wrong choices. They learn through trial and error. Some fail in the major challenges of their lives. (And often these are behind-the-scene, rather than melodramatically obvious, failures.) This does not deny that church leaders often make right choices and receive inspiration. "
Todd Compton

"Actually, there are many possible middle grounds. First, God will use the personality of the prophet when giving revelation. Thus, an analysis of a prophet's personality, psychology and character is not by definition atheistic. Second, God can use the prophet's culture to influence him. The prophet interrelates with it. True, he will react firmly against some aspects of it; but he will be nurtured by other aspects of it."

my response:
"For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable."
your oaks quote is completely irrelevant to the issue of a truth that is taught consistently for 170+ years.

"but by recognizing that they can make serious mistakes."

consistently for 170+ years.

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

what percent of religious belief is based on the old testament, globally?

what percentage of world religions are abrahamic (based on the old testament)?

low: 38%

high: 61%

does dna evidence/research disprove the book of mormon?

does dna evidence refute the book of mormon? yes it does. if dna evidence supported book of mormon claims then the church wouldnt have changed the book of mormon intro in 2007 from
"the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians"
"the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians"

my response to a mormon questioning her faith

today i got a mail from a friend who is still in the church:
So Nick. How are you? I have to say that I was pretty surprised to see that you left the church. You always seemed so devoted to me when we were kids. I was hoping you would be okay if I asked you a few questions. You've been pretty open in a more public discussion, but if you aren't comfortable with a more private one, I understand.
I kind of always thought of church as a fun place to mingle, basically. My dad is, well.. I'm not even sure what he is. He neither agrees or disagrees with the idea of God. Whatever that means. And my mom is like yours. Or at least how I remember yours.. fighting for the church even though everyone else in her life seemed to be against it. I never really cared for or against it until I was 17. I started going back to church because I started dating a member who wouldn't marry a nonmember. Long story short, 13 years later I find myself wishing I had 13 years of my life back. I decided years ago to make my peace with the church and fake it til I make it. It's not really working for me real well. So now I want to learn. Being that you were so devoted and then walked away, I kind of feel like you are a good person to ask questions to. Right now, my questions are pretty basic. I just want to know why I have always felt so creepy in church. How can something that seems so good and pure envoke these feelings in a person? Joseph Smith. He's never really set very well with me. Historically and reasonably, the Book of Mormon seems like such a fairy tale! And I would LOVE to kow why this church is the only church that insists on striking so much fear in a member and then chastize them for being less than faithful if they have fear in their hearts. The principles of the church are very scary and intimidating! How can you not be afraid? Any member who truly believes in the gospel and claims it doesn't frighten them, is a liar.. in my opinion. Anyway, as you can see, I have a lot to learn. I'm having surgery tomorrow and will be down for 6 weeks. It seemed like as good a time as any to start reading!
Thanks Nick!
and here is my response:

Hi, it was great to read your message =) yes i was the most devoted of all my brothers, probably even more than my mom. there were always things that didnt make sense to me, but i tried to either rationalize them away or just hope for an answer some day. for someone like me, i "needed" an experience that conflicted with my values down to my very core and that happened when our bishop here in norway told me and my wife that we needed to repent of oral sex. the church deciding what me and my wife could do in our bedroom? that was it. i started on a major study of church history and to see what other people were saying about the church--members who had left. i started reading about psychology. i quickly saw how the church (mis)uses principles of psychology to influence and control members. i read about cults and cult psychology and found that the church easily fits the cult profile. for example, in this list of 100 attributes:
i could immediately identify at least 65 traits found in the church:
1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98

i started reading about science (archeology, anthropology, dna, cosmology, etc) but the most important issue is this: the old testament claims that homo sapiens began in the garden of eden. the christian world puts the date to around 6500 years ago. if you ask the jews, the ones who *wrote* the old testament, they put the date to around 5800 years ago. this is around 200,000 years off by what scientific evidence shows:

this one fact alone disproves all religions based on the old testament (abrahamic): judaism, christianity, islam, etc... -- 38%-61% (low/high estimate) of religious belief in the world:

it disproves everything that follows--all their creeds and claims to revelation, the whole shabang. anything else i tell you now is just additional, supporting evidence against the church.

