June 29, 2005
— Ace Here's the thing. Well, two things.
Kelly Preston is f'n' hot. Not just hot, but cute-hot, the best kind of hot.
Tom Cruise (and John Travolta, etc.) really believe in this newish sci-fi based religion of theirs.
So.
Yes, it's all sort of weird. And yes, weirdness makes for good humor. But... I just see a lot of people taking shots at Scientology. Is it a goofy and strange religion? Yes, but to outsiders, most religions are goofy and strange, aren't they? There are few religions that don't have some "Oh, you can't be possibly be serious" aspects to them.
Noah's Ark, anyone?
Christians and devout Jews get knocked around a lot for their beliefs. I'm just not sure it's proper for people of faith -- and faithless people who sympathize with people of fatih, like me -- to do too much bashing of a religion, even if, and let's be honest, the religion in question is goofier than most.
I'm not nearly the fan of Tom Cruise that, say, Rosie O'Donnell, um, is. But the guy has some strong beliefs; he's pretty honest about them; the rest of the world thinks he's a kook, and isn't shy about saying so.
I know a lot of religious people resent being thought of as "kooks" just because they believe in some implausible stuff.
Anyway, parodies like this and
snarks like this are fun and all, but I just wonder if we shouldn't give Scientologists a bit of a break.
Let's say one thing: They really aren't hurting anyone. No one has ever, to my knowledge, killed or bombed in the name of L. Ron Hubbard.
The anti-psychiatry and anti-psychiatric-medication thing? Sort of a useful critique, if obviously extremist. (Tom, I need klonopin, and I assure you that vitamins will not cure me of chronic panic attacks... I've tried that.) But still-- essentially a harmless religion.
I guess part of the reason this bothers me is that the politically-correct liberal establishment has deemed it proper and safe to bash believing Christians, which is annoying and smugly superior and hostile to people of faith.
Scientologists seem to have been similarly deemed by almost everyone to be fair targets for derision.
I just don't like that sort of herd-mentality. It's a bit too fourth-grade, where kids figure out whom the fourth-grade collective has deemed it proper to pick on and bully.
And Yes... I know it's really, really weird. I strongly suspect L. Ron Hubbard created it as a very large (and amazingly successful) ironic point about religion, a grand practical joke to demonstrate that any set of somewhat-irrational and implausible premises, combined with a bit of psychic reassurance about one's place in the cosmos, could become a "religion."
And he did it with a bit Lovecraftian flair. Lovecraft introduced (or popularized, I guess) the odd twentieth-century cosmos and science-fiction tropes into the horror genre, with Fungi from Yuggoth (better known as Pluto) taking the place of werewolves and such. And it was weird at first -- shouldn't something supernatural be, well, ancient and having to do with castles and scrolls and such rather than interdimensional space-mead? -- and Hubbard similarly introduced "cutting edge" techonogy (well, cutting edge nineteen fiftees technology, like a modified polygraph called an "e-meter") and sci-fi tropes into his invented religion.
Very odd. I'll give you that. "Thetans" and such-- weird stuff. Weirder than ghosts and angels, because at least we're accustomed (even if irreligious) to the idea of ghosts and agnels.
But still. Whether it was a scam or collosal joke at first, it's a genuine religion now, it seems, at least to its believers. Maybe we ought to be more forgiving of daffy, though harmless, beliefs.
I Sit Corrected: Apparently it's not true they're not harming anyone.
Thanks to Master of None.
And Allah reminds me of the nasty attempts to silence critics of Scientology.
There may be some, um, light brainwashing going on.
I guess I'm now not really sure of my point. Except perhaps to say that even if one believes this "church" is corrupt and a gigantic scam, the church itself should be the object of derision, not its (assumedly duped) adherents.
Okay... A bit off-the-cuff, I guess. Hey, it happens. I shot my mouth off a little too quickly, forgetting the stuff I'd previously heard about and not bothering to do a google search.
But Tom Cruise and John Travolta seem, to me, to be basically good people. They don't seem to get into trouble.
And, let me repeat something we can all agree on: Kelly Preston is f'n' hhhhot.
If they're dupes, they're dupes, and therefore innocent. I assume they're not part of the conspiracy, at least not in a conscious way.
How Many Ways Can I Say "I Erred"?: Yes, cult, and not harmless.
