A variety of the redacted documents available on FaithLeaks.org from the “Jehovah's Witness Palmer Congregation Sexual Abuse Investigation.” Images from FaithLeaks.org

Ex-Mormons launch FaithLeaks to root out abuse and corruption in churches

(RNS) — Call it the WikiLeaks of the religion world.

A new website called FaithLeaks aims to bring transparency to the workings of religious congregations and denominations by publishing documents and data sets provided by anonymous sources.

The web portal was founded by two former Mormons who have previously gained access to documents shedding light on the inner workings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its position on controversial issues such as gay marriage.

[ad number=“1”]

This week, the two founders — Ryan McKnight and Ethan Dodge — published a trove of 33 letters and documents detailing an internal investigation of alleged sexual abuse within a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The pair hopes to entice others to submit documents that shed light on three main areas: congregational finances, church policies and procedures and documents related to sex abuse settlements.

Ryan McKnight founded FaithLeaks.org. Photo courtesy of Ryan McKnight

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

“Our goal is to reduce the amount of deception and untruths and unethical behaviors that exist in some facets of religion,” said McKnight, an accountant who lives in Las Vegas. “If someone is in possession of documents they feel deserve to be made public, we’re simply here to help facilitate that.”

For would-be whistleblowers, the attraction of FaithLeaks is its security features. The site uses a software platform designed to receive documents from anonymous sources, meaning those documents cannot be traced back to the sender, its founders say.

The newest round of documents published this week relate to a 1999 Jehovah’s Witnesses internal investigation of a church leader accused of molesting his two daughters. The man was disfellowshipped — removed from the church's membership rolls — but reinstated a year later.

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Office of Public Information did not return telephone calls from RNS requesting comment.

Boz Tchividjian, a former child abuse chief prosecutor and the founder of GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), said he had mixed feelings about the new portal.

[ad number=“2”]

“As an advocate who wants to bring truth to the surface, I see that this type of site could help empower survivors and advocates to come forward and do so with supporting documentation,” he said.

But he hoped it wouldn’t be abused by some to bully, extort or intimidate.

“One of the sad things is we are living in a society where abuse victims aren’t free to step forward and even provide supporting documentation without being attacked or criticized,” he added.

One of the redacted documents available on FaithLeaks.org from the “Jehovah's Witness Palmer Congregation Sexual Abuse Investigation.” Image from FaithLeaks.org

 This image is available for web and print publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

McKnight first made news in 2015 when he leaked an LDS church memo detailing a revised position on same-sex households. The new position stated that any Mormons who are in a same-sex marriage are considered to be in apostasy, and any children who live in a home with same-sex parents are not eligible for baptism.

Then, in 2016, McKnight published to YouTube 15 videos of private top-level LDS church briefings showing Mormon apostles discussing topics ranging from gay rights to politics to piracy.

Those videos were also published at MormonLeaks, a similar portal created by McKnight and Dodge to expose the church’s inner workings.

[ad number=“3”]

Both FaithLeaks and MormonLeaks fall under the Truth and Transparency Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit created by McKnight and Dodge.

McKnight said church finances are one area where he hopes to see greater sunlight.

“If they don’t ever publish their financials, then who holds them accountable?” he asked. “You’re giving your money and hoping for the best. We find that to be not only a position of inequity for the donor and an unethical position to be in because there’s nobody providing any checks and balances.”

McKnight lost his faith in 2013 and resigned his membership in the Mormon church the following year. He now identifies as an atheist.

In the meantime, he is keeping his day job. McKnight does not expect his new portal to become his livelihood, though FaithLeaks has a “donate” tab.


  1. I doubt that they have the slightest interest in purely theological concerns, especially cut and paste theological concerns.

  2. Are they interested in the scammers that are operating right out in the open?

  3. Mormons teach there god was a fallen, exalted, saved, finite man like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

    “The Gods who dwell in the Heaven…have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state….they were exalted also, from fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their Heaven forever and ever.” (Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 23)

    Would you think fallen means sinner In the 1844 LDS publication, Times and Seasons, volume 5, pages 613-614,… Joseph Smith reiterated that God was an exalted man and that Mormon men could also become Gods. This teaching is well documented, as is their claim that God is not a spirit being, but that he has a body of flesh and bone.

    “God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life.” (Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Marion G. Romney, as per Salt Lake Tribune, April 3, 1977.)

