And I thought there could be nothing that I could agree with Xtian fundies on

[yellow_crane]

One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives. 

The Mormons have less enforcement over small details in their lives than most Socialists would impose over society as a whole.

It's kinda like your claim that Seventh Day Adventists are required to be vegetarians; it's not a true statement.

"The Mormons have less enforcement over small details in their lives than most Socialiists would impose over society as a whole."

The operative word in your statement is "would"--an assumption.  What I am familiar with is the extent to which Mormons are monitored down to their teeth.

Interesting that you should introduce the comparison of Mormons to Socialists; I would not claim that a Mormon with power would advocate a socialist society, but I will claim that their own organized church is a very socialist enterprise.  Actually, I think they embrace several good aspects of socialism.  You won't find a Mormon standing in the welfare line.  They provide their own welfare to those amoung them who are unemployed, and they seem to handle that aspect much better than the one designed by the Great Society of the Dems.


"It's kinda like your statement that Seventh Day Adventists are required to be vegetarians; it's not a true statement."

Are you sure it was I that made this statement?   I do not remember making this statement at all.

[Amianthus]

The operative word in your statement is "would"--an assumption.  What I am familiar with is the extent to which Mormons are monitored down to their teeth.

I'm quite familiar with it, too. And it's voluntary.

If a Mormon decides to drink caffeine, he can. They don't have to pee in a cup to prove that they don't.

The rest of their beliefs are just as voluntary.

[yellow_crane]

The operative word in your statement is "would"--an assumption.  What I am familiar with is the extent to which Mormons are monitored down to their teeth.

I'm quite familiar with it, too. And it's voluntary.

If a Mormon decides to drink caffeine, he can. They don't have to pee in a cup to prove that they don't.

The rest of their beliefs are just as voluntary.

Looks good on the flyers.

Make a sentence out of the following:   blue, I, shunned, been, have.

It is like pointing out that the Food and Drug Administration has a delineated program for regulating the shit that goes into pet food, for which they certainly do.

Trouble is, they enforce nothing, intentionally, to protect big business, and fuck the puppies and kitties.

Hence . . .

Has anybody in here had their pet die recently?  Can't be a FDA problem . . . they got good flyers.

[Amianthus]

Looks good on the flyers.

Make a sentence out of the following:   blue, I, shunned, been, have.

I know a Mormon that drinks Pepsi and Mountain Dew. He continues to be a member of his stake, goes to all the ceremonies, still interacts with the various members.

When does the shunning start?

[yellow_crane]

Looks good on the flyers.

Make a sentence out of the following:   blue, I, shunned, been, have.

I know a Mormon that (sic) drinks Pepsi . . .

'All Indians walk in single file . . . at least the one I saw did.'

A serious interpretation of the rules against Pepsi and other toxins is usually less cavalier and forgiving in the Mormons I have known than yours is, and Mormons are serious about interpreting their rules. 

They, being disciplined and informed as they are, usually take the factual, scientific approach to toxins in the body, and eschew the more emotional, infantile-based advocation of such toxins on sentimental grounds--McDonald's don't tell a kid directly to eat their burgers, they instead want him to love them. The rational person passes a Pepsi by, and Mormons, being in the collective sense very rational, do so too.  In this instance, were more Americans Mormon, there would likely not be the current pandemic of diabetes.


Shunning is a powerful force in the world of control.  Many groups use it.  The more tightly controlled the group, the more the tactic is used.  Name me another tactic that works as well to enforce conformity, or one that is used as often. 

Shunning is not a rural Pennsylvanian cartoon, drawn in black and white.  There are degrees of shunning . . . shunning or the promise of shunning is contained in the vaguest of Christian disapprovals.   A woman in the elevator who, seeing you slavver, looks cold to the floor can issue a potent form of pure shun. 

I will give you this:  Mormons are very forgiving, while most VISIBLE Christians are quick to hate, which, in context, is yet another degree of shunning--probably right at the apex of the swing of its pendulum to the Right.