Kind of off the subject but... Mormonism is still considered a cult by many as well. And-- I just think this is interesting -- it seems to include science-fiction tropes too. Retro-sci-fi, you understand; the "sci-fi" of the 1870's or whenever. Kind of Ambrose Bierce-ish retro sci-fi.
Although I've got to say I know nothing about The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints (kid's voice: The Mormons!) except what I know from that vicious South Park episode.
It Gets Worse And Worse: Lots of interesting, and alarming, stuff in the comments.
Posted by: Ace at
10:33 AM
| Comments (91)
Post contains 906 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Ken J at June 29, 2005 10:37 AM (lIVm5)
Posted by: Master of None at June 29, 2005 10:39 AM (2c7xL)
And they actually hypnotize people and gradually, gradually pull them deeper in with more and more outrageous suggestions.
Nobody gets told about the aliens that live in their ass right away.
They need $20K and a whole lot of brainwashing exercises first.
They break into government offices...hold people against their will...have people take out mortgages so they can get the cash...
Then, OK, yeah, its just like Sunday School.
Posted by: lauraw at June 29, 2005 10:39 AM (rZE27)
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 10:43 AM (Gi7oA)
Posted by: spongeworthy at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM (uSomN)
Back in the day she was right there with that girl from "Escape from Witch Mountain."
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM (qVW/J)
PS - Grammy yenta said that cousin Efram quit crack and went to work for cousin Yankel in his shoe store in Flushing.
Posted by: 72 FLYING MONKEYS at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM (dhRpo)
When I was an intern at Time, the staffers there told me that they used to get calls periodically from people posing as telemarketers or whatever asking for the home address of Richard Behar, the reporter on the Scientology story.
Posted by: Allah at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM (X3QeK)
For a religion to deserve any sort of respect, it has to be willing to share all of its beliefs, all of its texts / documents, and allow anyone to come and witness any of its rites / ceremonies / sermons. When a "religion" is unwilling to do that, and keeps secrets, it is automatically suspect. Why keep the "truth" a secret? If it's good for people, why hide it?
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at June 29, 2005 10:46 AM (JFj6P)
I just can't take a religion started by L. Ron Hubbard seriously; if I have to base my whole system of belief on the writings of a sci fi author, I'm going with Robert Heinlein.
Posted by: Monty at June 29, 2005 10:46 AM (8K26L)
You ever read that Time magazine article on them? Gives a good background on the 'church,' it's tactics and all. Right here.
They're not just a bunch of wacky (but ultimately lloveable) scifi nerds who've taken their 'zany' beliefs a llittle too far.
Posted by: Guy Dupree at June 29, 2005 10:47 AM (kUNrb)
Posted by: Guy Dupree at June 29, 2005 10:49 AM (kUNrb)
Yah, there are a lot of crazy beliefs out there, but come ON, seriously, have we lost the ability to unequivocally state that SOME beliefs are, in fact, more whack than others?
Later,
bbeck
Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 10:50 AM (qF8q3)
Posted by: ace at June 29, 2005 10:51 AM (sYxc4)
Well, I can just grok the he** out of that!
Later,
bbeck
Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 10:52 AM (qF8q3)
Having said that, I genuinely believe that Scientology is a harmful cult.
Posted by: SJKevin at June 29, 2005 10:53 AM (Sw8Cn)
Cults are a nasty little corner of the world. Lives are ruined and families are torn apart. Its the lucky ones that only lose some money.
Posted by: Zuke at June 29, 2005 10:59 AM (PJ4Iq)
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 11:00 AM (Gi7oA)
Posted by: Zuke at June 29, 2005 11:01 AM (PJ4Iq)
At my college they set up one of their "Scientology Centers" right across the street from the campus. They tried to lure students in with ads for "Free Personality Tests" and "Now Hiring." The few people that actually went in there were asked for tons of personal information and harrassed if they left. They have defintaly crossed the line into cult from what I can tell.
Posted by: brak at June 29, 2005 11:05 AM (OuLOj)
Posted by: brak at June 29, 2005 11:07 AM (OuLOj)
Also, these people are adults and they're not retarded, so they've consciously made a choice to believe what they believe. I don't see that as being duped, it's more like wilful ignorance, for which I cut them no slack.
But you're nicer than I am.
Later,
bbeck
Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 11:10 AM (qF8q3)
I put up a post making fun of Cruise simply because of the equisite irony of him choosing to take the "pseudoscience" line of attack, considering his own beliefs.