    It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being; and yet we are not in such close communion with him as many have supposed. He has passed on, and is exalted far beyond what we can now comprehend. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 334

    Doctrine and Covenant’s 132:
    20: 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
    37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

  4. Uh just 1 unrelated question, brother Ron Den Boer – what do you think of this article?

  5. More power to you guys over at Wikil… I mean FaithLeaks!

    Milk it, milk it.

    Now why can’t there be an Evangelical clone of FaithLeaks?

    Milk it, milk it there, too, for Evangelical me, yeah?

    Jeffrees’, Falwell’s & Graham’s Houses of Cards should have plenty of whistleblower-wannabes.

    Leak it or lick it, I say!

  6. Both LDS and JWs have lots of things in common, false Jesus, false gospel, false gods since both teach many gods and both teach there leaders and not scripture is paramount

  7. Wonder if FaithLeaks will accept revelations? Here’s a leaker if there ever was one…the angel Gabriel…likes to gossip with the mortals, He may give the real adults-only scoop on that so called “virgin-birth”! Gabriel can describe Mohammad too, from those close-up chat sessions…for those who like to draw 🙂

    And of course Satan has been in heaven, didn’t like it…but has the scoop on God. So the dark-lord can give FaithLeaks reviews of both Heaven and Hell.

  8. Religion News Service is NOT a reliable website. Notice the overwhelmingly anti Christian content. It is funded by the ARCUS grant. It is literally owned by the LGBTQ.

  9. Protestants and Atheists in cahoots against the Mormons. Typical.

  10. What would it take for you to beleive in Santa again?

    As an Atheist I consider myself a seeker of logic and truth.

  11. The folks behind Faithleaks have a very tough–but also very important–job ahead of themselves. The LDS church is 110% devoted to protecting itself–probably on a par with the Catholic church, but maybe even more so.

  12. Please supply info re ARCUS to back up your allegation.

  13. Your reply suggests to me that you are a white evangelical, probably living in the south.

  14. What would it take for you to beleive in Santa again?

    I would need to be convinced of the power of chance as it relates to my experience of reality.

  15. So you come here to moan about the content of the site and make unfounded aspersions of bias.

    Why bother? The internet is huge. If you don’t like a site, don’t go on it.

  16. Along with “The Big Gay Conspiracy”, “The Jewish Bankers” and “Reptilians” 🙂

  17. Nope. That most decidedly was NOT my point. But I guess that’s why you need the Danite Band. Without imaginary persecution, you wouldn’t have any persecution at all, and then what would you do? You’d have to change your moniker.


    Just for the record, this ATHEIST is always defending Christians of whatever stripe from the attacks of other Christians for not being the right sort of Christian.

  18. Do you know who the Danite Band was? Makes this whole comment even sillier.

  19. By reliable, you must mean “agrees with me.” It is a website about religion, not a website about Christianity. The content is about all religion, not just your particular version of your particular favorite. As a proud gay man, I can assure there is no Gay Central from which we take our marching orders. I own no part of RNS, or indeed, any other website or media in the entire world.

    But if, as a Poor Persecuted Christian, you need to have an imaginary enemy or a deep state conspiracy to make you happy, please feel free. If you’d like to make Satan— either the Christian Lucifer or the Mormon Lucifer—our Supreme Leader, also feel free.

    But I’m going to feel free to laugh and laugh and laugh if you do. As my god, The Great and Mysterious Emoji, has indicated in his Holey Scripture, in the hieroglyphics understood only by our priesthood, and translated for the benefit of all mankind:


    Loosely translated, it means,


  20. He,s not interested in the article, only in pointing out with a sternly wagging digit who is a True Christian (TM) and who is The Other Kind.

  21. You left out the Illuminati, the Masons, and probably, the Chaine de Rotissiere.

  22. I had to google the last one. Hilarious!

    Yes, they are the most evil of the bunch.

  23. Yep, Mormon hitmen of the Brigham Young days.

    There even was a made for cable film where Tom Berenger played one as a protagonist in the early 90’s.

  24. Also featured heavily in Sherlock Holmes— I think study in scarlet.

  25. I know!the vast Cholesterol Conspiracy.

    They were my clients once for a job in San Francisco. It was like going to the Tour d’Argent in Paris, and not only having someone else pay for dinner, but getting paid to eat it.

