As far as I know you don't have to spend upwards of three quarters of a million dollars to find out Xenu did it in other religions. In fact I think most religions give shit away for free.

"They really aren't hurting anyone."

Lisa McPherson

The tithing is a wee bit excessive. Far more than passing the collection plate.

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.

squirrel alert!!!!

Sounds like a good thing Janet Reno didn't find out about these people.

I can agree about the Kelly Preston part.

Back in the day she was right there with that girl from "Escape from Witch Mountain."

ACE - Just in case you didn't know: There's a fucking war!

PS - Grammy yenta said that cousin Efram quit crack and went to work for cousin Yankel in his shoe store in Flushing.

"In the end, money is what Scientology is all about."

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.

Any religion that keeps its beliefs secret - not just from the public at large, but from its own members (i.e., you have to pay a lot of money, and be deemed "acceptable" in some way, to receive secrets relating to the next level) is suspect.

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?

Ace, if you think Scientology is just another weird cult, check out Operation Clambake. The treatment that CoS gives to its celebrity members differs substantially from the treatment other members get. The CoS is less a church and more like the Mafia. (Only, you know, with alien gods and psychokinetic energy instead of cannoli.)

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.

Not so sure they really aren't hurting anyone, that we should give them the whole 'Whatever you wanna believe, it's all good." EZ pass.

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.

I see Allah beat me to the Time article. Anyway, read it. Especially the end, what they tried to pull on the reporter.

Hmm, am I the only one who sees a distinct difference between believing in the supernatural and believing in azz-invading aliens?

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

I admit more whack, yes.

It's weird stuff.

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.

Well, I can just grok the he** out of that!

Later,
bbeck

Ace, I agree with you about the fourth-grade mentality. I think a lot of people are picking on Tom Cruise and Scientology for the wrong reasons.

Having said that, I genuinely believe that Scientology is a harmful cult.

bbeck--
I'm with you. A super colossal 36 day cinema which got alien ghosts to believe in falacies like God and space opera is in fact, whack.

You don't know the half of it. Seriously. Go here, www.xenu.net. Its THE page for the inside scoop on scientology. For starters, read the Time cover story. Then read about everything the author of that story went through after that. Then click on just about any other link on xenu.net and see if you still consider them to be harmless.

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.

Scientology means "peace" in Arabic

Damn, I need to type faster.

Seeing snark about religion coming from someone like K-Lo in the Corner seems funny at first, and normally I would agree with your post completely, but Scientology seems like an exception to the "wierd beliefs but harmless" idea. Not just strange, but possibly dangerous.

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.

Also, it seems like they only went for the "religion" angle when the "philosophy self-help" angle didn't work and they needed the tax exempt status.

Ace, I don't consider "dupes" to be entirely innocent, particularly when it comes to religious beliefs. There is a point, rather there MUST be a point, where you become responsible for your beliefs whether they're true or false. A religion is nothing without followers, and simply by being followers these actors are accountable for lending Scientology some credibility and lots of publicity when it deserves neither.

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

I actually like Cruise's general level of intensity and enthusiasm; I don't really care about his personal beliefs. I also think that there are some extremely valid criticisms that could be aimed against psychiatry, overuse of medication, etc.

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.

One of the best scams they have pulled is the 1-800 anti-cult hotline.

They bankrupted that organization and took it over. So, you call the anti-cult hotline...and you get scientologists!

I found some Golden Plates on my back yard yesterday. You wouldn't believe what they said!

I found some Golden Plates on my back yard yesterday. You wouldn't believe what they said!

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

What with gays being the new Jews and all how about Scientologists step up and become the new gays? They already dress pretty well.

Scoff at their ability to master time and space all you will, but they've been able to secure Jenna Elfman's employment in Hollywood. For that reason alone, I am terrified of them and believe they should be denied 1st Amendment protection.

Alarming and disturbing book about Mormon extremism... "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer (the same guy who wrote "Into Thin Air").

Couldn't put it down.

Ace, I kind of understand where you're coming from -- I felt the same way during the whole Branch Davidian fiasco in Waco, TX several years ago. There were rumors of child abuse, illegal firearms, and so on, but nothing concrete. It's pretty clear that David Koresh was a nut, but the world is full of them, and as long as the other people in the compound were fellow nuts who were there of their own free will, I don't see what right the gub'mint had to go in there.