Posted by: Hubris at June 29, 2005 11:13 AM (PwC+V)
They bankrupted that organization and took it over. So, you call the anti-cult hotline...and you get scientologists!
Posted by: lauraw at June 29, 2005 11:15 AM (rZE27)
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 11:17 AM (Gi7oA)
Oh, those are mine. I know, you'd think I'd keep better track of them after all the trouble they caused last time.
Later,
bbeck
Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 11:22 AM (qF8q3)
Posted by: planetmoron at June 29, 2005 11:24 AM (X4GxM)
Posted by: Jack Wilkie at June 29, 2005 11:25 AM (kUNrb)
Couldn't put it down.
Posted by: Chad at June 29, 2005 11:25 AM (tbq53)
Still, I think the Scientology thing is different not just in degree from religious creeds like the Branch Davidians, but in kind. It's not a religious creed in any traditional sense of the term, nor is it a philosophy as some might call Confucianism or Zen Buddhism. It's little more than a confidence game engineered specifically to separate credulous chumps from their money (a practice at which it excels). As much as I venerate the freedom of individuals to practice whatever creed or belief that satisfies their spiritual yearnings (or practice none at all), I think that Scientology should be RICO'ed out of existence.
Posted by: Monty at June 29, 2005 11:26 AM (8K26L)
On the Mormonism-as-science-fiction question, you might be interested to know that the original "Battlestar Galactica" series was written by a Mormon (haven't googled to find his name), and the storyline incorporates huge chunks of Mormon theology. The same is true, to a lesser extent, for the Ender's Game series, written by Mormon Orson Scott Card.
Posted by: utron at June 29, 2005 11:27 AM (CgIkY)
Posted by: Enas Yorl at June 29, 2005 11:28 AM (t5jXv)
Posted by: Jack wilie at June 29, 2005 11:28 AM (kUNrb)
The upside is that you do see a lot of B actors coming and going from the "hospitality" centers. And if you are a professional in any capacity, one will undoubtedly befriend you.
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 11:30 AM (GTEGk)
Posted by: brak at June 29, 2005 11:31 AM (OuLOj)
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 11:34 AM (GTEGk)
We believe that when you die your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.
That's not real whack, is it?
Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 29, 2005 11:35 AM (pzen5)
There was a period during the early '90's when I lived in Denver that the Unification Church (the Moonies) seemed to be into everything. You'd see them everywhere: at the airport, standing on street corners, running little hard-sell "clinics" to get people to convert. I went back around 1999 and didn't see any Moonies during the whole trip, not even at the airport.
Did the CoS buy them out, or what?
Posted by: Monty at June 29, 2005 11:38 AM (8K26L)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 29, 2005 11:42 AM (pzen5)
Read "A Piece of Blue Sky" by Jon Atack. All you'll ever need to know about Hubbard and Scientology.
Posted by: Barbwire Mike at June 29, 2005 11:48 AM (Lfdoe)
You can't tell me only Ace and I are worshippers of the Fungi from Yuggoth?
They don't make cults like they used to.
Ace, as a fellow traveler, I need a command read from you: is it okay to worship Cthulhu mythos inhabitants NOT revealed by Lovecraft? 'Cause I'd really hate to lose my Glaaki-worship on the account of a technicality.
Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at June 29, 2005 11:48 AM (y1hCN)
"Jerry's Kids" telethon because the kids had little degraded beings in the back of their necks? That's what scientology teaches.
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 11:54 AM (GTEGk)
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 11:57 AM (GTEGk)
"The Mormon Murders" - yes, the title is a bit sensational, but the book has a lot of information on the workings of the higher levels of church administration.
More on L. Ron Hubbard:
His FBI file
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 12:00 PM (Pt3Le)
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 12:03 PM (rGBYl)
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at June 29, 2005 12:12 PM (y1hCN)
Posted by: canuck at June 29, 2005 12:15 PM (tUAzZ)
Posted by: Eric at June 29, 2005 12:15 PM (+QtyT)
Google can answer the Mormonism questons. It's intersting stuff.
Posted by: brak at June 29, 2005 12:18 PM (OuLOj)
But the best religion would no doubt come from Douglas Adams.
Posted by: Iblis at June 29, 2005 12:41 PM (9221z)
And I agree that Cruise et al. are doing quite a bit of harm by touting this shite. Some people are really gullible, ya know?