[Lanya]

The most loving people I've met here are the Mennonites. 

[Amianthus]

'All Indians walk in single file . . . at least the one I saw did.'

A serious interpretation of the rules against Pepsi and other toxins is usually less cavalier and forgiving in the Mormons I have known than yours is, and Mormons are serious about interpreting their rules. 

Your limited observations trump my limited observations?

Not very cult-like if they let even one get away with it, huh?

[_JS]

I have equal disdain for Christians , Jews and everyone else who is weak enough to rely on a big daddy in the sky god. Its just that Mor(m)ons  are a smidge nuttier than most except the most RW fundie loonies and shoulldnt be trusted to operate a car much less a country. Who knows when the rapture will overcome them and they will need to blow US all up?

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of faith and belief. Yet, even if you do not believe in God, why hold such "disdain" for those who do? Why consider them "weak?"

There is more to life than science and math. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Mucho]

I have equal disdain for Christians , Jews and everyone else who is weak enough to rely on a big daddy in the sky god. Its just that Mor(m)ons  are a smidge nuttier than most except the most RW fundie loonies and shoulldnt be trusted to operate a car much less a country. Who knows when the rapture will overcome them and they will need to blow US all up?

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of faith and belief. Yet, even if you do not believe in God, why hold such "disdain" for those who do? Why consider them "weak?"

There is more to life than science and math. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I believe that I understand faith perfectly. It is a crutch for the weak , ignorant ,fearful and enslaved.

The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian," Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E Haldeman-Julius.

[_JS]

I believe that I understand faith perfectly. It is a crutch for the weak , ignorant ,fearful and enslaved.

The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian," Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E Haldeman-Julius.

Yet, some of the greatest minds to ever grace the Earth have been men and women of faith. If you read the quote you have given from an exceptionally intelligent Englishman, you'll note that he has faith as well. He simply places his faith in mankind. What makes such a faith any more well placed?

[Mucho]

I believe that I understand faith perfectly. It is a crutch for the weak , ignorant ,fearful and enslaved.

The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian," Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E Haldeman-Julius.

Yet, some of the greatest minds to ever grace the Earth have been men and women of faith. If you read the quote you have given from an exceptionally intelligent Englishman, you'll note that he has faith as well. He simply places his faith in mankind. What makes such a faith any more well placed?

Because it is not in an anthropomorphic God or giant fricasee in the sky like the religionists. Those faiths have created more destruction than faith in  man has.
Indeed your Horatio lived  during a time when wars were more often fought over food, sex,, territory & ego rather than evil abstractions like religion. I suspect that the more God was on their side, the worse war became.

[_JS]

Because it is not in an anthropomorphic God or giant fricasee in the sky like the religionists. Those faiths have created more destruction than faith in  man has.

Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to me that man has been all that wonderful to his fellow man even in recent times and wars that had nothing to do with religion. It certainly was not faith in God that created nuclear weapons, or invented new and horrible methods of torture. These were the inventions of humanity. Creatures who will murder, rape, beat, threaten, and perform all sorts of unspeakable acts to obtain land that has diamonds, gold, or petroleum.

I'm not sure I want to place my faith in that.

Indeed your Horatio lived  during a time when wars were more often fought over food, sex,, territory & ego rather than evil abstractions like religion. I suspect that the more God was on their side, the worse war became.

You might want to consider when Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and who was Queen and who followed her as King. Where did Hamlet return from University in the very beginning of the play? I'd say religion played a very significant role in Hamlet and for Shakespeare, who was likely a recusant Catholic as his father was.

[Mucho]

Because it is not in an anthropomorphic God or giant fricasee in the sky like the religionists. Those faiths have created more destruction than faith in  man has.