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.

I can sympathize somewhat with the original point about not mocking Cruise's beliefs, having been raised Mormon. My family joined the religion in 1851, when I was too young to have an opinion on the matter, and I'm not much of a believer these days. But I'm familiar with the amount of snark people can get for having "weird" beliefs, and I do think to a large extent all religions are equally irrational, judged from any perspective other than their own. None of which lets the Scientologists or anyone else off the hook for financial shenanigans, brainwashing, child molesting, etc.

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.

Well, personally I worship the God-Emperor Leto Atreides II. I mean, c'mon! The guy turned himself into a sandworm for us! Shai-hulud!

They've italicized us! They've italicized us! Cheese it, everybody!

I'm not going to beat on them, but I'm not going to call them a religion, either. I live in the belly of the beast. They target people for conversion. They are litigious as hell.

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.

Well all the Mormons I have known have been great people, and even though they love to convert people, they usually aren't too bad about leaving you alone if you say no. Sure some of their beliefs seem strange to Christians (Godhead thing) or anyone (underwear thing) but they are also overwhelmingly Republican. Extra points for that.

Ace, the rank and file wear a lot of different funny uniforms. That, in and of itself, makes them subject to derision.

I'm a Frisbyterian.

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?

On a slightly related note.... Are the hare krishnas and the moonies still doing business? What are their numbers?

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?

oh, and I think you have an open italics tag

loose shit

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/apobs/

Read "A Piece of Blue Sky" by Jon Atack. All you'll ever need to know about Hubbard and Scientology.

Hey, what's the deal?

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

Did you hear the one about John Travolta telling Jerry Lewis that he wouldn't appear on the
"Jerry's Kids" telethon because the kids had little degraded beings in the back of their necks? That's what scientology teaches.

ace, if you want to join a cult, join that one where they wear orange and rasberry colored clothes, a photo of some swami around their neck, and they fuck like bunnies. I think you might like that.

More on Mormonism:

"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

Sure some of their beliefs seem strange to Christians (Godhead thing) or anyone (underwear thing)

Ace, I hope you don't mind, I went in and closed your tags.

You can thank me later.

brak, do you go to UT?

Good job on the fact check Dan...

Yeah I did. That Scientology center is still there too.

Google can answer the Mormonism questons. It's intersting stuff.

Heh. Larry Niven could come up with a better religion than Hubbard any day of the week.

But the best religion would no doubt come from Douglas Adams.

Dave in Texas - Frisbyterian! It was entirely too quiet in this set of offices for me to laugh out loud that, well, loudly!!

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?

I have no comment to make on Scientology, as I what little I 'know' about it comes from hearsay.

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.

About 18 years ago, I was in the Air Force, and a coworker (who had coincidentally just inherited a load of money) fell in with the Scientoloyg folks. He did have some issues, no question. But they took over $10K and three months of his life and left him worse than before.

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.

ccwbass- I recommended Google b/c a search on that will pull up both pro-Mormon and anti-Mormon websites, and they can make up their own mind

Assuming your point for a moment about tolerance of innocent believers/dupes/ whatever, what makes these particular believers stand out and subject to derision is the whole celebrity status religion thing. Like Madonna & the gang's Kabbalah Centre stuff. I think your argument might fly better if it were just Joe Blow hyping these religions or "religions." Instead we have celebrities from whom we have already grown weary of hearing how we should live, eat, and vote. Now they need their own special religions because the others are just too pedestrian?

Really just the same reasons everyone was looking forward to the Huffington Post until it proved a dissapointment.

Point taken, re: Google.

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.

ccwbass -

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.

compos, I wish I could remember the name of the comedian who did that joke... goes back to the 70s -

One major difference about Scientology compared to some other religions here: The founders own son said it was all based on fraud.

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.....

Chad, thanks for the kind remarks. I could certainly have been more generous myself. If you're interested, though, here's a review of Krakauer's book.

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.

Chad, my only mild beef with your comments re Under the Banner of Heaven is that everyone in Utah regarded the Lafferty case as a pathological atrocity; it wasn't two guys who took Mormonism really, really seriously. Krakauer was trying to use the case, in my view, to criticize religion in general, and readers ought to bear that in mind.