Posted by: compos mentis at June 29, 2005 12:55 PM (uCHTx)
Speaking as an active Latter-day Saint, and having already seen two very silly books about my church recommended in the comments, well, hey - here's a link for y'all. You know, just for a little balance.
Good Lord - sometimes trolling through these posts is like being Jewish and seeing people recommending "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as "good source material."
And, brak - who the hell uses Google for a serious look at anything these days? Besides lazy journalists, that is?
Okay - gotta go. I forgot to light the incense on my bedroom Cthulhu shrine this morning, and my third 15-year-old wife ain't gonna marry herself, if'n you know what I mean, cause the other two sure ain't gonna help, bein' all uppity like wives get and them two not even out of their teens yet.
And you thought being in a cult was easy.
Posted by: ccwbass at June 29, 2005 12:59 PM (xjqFO)
Also, is there any truth to the rumor that Hubbard started COS as a result of a bet with Arthur C. Clarke? Evidently, the bet was that he could start a religion based upon an imaginative made-up premise.
Posted by: F15C at June 29, 2005 01:05 PM (rTvRy)
Posted by: brak at June 29, 2005 01:09 PM (OuLOj)
Really just the same reasons everyone was looking forward to the Huffington Post until it proved a dissapointment.
Posted by: Valentine at June 29, 2005 01:15 PM (gIIfU)
But one really should approach with a "buyer beware" attitude as the ratio "informed:uninformed" leans heavily in "uninformed's" favor, and this is true for both pro and con.
Posted by: ccwbass at June 29, 2005 01:18 PM (xjqFO)
I had brought up that book for a reason. This thread kinda delved into the fascets of religion(s) causing harm to people and being that someone brought Mormonism into the topic, I immediately thought of that book. Please note that I did specify that it was about Mormon extremsim.
I have had the pleasure of working closely with a couple Mormons and in getting to know them and their families, I have decided that they are probably some of the most morally sound and good people I have ever met.
From what I learned from them, the background on how Mormonism came to be was fairly accurately portrayed in "Under...".
I have nothing against any religion. Believe what you want to believe. Let me do the same. My problem starts when people take it too far or too literally to the detriment (and sometimes death) of others.
Posted by: Chad at June 29, 2005 01:19 PM (tbq53)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 29, 2005 01:23 PM (pzen5)
Hubbard jr (goes by different name now, will look it up) claimed that 99% of what his father said was completely made up. That along with some of the abuse claims, I would say puts it at the top of the list of "weird" cults.....
Posted by: US Soldier at June 29, 2005 01:27 PM (VicCS)
I won't go back on the "silly" adjective when it comes to the book, but I apologize if my remarks implied something less-than-friendly on your part.
Sometimes it's just plain hard to tell, in an abbreviated forum like a comments section, where people stand - especially at Ace's, where low comedy, high comedy and dead seriousness walk shoulder to shoulder, and Heaven help the sucker who - like me - can be prone to over-seriousness regarding religion.
Posted by: ccwbass at June 29, 2005 01:33 PM (xjqFO)
On The Mormon Murders: as it happens, I was acquainted with most of the major players in the Hoffmann forgery case, the subject of the book. Most of them were interviewed by Naifeh and Smith, the book's authors, and all of them felt the two distorted their remarks, and generally abused and exploited them. Two better books on the same story are Salamander by Linda Sillitoe and Allan Roberts, and A Gathering of Saints by Robert Lindsay, who also wrote The Falcon and the Snowman.
Posted by: utron at June 29, 2005 01:34 PM (CgIkY)
Oh, man, I don't want to insult your religion. But I've read the original "Book of Mormon," and the revisions, and I've spent a lot of time reading about Joseph Smith. The book itself is enough to tell me it's a fraud; but I didn't grow up in the faith.
I'm sorry you believe it. I've known a lot of Mormons, and almost universally, you've been good people.
Posted by: Dianna at June 29, 2005 01:40 PM (ql6J6)
I just do my best to keep as open a mind as possible.
And as far as taking things too seriously here.... It's Ace of Spades HQ. In my experience I would say 9 times outta 10, people are not going out of their way to piss others off. There are times when it's helpful to be able to laugh at yourself though.
Now you know... Knowing's half the battle.
YO JOE!
Posted by: Chad at June 29, 2005 01:42 PM (tbq53)
Dave in Texas:
LMAO. How do I join? Do I get baptized by getting skipped off the pavement and slipping through the grating over the storm sewer?