  26. agreed. They and the JWs are cults – but in reality, that should make them scarier – they have no Holy Spirit to direct them away from satan’s temptations.

  27. Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then comes the devil and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be Saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; but these have no root which, for a while believe, but in times of temptation fall away. And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience. No man, when he has lighted a candle, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a candlestick, that they, which enter in, may see the light. For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest, neither is anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. Take heed therefore how you hear; for whosoever has, to him shall be given; and whosoever has not, from him shall be taken, even that which he seems to have. / No man, when he has lit a candle, puts it in a secret place, neither under a bushel; but on a candlestick, that they that come in may see the light. The light of the body is the eye: Therefore, when your eye is single, your whole body also is full of light; but when your eye is evil, your body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light, which is in you, be not darkness. If your whole body therefore were full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle gives you light. / Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore, whatsoever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light, and that which you have spoken in the ear in closets, shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. And I say unto you My friends: Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: Fear Him, which after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear Him. (Luke 8:11-18 / 11:33-36 / 12:1-5)

  28. Will they also “leak” documents already publicly made available by other churches like they did the missionary interview questions?

  29. All those other cut and pasted things are covered by latter-day revelation.

  30. Sounds like a real charmer, full of love and everything. all of that apocalyptic up-is-down gobbledygook.

    Thank god im an atheist.

  31. For the first 3 decades of my life, I too was a dedicated atheist. I still recall the words and expressions I used as disparagement against the christianized around me; I was mean. Still, I wish you were not an atheist, but I know that only you can change that; we call it the superpower of volition. ~ A disciple of Messiah Yeshua! (click avatar then link)

    But God has revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, and the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man, save the Spirit of man that is in him? Even so, the things of God, no man knows, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned. But he that is Spiritual, judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Messiah! (1Co 2:10-16)

  32. I don’t disparage Christians for being Christians. Some of my best friends are… and so forth. I just don’t share those beliefs.
    My argument is always against religion used as a weapon against others. And that includes Christians using their faith as a weapon against other Christians.

  33. You are so full of crap. And please, before you use the word “literally” again, look up its meaning and how to use it. RNS has always struck me as quite reliable. But we know well that people who do not like what some medium publishes, almost always disparage the integrity etc of that medium.

  34. Your link above reveals something about your ability to go after factual information. I won’t say just what, but anyone here who follows the link will see *immediately* what I mean.

    As well, that link does not, of course, back up Danite Ghost’s allegation–which is a typical allegation for evangelicals, and typically spit-in-Jesus’-face behavior.

  35. Also for the record, I don’t think linkage with something bad makes the whole thing bad. Christian Post is connected to this whack-job Conspiracy nut who writes books about “coming financial crisis” yadda, yadda, yadda. That just tells me to be circumspect with the content therein. Same with this site.

  36. So, to answer my question, what you think of the article, “Ex-Mormons launch FaithLeaks to root out abuse and corruption in churches” by Yonat Shimron, is, and I quote, “Both LDS and JWs have lots of things in common, false Jesus, false gospel, false gods since both teach many gods and both teach there leaders and not scripture is paramount”?!

    That kind of explains, then, this sales pitch for your original post from “a day ago”: “This comment is awaiting moderation.” I was wondering about that and, as a result, couldn’t sleep all night. Wondering why my fellow born-again Christian brothers & sisters hate to discuss. Man, my Jesus was big on discussion. His 1st apostles & disciples too.

    You have a lovely picture there with your beloved. My greetings to my sister!

  37. … but beyond that he goes, Stop bothering me with discussions. Not interested.

    And I thought it was arctic cold during the holidays!

  38. “Thank god im an atheist” – I love very good oxymorons. Even Hemant Mehta over at Friendly Atheist prefaces lots of his statements with, “Oh god …”

    Me? Thank God It’s Friday Tomorrow!

  39. Don’t know why your comment makes me think automatically of Steven Naifeh, Gregory White Smith, The Mormon Murders: A True Story of Greed, Forgery, Deceit, and Death, St. Martin’s, 1988. I guess “protecting” is the trigger word messing with my mind.

  40. You mean, “As an Atheist I consider myself a seeker of logic and truth. Do you see me hanging out at St. RNS?”

  41. It actually does NOT back up what he alleges; he only thinks it does, because as an evangelical, he is full of hatred and misunderstanding of everything around him.