i started writing my exit story here:

there i've listed a LOT of additional evidence against the church. the hardest thing for people questioning the church is the feelings and spiritual experiences they think they've had. the church uses this for all it's worth to get people to prioritize that over fact and reasoning or even conflicting feelings/emotions. up until recently, it has been quite difficult to help people realize that these experiences are merely psychological and are a result of preconditioning, brainwashing and social psychology techniques, BUT then i found something wonderful:

bonneville is the church's PR firm, and when i say "church's" i mean *owned by the church* and *started by the church*:

on that bonneville homepage you can read about their product called HeartSell:
"Our unique strength is the ability to touch the hearts and minds of our audiences, evoking first feeling, then thought and, finally, action. We call this uniquely powerful brand of creative "HeartSell"® - strategic emotional advertising that stimulates response."

if a member reads this and still cant see that he/she is being duped, then there seriously is no hope for that person. this is the church's MO in black and white--and for sale even =)

when i realized that the church was a sham, it was seriously like waking up from a bad dream. i have never enjoyed life more than i do now and have never known what *true freedom* really is until now =)

i am totally here for you, you can contact me whenever you like and ask me anything you like =)

i hope your surgery goes well and it might sound odd, but i totally envy you that you will have 6 weeks to just sit/lay and read! (my favorite thing to do)

here are some great videos to watch while you're resting:
the stanley milgram experiment:
the stanford prison experiment:
the asch experiment:
christopher hitchens (the best of):
christopher hitchens' ten commandments:
sam harris - religion as a failed science:
richard dawkins (pascal's wager - what if you're wrong?):

and really anything by any of these people is great:
richard dawkins on youtube
christopher hitchens on youtube
sam harris on youtube
dan dennett on youtube
michael shermer on youtube
victor stenger on youtube
james randi on youtube
pat condell on youtube
richard feynman on youtube
carl sagan on youtube

if you want a good book to read, i suggest reading "the god delusion" by richard dawkins:

if you want specific lds stuff to read then you should read the research on the book of abraham: will send it to you for free! (you only pay 5 dollars shipping). watch the video first:

if you want to read other people's experiences then hang out here for a day:

Monday, 25 April 2011

good responses to "Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t"
democritus Says:
May 30th, 2010 at 10:08 am

It is easy to infer from the comments for this post that both this webside, and its readers, are very unserious and easily fooled people. “An interesting find”, “an excellent article” and “outstanding reserach” (the latter by a person who seems to be a politician). My god! If this had been a semester paper it would have been slaughtered and the person thrown out of the university or college.

Obviously the interesting information is not the number of “attacks” (the majority are small insignificant “incidents” like burning down a shack or throwing bricks at windows), but the number of persons killed or seriously wounded, and the total economic loss and material damage. And obviously: A person that don’t understand that instently is a fool.

So why not instead inform us of how many lives lost in the “western” world because of terrorist attacks. Well, WTC om 9/11 alone killed 2996 innocent persons. And then we have London and Madrid. How many people have ETA killed since the year 2000? Probably less than 20! That bad enough, but nothing in comparison. Besides. You can’t move separatists because they have lived where they live for generations and centuries. Islamist terrorism on the other hand, is an imported problem.

Sunday, 24 April 2011

how to respond to a pro-lifer

next time you meet someone promoting pro-life, ask them questions like:
* do you eat meat?
* do you hunt?
* do you support capital punishment?
* is war sometimes necessary?
* if your wife/daughter was pregnant and her doctor said that if we dont abort the fetus now, your wife/daughter will die, what would you do? how about if the doctor said that the fetus had a condition that would cause it to die within a couple of days after birth anyways (e.g. an anencephalic fetus), would you still let your wife/daughter die?
* if someone was attempting to kill your child and the only way you could stop him was to kill him, would you do it?

see also my discussion with a fb friend:

RH: Official Mormon stance is anti-abortion "except in case of rape or when the life of mother or child are in jeopardy." Most pro-lifers think that way.

me: ‎"Most pro-lifers think that way." do you have any statistics on this? when i look at the main prolife websites i mostly see messages like "abortion kills babies", "does your doctor kill babies?", "help us *end* abortion", etc...