Posted by: Michael at June 29, 2005 01:42 PM (pRtzm)
I see your point but the impression I got from reading Krakauer's book was that it was more cautionary than critical of religion (although there were critical points, no doubt). What I took from it was that any religion - Catholocism, Mormonism, Islam - can be taken out of context and used as an excuse to cause harm.
I will take a look at those other books you mentioned. Summer reading is shaping up to be a tad thin at the moment.
Posted by: Chad at June 29, 2005 02:01 PM (tbq53)
Whereas with Scientology, the nuttiness was an integral part of the deal, not some unendorsed fringe thing. God knows how much my former friend shoveled into having her mind cleared, or whatever it is, but it was more than she could afford and had the added side-bonus of making her terrified of "psychs" when frankly, she could have used a few sessions on the couch. She was having a lot of family problems and the Scientologists said they could solve them for her, but at a cost. Not sure where she is now, but last I heard she was working some crummy job in a Scientology center, not making a lot and ploughing most of it back into the church anyway for more courses.
Plus, I'll take Orson Scott Card's books over L. Ron Hubbard's any day of the week.
Posted by: Sonetka at June 29, 2005 03:12 PM (qnMMH)
Posted by: Sean M. at June 29, 2005 03:51 PM (tSDq3)
They all look like zombies and are almost robotic. It's creepy but fascinating in a car-wreck kind of way.
They used to censor the internet for their members. Don't know if they still do. http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/censorware.html?FACTNet
Posted by: Kevin at June 29, 2005 04:09 PM (FtdjI)
Mount Sinai! When I first moved to LA, I kept thinking, now where is that naval academy? I see all these cadets, but why would they be so far inland? :p
Posted by: at June 29, 2005 04:10 PM (8x3ov)
Kolob
and Mormons also let you become your own god... just at a much cheaper rate.
And hey... who doesn't want to get godhead on the cheap?
Posted by: Larry Bernard at June 29, 2005 04:59 PM (48qkd)
Posted by: Sean M. at June 29, 2005 05:00 PM (tSDq3)
If you can chuck your soul at a high angle against the wind, and your Labrador Retriever can catch it, you're in.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 29, 2005 06:22 PM (HWCc2)
Thing is, I like the holy roller. He's practicing his beliefs. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, after all. You're *supposed* to spread the word to unbelievers -- not say "to each his own," which is what I'd wager most modern-day Christians believe. Where would Christianity be without the missionaries who spread Christianity to the four corners of the Earth? It would be a Wackadoo™ cult adhered to by a few "mentally ill" people who continued to insist on the divinity of an obscure carpenter. That's where it would be. So the guy who hands out pamphlets may seem embarrassingly Tom Cruise-like in his zeal to spread the word, but he looks an awful lot like what used to pass for "Christian" not long ago.
And more power too him. He doesn't harm anyone, either intentionally or unintentionally. He's annoying, for sure, but that's not a crime. Which is why it bothers me that so many people -- Christians, even -- want Cruise to shut up, when all that disdain and contempt being heaped on him was only recently heaped on another "unhinged" celebrity -- Mel Gibson.
Wrong then, wrong now.
And to deride Cruise because Scientology is not a "legitimate" religion like Christianity is to be only half right. Scientology *is* about money and it *is* harmful to many people who join, and it is also without two thousand years of doctrine, tradition and culture to lend it an air of permanance. But anyone who thinks that Scientology is tainted and Christianity isn't needs to commune a bit with Martin Luther's ghost. The Catholic Church used to sell spots in Heaven for Pete's sake. Spiritual graft doesn't get any worse than that. And as if anyone needed reminding, the Catholic Church has at times been no better than a catamite procurement agency.
Hey, didn't George Bush say something about not trying to take a speck out of someone's eye if you've got a log in your own? That's some pretty sound advice.
On the other hand, maybe he should just shut up and keep those "wacko" Bible quotations to himself.
Posted by: Radiant Jen Zi at June 29, 2005 06:56 PM (cVuV2)
The history of the early Church's polygamous practices is not admirable and the Church only officially abandoned polygamy at gunpoint so that Utah could be admitted as a state. That said, it did in fact abandon that doctrine and anyone who practices polygamy is excommunicated. End of story.