    One of the things that’s lately become very clear to me is that the louder a person rants about being a “Christian”, the more misunderstanding of the world around him said person has, the more hatred that person has, and especially, the more that person is utterly obsessed by sex. Why that is, I have no idea–perhaps those folks are not very competent at sex?

    And for the record, the link you provided earlier was not the actual link. You provided a link to religionnews, when the link should have been the one you provided above, to arcusfoundation. So your first effort was not what we’d call “quality scholarship”.

  42. LOL! Nope, not always. Not when the attacker holds the requisite views on the subject of homosexuality. Then “this ATHEIST” says not a word — not that it would be relevant in any case.

  43. Oh please. Enough blowing. Of course the site is biased. Most sites are. One leans left and another leans right. In our highly polarized society that is to be expected. It is only a problem when people do not know how to fact-check, and unthinkingly attack the “bias” of one side without examining their own.

    There is one guy here who routinely attacks any link to any conservative-leaning site, as if that is a rebuttal in and of itself — and then cites The Friendly Atheist. I kid you not. Cracks me up every time.

  44. OK: define “biased”. Please do the definition in as much detail as possible/necessary for me to recognize bias when I see it.

  45. Your reply suggests that you are probably a bigot looking for a pigeonhole into which to assign everyone.

    You just demonstrated my previous point about lack of self-awareness. Thank you.

  46. So you usually claim. So you are usually wrong.

  47. Nope, I don’t think I am. I have two particular posters in mind.

  48. I’m sure you do. But of course, it’s not really the point, is it? I’ve noticed that you rarely show up anymore unless the subject is homosexuality, and your “requisite views” are being argued against. So let’s not pretend it’s about something else for you.

    So, just for the record, let me repeat one more time MY position. I don’t really give all that much of a small goddam about your scriptural view of homosexuality or much else. What I care about is the harm those views have inflicted on innocent people for the past 2000 years, harm in no way justified by the alleged import of the scripture you cite. What I care about is the very ugly prejudice, mistreatment and bigotry hiding behind that scripture, the kind that a number of posters, not just two, feel quite free to express without anything less than your obvious full condonation, if not support.

    You want to believe homosex is the worse sin ever? Have at it. Decent civilized people disagree. ISIS, Uganda, Pakistan, pat Robertson, and Westborough, for a very short list, agree. That’s your company. May you have the joy of it. Personally, it’s why I prefer Unitarians.

    You want to encode your prejudices, or your lack of concern about other people’s prejudices, into the civil law that governs all of us, to the disadvantagement and harm to other people-not-you? As I have told you many times before, you can expect a fight. Some of those fights you’ll win, but more and more in the civilized you will continue to lose them. More and more people will see the ugly face behind the not-quite-as-ugly mask, as they recently did in Australia. 62-38, fundelibangelists lost.

    And that, dear lady, is what all of this is really about. Are we going to continue with this garbage, or are we going to put it behind us, like we put Jew hatred, slavery, witch burning, subordination of women, misogyny, segregation, and all of the other evil perpetrated in the name of YOUR GOD and justified by YOUR BIBLE? And please spare me the garbage about how the Bible says no such thing; it doesn’t matter. That’s how it was used by the people who quoted it. The Bible doesn’t say pass sodomy laws, proclaim gay people are a danger to the family, or can’t serve their countries.

    But there you have it. That’s what’s been done. It is no different than what has been done in the past. And the ironic part is, the harm that has been accomplished against gay people is harming Christianity itself, as denominations split, credentials are revoked, and decent people leave their denomination in disgust, or leave Christianity altogether. They can see their friends and loved ones, and they can see the ugliness hiding behind faith, and they want no part of it.

    May you have the joy of that as well.

  49. “I’m sure you do. But of course, it’s not really the point, is it?” It never seems to be “the point” when you’re called out and caught in falsehood. 😀

    “Decent civilized people disagree.” Unlike the “s-hole” aka “uncivilized” African countries where Catholicism is spreading like wildfire, perhaps? Thank you for your promptness in reiterating what your buddy Lare was trying to excuse you for a few minutes ago.

    “I don’t really give all that much of a small goddam about your scriptural view of homosexuality or much else.” We know that already. That’s why your weighings-in on the subject are not to be taken seriously.