"Those involved in the pro-life movement generally maintain that the human fetus (and in most cases the human embryo) is a person and therefore has a right to life"

"A child conceived through rape or incest does not deserve the death penalty for his or her father's crime."
also interesting, an example of a disorder where most fetuses dont survive birth: Anencephaly

"The Pro-Life Action League rejects abortion for the alleged purpose of preserving the health of the is wrong to deliberately, directly kill one innocent person to save another."

apparently obama's experience was that the debate was quite polarized, i.e. pro-lifers promoting total ban on abortion:
"Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall."

Monday, 18 April 2011

the mormon faith isnt racist

here's my response to a facebook thread where it was claimed that the mormon church isnt racist.

"I have a really hard time believing the Mormon faith is racist."
1) in the *current* aaronic priesthood manual, the church discourages interracial marriages:
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background"

2) see recent articles about BYU's unproportional punishment of black athletes concerning honor code violations:
Since 1993, according to our research, at least 70 athletes have been suspended, dismissed, put on probation, or forced to withdraw from their teams or the school after running afoul of the honor code. Fifty-four of them, or nearly 80 percent, are minorities. Forty-one, or almost 60 percent, are black men.
0.6% of BYU student body is black, yet the *majority* of honor code violations are by black athletes.

3) Jane Elizabeth Manning James was "attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor".

4) read all the ridiculously racist statements made by lds prophets and apostles

5) the book of mormon has a general racist theme of one people with black skin vs the white and delightsome people

6) the lds church finally giving in to pressure in 1978 to let blacks participate equally with whites in the church

7) google "mormonism racism" =)

Sunday, 17 April 2011

"life after death is true" and "theists are happier and atheists are more self-destructive and negative"

just posting my reply to a theist's comments on facebook:
"I completely believe in life after death."
but you stated as a fact that 'no life after death' *isnt true* in an earlier post.

"In the end, my heart chose for me."
feelings are a poor basis for a successful decision making model--it's not the way of science, it's not the way of economics, it's not the way of the judicial system, it's not how we earn our university degrees, it's now how technology is developed, etc. even when choosing a lifelong mate--a decision where feelings actually play a huge role--most people ask themselves practical questions like:
* is this person responsible?
* does this person have any addictions/problems that might be difficult to break?
* is this person good with money?
* does this person have goals and a plan for the future?

yet the only thing mormon missionaries try to get people to do is to feel good about the message. they dont encourage people e.g. to read in depth about church history or to think critically about their message...

"It's interesting to me how truly happy people are once they fully embrace God and after life."
you say happy, i say delusional =)

"It's also very interesting to me how self destructive and negative people who don't tend to be."
utah leads the nation in porn usage and anti-depressant usage =) there are so many happy and funny atheists and so many racist/gay-hating theists as to completely destroy this claim. the lds church for one fits both the racist and gay-hating qualities even in recent history. and just look at the word "gay"--it means "happy" =)

i've never been happier than after i left the mormon church. when i finally realized it was a sham, it was like waking up from a terrible nightmare and realizing i was safe in bed on a warm, sunny, first day of a 5 week vacation =) now i've got more money, more time, less stress, less responsibility, more friends, more things in life to enjoy, etc... i can choose, if i want to, to do anything a theist can do:
* go to church
* pay money to the church
* read scriptures
* fast
* pray
* love my neighbor as myself

but a theist cant do everything an atheist can do =) i love that distinction =)

Monday, 4 April 2011

my response to a user named cats from utah about why people leave the lds church

my response:
@Cats i concluded the mormon church was false when i compared the scientific claims of the old testament with actual evidence. the first homo sapien offspring didnt appear 6-7000 years ago (adam and eve). it was more than 100,000+ years ago. i concluded the mormon church was false when i realized that all of my "spiritual" experiences could be explained by psychology and biology. i concluded that the mormon church was false when i read about cults and could quickly identify the church in at least 65 points out of a list of 100 elements of a cult.
i am also way happier now after leaving the church. i have more money, i have more time, i am less stressed and our family life is more harmonious. all the things the church promises to the faithful, but simply cant deliver...and i get it for free =)

to this user comment:
Cats | 7:43 a.m. April 4, 2011
Somewhere In Time, UT
Once again, this article is RIGHT ON TARGET.