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.

CCWbass,

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.

No prob CCW.... I have to admire anyone who sticks firmly to their own beliefs, and will do that whether or not I agree with them. In this case, I don't really subscribe to Mormonism, but if it works for you, by all means, knock yourself out. There are things about it that I find odd, but there are things I find odd about all religions.

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!

I'm a Frisbyterian.

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?

utron -

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.

Based entirely on subjective personal experience (having known a girl in high school who went Scientologist, and the fact that I live in Utah) I'd turn Mormon five hundred times over before I'd walk into a Scientology center. The thing to know about the Salamander occasion and the occasional polygamists who show up on the news is that they are not exactly either mainstream or hierarchically endorsed. You'll never see Gordon Hinckley giving a hearty welcome to Warren Jeffs and his merry men - or, for that matter, suing anyone who tries to reveal LDS doctrine or making believers sign billion-year contracts for what's basically slave labour. I've heard stories about how hard it is to get yourself de-listed from the church membership rolls and what a pain it is, but nobody ever mentioned having to pay thousands of dollars or fend off church lawyers for the privilege.

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.

I've always been pissed at the Scientologists because they bought the hospital I was born in, painted it sky blue, and turned it into World Scientology HQ.

I've skulked around the exteriors of CoS buildings in Hollywood and Clearwater. You'll see a bunch of minions standing around as guards/flyer hander outers/ticket to LRH museum hander outers.

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

I've always been pissed at the Scientologists because they bought the hospital I was born in, painted it sky blue, and turned it into World Scientology HQ.

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

And in case some one hasn't covered it. God to the mormons also comes from a place far off in deep space.

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?

Actually, it was called Cedars of Lebanon, and it was the precursor to Cedars Sinai. The latter was still under construction (though I've been given to understand that part of it was already open) so my mom elected to give birth at the older place.

Michael,

If you can chuck your soul at a high angle against the wind, and your Labrador Retriever can catch it, you're in.

Tom Cruise should shut about his beliefs. Really? I'll remember that next time the neighborhood "holy roller" comes knocking with another pamphlet telling me I'm going to Hell unless I repent, etc.

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.

Under the Banne of Heaven is indeed a fascinating book, and very even handed. It was not, however, a book about Mormonism but about what happened when two individual decided to abandon the LDS Church and adopt polygamy.

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.

Dave in Texas:

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.

(Preview of upcoming post in the summer long Ace of Spades Thelogical Series)

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...

Richard Ong:

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.

Google works just fine for finding things like "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" ordered by Brigham Young. The mormans were "persecuted because, like the muslims, they believed they could steal from and scam any "gentiles"(non-mormans). They even had(have?) their own religious police, like the muslims, who would slit the throats of insufficiently obedient brethren.

Joseph Smith, the cults creator, was convicted for the scam of "glass looking" before his "revelation".

Michael - no hell for you. You'll just be sent to Frisby Purgatory so that you can spend millenia contemplating the now evident virtues of a good frisbee dog.

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.

I'm all for respecting other religions, though certainly every religion--every sincerely held system of beliefs, in fact--is subject to abuse by people who want power or want to make a buck. This as much a problem of human nature as of religion, and as I say, applies not only to those beliefs which we normally refer to as 'religious' but to any idea which has power in a society. (Lots of people exploit 'science' or the appearance thereof for their own gain--e.g. 'racial science' and Naziism etc.)

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.

Radiant Jen Zi: THe Church used to sell places in heaven?

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.

Speller, just read some accounts of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Quite a chilling story.

Mountain Meadows, eh? Just for balance:

"Blood of the Prophets"

Reviews of "American Massacre" here and here.

Review of Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven

I didn't really have an opinion on Scientology before, but this passage in the Time article speaks volumes to me (emphasis mine):

"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?

Dear Vanilla Thunder:

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.

Nope, not Lovecraft; Crowley. Lafayette Hubbard was hanging around the L.A. branch of the O.T.O in the 1940s, and stole ideas, a girlfriend and about $20,000 dollars from its high priest.

Richard Ong -

"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

Dear VT,

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.