    “You want to believe homosex is the worse sin ever?” Kindly refrain from telling me what I believe. There is no such thing as “worse sin ever.” There is only sin.

    “You want to encode your prejudices, or your lack of concern about other people’s prejudices, into the civil law that governs all of us” Kindly refrain from telling me what I want. I have always favored a minimum of interference from civil law in everyday life. I would have been perfectly FINE with your seeking any kind of government stamp you please on your personal domestic arrangements had I not so accurately foreseen its use as a club against the freedom and consciences of others.

    “…denominations split, credentials are revoked, and decent people leave their denomination in disgust, or leave Christianity altogether.” Neither impressed nor disturbed. Long ago, a depraved pagan culture decided, according to Publius Cornelius Tacitus, that we were too “hateful” to tolerate, and proceeded to demonstrate how enlightened and loving they were by killing us and our families. And for all the thousands that were inspired and saved, many also defected for the easy path of the godless culture. Two thousand years later we’re still here, and people have all but forgotten the amorality and ugliness of the pre-christian world, although they will inevitably rediscover it when the Christian presence declines beyond a critical point due to apostasy — which Jesus assured us will happen. So overall, thank you for your remarks, which are completely consistent with everything I have just said.

  50. And thank you. Yours are absolutely consistent with mine, and exactly what I expected. I think we both made our point. Now, we’ll let the decent, civilized people reading this decide which way they want to go.

  51. But those “decent civilized” people won’t be in Catholic Africa, will they? Or have you changed your mind about that?

  52. Your reply tells me pretty clearly that you know little or nothing about demographics.

  53. Doubling down on the bigotry, eh?

    And the sum total of your comments in my previous exchanges with you tell me pretty clearly that you know little or nothing about scripture, the church, or the history surrounding either, so why to you show up so often talking about it?

  54. I like being baited when I’m not hungry. It makes me feel wanted.

    You tell me. Matthew 7:15.

  55. No answer, huh? Didn’t think so.

    Hope you’re feeling better, anyway.

  56. Thanks for the good wishes. There was an answer.

  57. 1. I have never claimed to have deep knowledge of specific, individual scripture. I do have some understanding, gained from reading scholars (e.g. Ehrman), of the way scripture was often re-written, added to, altered, etc., by scribes. And I have some knowledge of negotiation, so I have some appreciation of the fact that negotiation had to have taken place in the assembling of the Canon–“I’ll vote for the version of Matthew that you like, if you’ll vote for my choice for John” and so on.

    2. Re church history, again, I have never claimed to be an expert, but I know enough about RCC church history, and about human behavior, to know very well that old and recent history show with abundant clarity that the church hates the idea of democracy and liberty, at least, as most of us understand those ideas.

    I know, for example, about the anti-Semite Pius IX and the liar Pius XII; I know about the democracy-hating Leo XIII (in one of his encyclicals); and so on.

    Similarly, the actions the RCC has taken (–and not taken!!) in dealing with the abuse situation during the past 25 years or so shows (1) the lengths to which it will go to protect itself, at the expense of the members; (2) the disegard it has for scripture, when that scripture is inconvenient (I’m thinking of the verse about harming of children);(3) the way the RCC thinks the members are so stupid that they will not realize what the church is doing (and not doing).

  58. As to “bigotry”: I have several Catholic friends who I value dearly. They are all well-aware of the failings of the church.

    It is certainly true that I find a lot of the history and actions of the RCC and its “princes” detestable and indicating hatred of liberties we take for granted. But that detestation is based on facts I have learned, and is certainly not reflexive.

  59. satan= accuser, adversary and deceiver. Anyone can claim anything, malicious gossip and slander. So how exactly is this beneficial towards God?

  60. Thanks for the reminder that christianity is based on doublespeak, cliches and random nonsense.

  61. What does a dedicated atheist do? How do they spend their time.

    I’m asking because while I have come to the conclusion that there are no supernatural beings (thus I am an atheist), I have no clue what a “dedicated atheist” is.

    If you randomly insulted christians, that made you a jerk not a disbeliever in supernatural beings.

  62. Click on your own avatar and look thru the list; there are almost no comments to the news articles themselves, just a lot of time dedicated to opposing christianized believers who comment on the articles. This is called trolling, and it appears you are just picking fights, with no real concern or interest in the article or the commenters. So, dedicated like that (pursuing rather than just ignoring)!