I have seen many atheists who claim they don't believe in God because of rational or intellectual reasons. That fact is, they reject faith because they have had some bad or hurtful experiences regarding religion--i.e. they went to Catholic school and the nuns were mean....or their mother made them go to church and they resented that. The president of the American atheists said that she hated the church because her mother spent all her time there. It all involves emotion and NOT logic. The fact is, if they were being logical and rational they WOULD believe in God.

Former Mormons leave the Church because they just don't want to bother with the requirements....or they had something bad happen and just don't have the maturity to deal with it...or they've done something wrong and they don't want to repent so they try to justify themselves.

These people have the right do anything they want, but I hope no one is fooled. There's no logic or rationality involved with it and I hope everyone has the insight to see that.

on this article:

NOTE: my comment was not approved by deseret news. shocker.

the lds church cult

there are many elements to a cult. one of the most well-known experts today is steve hassan.

there's also rick ross:

and early pioneer in cult mentality, margaret singer:

on this list of 100 elements, i could easily identify the church in 65 of them:

the lds church can definitely be classified as a cult, but "dangerous" is a matter of definition:
* homosexuals commit suicide because of emotional and social "torture" (isolation, ridicule, dehumanizing, physical/oral abuse):
* they believe in the rapture:
* they bleed people of their time and money
* earlier leaders taught that it is better to die than to lose your chastity
* they emotionally/psychologically "abuse" members who masturbate, telling them that it is evil (compare with homosexuality). there are actually even cases of masturbation-related suicides (kip eliason):
* they encourage single mothers to give up their children for adoption, breaking up families
* they perpetuate the us vs them mentality, discouraging marrying/dating non-members and even interracial marriages when both are members (in the most recent aaronic priesthood handbook)
* cover up cases of child and wife abuse and many women report not being believed by bishops and stake presidents
* the dangers of healing and faith was put into perspective when the sister missionary influenced an investigator to get baptized against her doctor's advice and she ended up having to amputate her legs:

Sunday, 3 April 2011

sam harris puts religion/god into perspective

sam harris' opening remarks in part 2 of the "does god have a future?" debate are simply hilarious, the way he puts religion into such a ridiculous perspective:
01:23 the god that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person. it's a creator deity who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate. lucky us. and he's got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to, but he's especially concerned with what we do, and he's especially concerned with what we do while naked. and he almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality. and he's created this cosmos as a vast laboratory in which to test our powers of credulity, and the test is this "can you believe in this god on bad evidence--which is to say on faith?" and if you can, you will win an eternity of happiness after you die.

Saturday, 2 April 2011

mormon garments as a protection from danger


bill marriott, if he's telling the truth, is just confusing coincidence with magic. i wonder what bill would have said if mike wallace had said "i've brought with me a blow torch and i was wondering if you would submit your crotch to a scientific experiment?" (well i can guess he'd say something weasly to the effect of "thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god") or even better he could have simply asked "do you ever have to replace garments? do they ever get worn, e.g. like getting holes in them or coming apart at the seams?" =)

in the washing and annointing ceremony in the temple it says:
the Garment of the Holy Priesthood. Inasmuch as you do not defile it, but are true and faithful to your covenants, it will be a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer

it does not specifically say that this is a physical protection. even if it was then bill was lying because his company has been selling pornography in their hotels for years, so marriot couldnt possibly have qualified as being "true and faithful to [his] covenants" according to mormon temple standards, but then again, BYU did use pornography in their gay-curing experiments on homosexuals... =)