One of the "heroes" of UBH went from being a normal guy with a family to someone who cut off the utilities to his home, took his wife dumpster diving for food, and refusing to bother with getting a driver's license. (I hope I haven't mangled any facts here.) Once he cast off from terra firma that fool just lost all contact with reality. A Mormon he wasn't.
Ace, I didn't think the South Park episode was that vicious. The facts about Mormon belief that it presented were accurate and the Mormon kid left the field with the moral upper hand. In fact, he had it all the way through.
I've many Mormon friends and can only second what's been said here about their decency. As a lifestyle it can't be beat(en).
I know Mormons who follow anti-Mormon literature with interest and amusement. My friends are amused by the foibles of the Church, as they're hardly idiots. Then they go on living their lives as Church members and are generally pretty happy.
If ever your kids stray from the beaten path, the best thing that could ever happen to them would be for them to fall into the "clutches" of the Latter Day Saints. I was in high school in Salt Lake City and a bad day in a Mormon youth activity would have been been better than most of my good days when I -- fortunately -- never quite found all the trouble I was looking for.
End of commercial.
Posted by: Richard Ong at June 29, 2005 07:02 PM (5+7LX)
I've got a more-or-less-terrier mutt who couldn't catch a frisbee to save her life but really likes to get belly rubs. Guess I'm going to hell.
Posted by: Michael at June 29, 2005 07:22 PM (pRtzm)
Jim Jones: Jonestown Massacre aside, basically decent guy?
There's been a lot of stuff on the web trying to judge the life's work of some guy named Jim Jones by one incident. Bad incident? Sure. I'm not denying things got a little crazy there toward the end. I agree. But every sect has moments they'd like to forget. Who hasn't...
Posted by: Ray Midge at June 29, 2005 08:43 PM (kUNrb)
You said that "The history of the early Church's polygamous practices is not admirable and the Church only officially abandoned polygamy at gunpoint so that Utah could be admitted as a state. That said, it did in fact abandon that doctrine and anyone who practices polygamy is excommunicated. End of story."
How does this square with the fact that LDS considers Joseph Smith a prophet and that he stated that Moroni instructed him that polygamy was god's will? Either what Joseph Smith said was the truth - as revealed by various angels - or it wasn't. You can't change it with the times. Also, what about the other early LDS prophets that supported/endorsed polygamy? Again, same problem.
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at June 30, 2005 03:54 AM (JFj6P)
Joseph Smith, the cults creator, was convicted for the scam of "glass looking" before his "revelation".
Posted by: Speller at June 30, 2005 04:33 AM (uW2IJ)
Radiant Jen Zi - That is one big assed curve you had to go around to compare Christianity to Scientology. I'll give you that a lot of things done in Christ's name and by many who claim to follow him are disgusting. That's all I'll give you.
The goals and core beliefs of Christianity vs. what I've read about Scientology seem quite opposite. Seems to me Christianity has followers. Scientology has victims. And I see celebrities recruiting gullible victims as wrong. Some peope are just too stupid and/or too easily mis-guided to be able to make informed decisions. I suppose the same goes for all religions. With some though, the means and the outcomes on the affected lives are entirely different.
Posted by: compos mentis at June 30, 2005 04:44 AM (uCHTx)
But there's a difference between a religion which is perverted by some leaders or followers into something other than it's core beliefs, texts, founders would have wanted--and a religion whose founder explicitly condoned and endorsed intimidation of opponents (so much for free will, eh?) and structured the whole religion around deception and the profit motive. It would be essentially impossible to 'reform' Scientology as Luther reformed Christianity, since the rot extends all the way to the church's founder and core texts, and is not merely an invention of its current leadership.
Posted by: alex at June 30, 2005 04:53 AM (Z0ZFN)
I'm not familiar with that.
Are you referring to indulgences? Indulgences only erase the temporal (read: purgatory) punishment for sin, they don't grant forgiveness of sin (which Catholics relegate to Confession). It's my understanding that if you're in Purgatory, you're pretty much getting into heaven anyway. It's just more a matter of how long you spend in purgatory...
Of course, if I'm thinking of something, I'd love to hear it.
I think part of the problem, which Ace was trying, rather nicely, to avoid, is that you often get a set of beliefs that are widely misunderstood. Kind of like indulgences in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure it's really anyone's fault that beliefs like that *are* misunderstood, because there is so much mudslinging going on all around it's tough to see what's true. What matters is smoothing over those problems and getting to the bottom of it.