  63. I do discuss the substance of the articles. And you will note in my conversations with christians that I rarely insult them. Conversing with people one disagrees with and listening to other views is healthy.

    Edit to add: What is the word that describes a person who posts wall-of-text bible quotes unrelated to the topic at hand?

  64. So your first effort was not what we’d call “quality scholarship”


    “Quality scholarship” on an RNS discussion board. Too rich 😉

  65. RNS is biased just like any other news organization. An example is their recent piece on Gay issues in the Mennonites. I spent 10 years or more in the MCUSA, I know some things they left out. It may not have even been on purpose. I don’t expect every reporter or blogger to have God-like abilities to be able to see everything, everywhere.

  66. Why did you feel the need to reply to Danite Ghost twice? He/she must’ve gotten under your skin, eh? 😉

  67. Fyi, I know you edited your comment and added the last paragraph after the fact. Next time, man up & lay all your cards on the table the first time, Mmmkay? Thanks for your co-operation 😉

  68. I gather you do not know the difference between primary and secondary sources.

  69. I note that he has still not defined “biased”, and of course, neither have you. That’s no accident.

  70. Or else I wanted to add or clarify something? Are you a mind-reader?

  71. So “omitting something” is an example of bias?

    Every time any ultra-religious person posts a comment, s/he reveals a lot about himself, so I hope you will keep posting.

  72. No, but I can sure spot an insidious M.O. when I see one. Especially from one of the regulars who regularly attack people with viewpoints more conservative than there’s. Don’t even bother with your self-justification, it’s all over the boards.

  73. So “omitting something” is an example of bias

    It can be. Certainly.

    Every time any ultra-religious person posts a comment


    Love your caricature based on next to nil knowledge of someone you never even met. Keep digging deeper.

  74. Definition of bias
    1 a : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice
    b : an instance of such prejudice
    c : bent, tendency

    I’d go with “c”. I don’t know of any malicious intent on the part of the person who wrote that piece, but a “bent” or “tendency” to dislike the Lancaster Mennonites for their position on Gays may cause them to have a blind spot and not look further at the situation so we can get a better sense of all that was going on.

    Just in looking at the description given of the person that wrote the piece, I can freely say “it ain’t her ‘beat,'” so to speak.

  75. Re-read what I’ve written. I try to deal in IDEAS and not attack individuals. I would appreciate it, in fact, if you would point out a few things I wrote in which I attacked individuals instead of ideas.

  76. I’d like to go back and re-read the piece you’re referring to. Can you send me a link?

  77. Or perhaps I know more about behavior than you. I’ve been interacting with “ultra religious” folks for many years, reading their stuff, learning about human behavior, etc., and I’ve learned quite a bit about them.

    As to “bias”, initially you stated that omitting some fact “was” an example of bias; it looks like now you’re backtracking, in saying “it CAN be.” .

  78. I would appreciate it, in fact, if you would point out a few things I wrote in which I attacked individuals instead of ideas

    “Religious person.”

    The very definition of the use of an ad hom, right there.

  79. Or perhaps I know more about behavior than you

    What you said in regards to me, or by implication, is not “knowing human behaviour.” It’s a caricature based on a series of assumptions you made.

    it looks like now you’re backtracking, in saying “it CAN be

    Tee-hee-hee. Dream on, if it makes you feel better 😉

  80. Can you send me a link

    Google is your friend. But you don’t know what information that I am saying was not included, so it will do you no good.

  81. You are a troll masquerading as a conspiracy theory believer. There is too much silly in your posts to take you seriously.

  82. The wealthiest, safest and most progressive countries are Christian…

  83. Nope. Try again. The wealthiest, safest and most progressive countries are secular.

    Religiosity* is conversely correlated with all measures of societal health, in nations and in US states. (*countries with state mandated belief about religion also fare poorly.)

    Overall, official and widespread secularism with individual freedom of conscience works best by far.

    Compare Sweden with Guatemala. Compare Connecticut with Alabama.