Are you sure about that? It doesn't seem to me that man has been all that wonderful to his fellow man even in recent times and wars that had nothing to do with religion. It certainly was not faith in God that created nuclear weapons, or invented new and horrible methods of torture. These were the inventions of humanity. Creatures who will murder, rape, beat, threaten, and perform all sorts of unspeakable acts to obtain land that has diamonds, gold, or petroleum.

I'm not sure I want to place my faith in that.

Indeed your Horatio lived  during a time when wars were more often fought over food, sex,, territory & ego rather than evil abstractions like religion. I suspect that the more God was on their side, the worse war became.

You might want to consider when Shakespeare wrote Hamlet and who was Queen and who followed her as King. Where did Hamlet return from University in the very beginning of the play? I'd say religion played a very significant role in Hamlet and for Shakespeare, who was likely a recusant Catholic as his father was.

Faith in man is not the same as faith in greedy men like the Bushidiot who use(misuse?) God as their reason  to kill innocents just as Al Quaeda uses Allah. They are both cut from the same maniacal cloth. God is al;ways on the side of evil it seems.You are right that our weapons make the Crusades or Jihad worse. That is progress which makes their fanaticism worse.

You are a far better Shakespeare scholar than I will ever be so I will take your word for it, but the fact that religion was causing havoc then sorta supports what I was saying. In many ways, I support the barbarians over any Xtian or other sect.

[Stray Pooch]

While it is true that the various religions all contain some comparatively goofiness, we as a whole are protected by the bigger picture, the great meld, in political translation.

But all this tolerance depends on the amount, the degree of control within any of those religions.

What disturbs me most about the Mormon issue, and the one that I do not find culled by summary of the various opinions, is the amount of over-all control they have in their individual lives. 

At least from the standpoint of the scope of that obedience through individual control, I would agree that the Mormon religion lies within the parameters of the label of 'cult.'

One of the salient defining characteristics of any cult is that over-riding control that each member is subject to, and Mormons live under the mantle of their own collective, strongly enforced, down to very small detail in their lives. 

In the Mormon religion, any approach to politics that would include holding individual opinions that vary from their common creed would be antithema.

It is one thing to fling from an outside, goofy stance the label of 'cult,' but there are a lot of disparate groups of people who are suspicious regarding this issue. which lends to establish the case for legitimate concern.

Knowing this, it becomes an issue on its face, and it is incumbent for any Mormon politician running for office to address this issue openly, and not try to obfuscate it like Romney seems to be doing ("the details don't matter").

 

You have an incredibly skewed - and wildly inaccurate - view of Mormonism.

My Bishop is a liberal Democrat.  So is Harry Reid, who happens to be a Mormon and Senate Majority Leader.

My religion has no control over me whatsoever, except that which I choose to give.  The highest value in Mormonism is that of Free Agency.  We are taught that choice is the most important thing we have. We can give nothing to God, since he gives us everyhting in the first place, except our will - which is the only thing that comes solely from us.  In that regard, Mormonism has no more control over its members than any religion.  e learn what is right and choose to follow that course or not.  The consequences of our choices are NOT ours to choose, but that is true in any situation.

I've been a Latter-Day Saint for thirty years, and I always get a chuckle out of the warped views that many people seem to have of my faith.

Ami is right, the church has control only on membership status, nothing else.  Most churches reserve the right to promote certain kinds of behaviors, and many to discipline within the ranks.  Catholicism imposes exactly the same sort of disciplines.  Indeed, most Christian churches share a history of far more serious disciplinary measures - such as beheading and burning.  And the political control that was imposed over a century ago when Utah was still a territory is no different from the political control practiced by mainstream Christianity over several centuries.

Catholics don't burn heretics anymore, and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status. 

I pay no attention to Knute's nonsense, it is designed to be silly.  But I expect something close to rational debate from yellow.

[Plane]

"....and Mormons don't control their members in any way other than through church status.  "

Mormans have a mistique , is this not so?

Is the public perception of Mormans as more then usually disaplined a plus or a minus for a serious politician?