Alex: I always, when I see Luther's Reformation, see two different parts. The reaction to corruption and the alteration of beliefs (whether rightly or wrongly, I don't want to get into that argument). Yes, Luther did do away with that corruption that was present in the Church, but then again, so did the Church (after a little bit of time). I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't quite see how your analogy works. Although I do understand what you are trying to say.
Posted by: Rob at June 30, 2005 06:58 AM (AahOX)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 30, 2005 08:59 AM (pzen5)
"Blood of the Prophets"
Reviews of "American Massacre" here and here.
Review of Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven
Posted by: ccwbass at June 30, 2005 10:59 AM (MSNN3)
"One of Scientology's main strategies is to keep advancing the tired argument that the church is being "persecuted" by antireligionists. It is supported in that position by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Council of Churches.
Two communist front groups have declared Scientology a legitimate religion. What more really needs to be said?
Posted by: Nate B. at June 30, 2005 11:12 AM (cmoKD)
Your points are very good ones.
I was under the impression that the later condemnation of plural marriage was simply stated in Church doctrine as a new divine revelation.
I believe now after brief and inconclusive research that plural marriage was proscribed by the Church on the basis that Church members should obey the law of the land.
If that's the gist of the Church's new policy it thus could be quite consistent with the earlier revelation(s?) reported by Joseph Smith.
The passage found at this link, Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah, Bookcraft, 1996, states that it's up to the President of the Church to decide whether the earlier teaching of Joseph Smith should be followed. Thus, even true and valid revelations can be "deprecated" to use one of the new IT buzz words.
There's no gainsaying that the Jospeh Smith and Brigham Young practiced polygamy with enthusiasm. You're quite right.
However, LDS President Woodruff's proscription of polygamy in 1890 changed that and is still holy writ. He could still be reversed by a later Prophet, it would appear.
Others are far better qualified to carry on this debate than I. I hope I've not misstated or omitted something important.
Kindest regards.
Posted by: Richard Ong at July 01, 2005 07:56 PM (5+7LX)
Posted by: triticale at July 03, 2005 04:44 PM (pUUU8)
"However, LDS President Woodruff's proscription of polygamy in 1890 changed that and is still holy writ. He could still be reversed by a later Prophet, it would appear."
So, the prophet Joseph Smith's (the man who created the religion and read/translated the mysterious golden plates) teachings can be reversed? Does that mean that nothing he taught is true - or that it is only true and the word of god until reversed by a later prophit? At which point the new truth becomes the truth and word of god?
Just wondering.
-VT
Posted by: Vanilla Thunder at July 05, 2005 03:51 AM (JFj6P)
I shouldn't have said "holy writ" as that implies it was a religious pronouncement by Pres. Woodruff.
The point I was trying to make was that, given his authority as the Church leader to prescribe or proscribe polygamy, he decided that it was best for the Church to follow the law of the land. He did not say Joseph Smith had not accurately reported his revelation on the matter. He only said that it was best for the Church not to condone polygamy as a practice at that time.
If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, Pres. Woodruff was careful not to say Joseph Smith was wrong just that now is not a good time to put his revelation into practice. I infer that he was well aware of the doctrinal problem you identify.
Here's a quote:
"On September 24, 1890. In response to the decree of the Supreme Court Wilford Woodruff issued what became known as the "Woodruff Manifesto." It is printed at the end of every copy of the Doctrine & Covenants. It reads in part as follows: Inasmuch as Laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort. I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise. (D&C292)"
Social and Political Reactions to Mormon Polygamy, author unknown. http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/2053.php
Pres. Woodruff's statement was a policy declaration -- like Roe v. Wade.
Kindest regards.
Posted by: Richard Ong at July 06, 2005 04:11 PM (5+7LX)
Posted by: ljlh at December 04, 2008 08:01 PM (c3x8k)
MKV stands for Matroska video, Matroska is the extensible open standard Audio/Video container like avi, mp4, mpg, asf, rm, and mov. When you convert MKV to iPad mp4 on Mac OS X Leopard, a powerful and professional Mac MKV to iPad Converter program which can convert MKV to MP4 format perfectly. With easy conversion procedures, it makes MKV to iPad MP4 conversion routine very simple.
Mac MTS to iPad Converter
WMV to iPad Converter for Mac
Posted by: goodymary at September 05, 2010 10:48 PM (Uy2cY)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