  84. The American Psychological Association (APA) is the world’s premiere repository of mental health information and the APA has diagnosed those who are involved in the homosexual lifestyle as being obsessive/compulsive narcissists and sociopaths. Unfortunately, there appear to be multiple elements of sociopathy in your response, Ben. Of course, for society a major concern is the possibility of sociopathy morphing into psychopathy as the many Catholic priests who molest boys clearly evidences. From a religious and spiritual perspective and for your own personal welfare in this life (millions of those involved in homosexuality are now dead from AIDS) and in eternity, Almighty God surely would encourage you to repent of your sin and turn to Him. Take care, my friend.

  85. Nonsense, nonsense, and more nonsense. The APA says nothing of the sort,

    And you are exactly proving my point. Lying, slandering, and Viciousness from the people of god!! Who woulda thunk? . What they do say, is that people who are the objects of vicious bigotry tend to show signs of it. quelle surprise!!! Kids commit suicide becuase of your nastiness. A NINE YEAR OLD BOY did this last week,

    millions dead from AIDS? Yes, and sadly. But world wide, AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Worldwide, lesbians have far lower risk of most diseases than heterosexuals. By your twisted, perverted, lying and slandering standards, they must be god’s chosen people.

    Keep your sickness to yourself.

  86. You, of course, are correct.

    Currently the APA does not say anything of the sort.

    It did at one time.

    Then in cooperation with the American Psychiatric Association, almost as zany at the American Psychological Association, it moved homosexuality around the DSM (used for classifying mental illnesses for diagnostic and billing purposes) for awhile, and then just dropped it.

    Of course none of that has a thing to do with whether a majority, or large minority, of those in the homosexual lifestyle suffer from narcissism and other personality issues.

  87. Oh, bobobobobobobobobob. bob!

    Ain’t it amazing what science can do? Millions of people cured of a disease that they didn’t have by the simple expedient of removing fear, bigotry, hate, ignorance, stupidity— and for you, obviously, in addition, your own personal Bobvious issues— from the analysis.

    Now if only the religion which claims it has a lock on morality, worships truth, and represents the God Who Is Love could follow suit!!! Why, it might even convince you to stop burning witches, torturing heretics, and hating anyone who disagrees with you!

    Your problems are Bobvious, as I said.

    You have a nice day, dear. I’m going to go back to ignoring you. I need a bath after listening to these religious rankings.

  88. I am actually familiar with the trip of “homosexuality” through the DSM, and science had absolutely nothing to do with it.

    You’re not ignoring me, git.

    Why would God love sin and disobedience?

    Logic is not your shtick, Shemdrik.

  89. Speaking of weapons, Ben, atheists are responsible for the slaughter of 200+ million men, women and children in the name of their god, who is satan.

    As Bob Dylan so eloquently sang, “Ya gotta serve somebody.”

    Seems you’re okay with serving Satan, my friend.

    Me, not so much…

  90. If your life is suddenly on the line, my friend, I promise you will cry out for God to save you and when Christopher Hitchens was dying a horrific death from cancer he expressed gratitude for the prayers of believers in his behalf.

    William Wordsworth wrote -“But trailing clouds of glory do we come, from God who is our home.”

    Before we were born we knew Him, after death we will know Him again.

    I promise, my friend.

    Take care.

  91. Atheists are responsible for the slaughter of 200+ million men, women and children in the 20th century alone and that only makes sense given that satan is the god of atheism. And the wealthiest country in the world is Monaco, which is nearly 99% Christian and Monaco is led by Prince Ranier, a Christian. There is also a famous cathedral in the heart of Monte Carlo. In addition, it’s the cleanest and least violent country and has the lowest crime rate in the world.

    Atheism is a dead end, my friend, in this world… and in the next.

    Take care from your friend in Texas.

  92. “As a proud gay man.”

    Every day homosexuals abandon the homosexual lifestyle and turn to Almighty God and His son Jesus, have their conscience renewed, experience real love and find greater happiness and peace in this life, and then prepare for the wonders of eternity.

    I will pray for Ben in Oakland, my friend.

  93. Every day, religiouspeople abandon the religious lifestyle and turn away from ancient superstitions and the lies they tell themselves about other people.

    Given your nonsense about 200 million people murdered by atheists, if you are going to pray for me, can I think for you?

  94. Btw, please keep your slander and reviling to yourself, as noted below.

  95. People who accuse other people they don’t know and know nothing about of “serving” a “master” cannot prove exists for purposes they cannot fathom are probably serving satan, and probably, just about “so much” as can be expected.

    I am not your friend. Are you still living the homosexual lifestyle?

Leave a Comment