Mormons

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I remember being in rural Belgium (Flanders), and making a phone call at a booth. Well, sort of a booth, as the phone was exposed. Some Mormons heard me, and we were rather surprised to run into each other in a sort of remote location.

That aside: Orson Scott Card is a die hard Mormon, and writes some great science fiction.

The way I see these things is that the older religions can sort of sit back and lay low because they've already become established and are, as in the case of christianity and it's main sects, very much a part of the social systems around them. These religions are safe from any change so they don't have to be aggressive, at least on home turf.

But, the new smaller religions and sects, they have to aggressively grow in order to survive. They need new 'paying members' like any club. But unlike a club you can leave these clubs usually take you for life and the majority of their functions is based on a kind of brainwashing-thing etc. making it very difficult to leave, more difficult then say, book of the month - club.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

But, the new smaller religions and sects, they have to aggressively grow in order to survive. They need new 'paying members' like any club. But unlike a club you can leave these clubs usually take you for life and the majority of their functions is based on a kind of brainwashing-thing etc. making it very difficult to leave, more difficult then say, book of the month - club.

Nevertheless it can be just as hard to leave an older, "established" tradition than a newer and smaller one. The social and familial pressure is often even greater because the religious practices and beliefs are far more likely to be intertwined with one's existing everyday life and experience, with one's closest and dearest relationships, and with how a person has always self-identified (and been identified by those closest to them) as an individual.

The difference to me is not how old or "mainstream" a spiritual tradition is, it's the amount of personal autonomy the practitioners are required to relinquish in order to be fully "acceptable" to those who are in authority within it and, just as important, the means by which those authorities obtain the support and compliance of their followers.

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Nevertheless it can be just as hard to leave an older, "established" tradition than a newer and smaller one. The social and familial pressure is often even greater because the religious practices and beliefs are far more likely to be intertwined with one's existing everyday life and experience, with one's closest and dearest relationships, and with how a person has always self-identified (and been identified by those closest to them) as an individual.

The difference to me is not how old or "mainstream" a spiritual tradition is, it's the amount of personal autonomy the practitioners are required to relinquish in order to be fully "acceptable" to those who are in authority within it and, just as important, the means by which those authorities obtain the support and compliance of their followers.

Sure it's not easy to leave the older religions. I 'divorced' from the Finnish main religion which is the Finnish Lutheran church or something like that. Most Finns are baptised into it when they are babies so they kind of automatically belong to it, which is kinda sneaky. Members have to pay something called the "church tax" which goes from the salary automatically. There's stuff like burial and other things, the church owns the burial grounds so they're talking about putting prices for non-religious people to be buried etc.

I left the church in 2000 so I'm now celebrating my decade out of church.

[frau kaleun]

making it very difficult to leave, more difficult then say, book of the month club.

I was gonna mention - have you ever actually TRIED to get out of one of those things? Lol.

There's one that I joined ages ago - and stopped buying anything from a few years ago because, well, Amazon, right? I went to their web site, since pretty much everything except their regular mailings was done on-line by that time - and there was no way there to opt out of the thing.

I had to call a toll-free number listed on the site for customer service. Did that, and was told that in order to leave the club I would have to send something to them IN WRITING requesting it. Otherwise they would continue sending me monthly offers AND I would still have to go to the site each time to decline the 'featured selection.'

So I typed out a nice little letter requesting termination of my membership and sent it off to the address I'd been given.

I continued to get mailings and email from them, and continued to go on-line to decline their 'automatic' offers. After three months of this I called again and was told it takes 90 days to process a termination request. Fine, I think, it's now been 90 days. I continued to get mailings which I threw away. Then I got a book from them because I didn't go on-line to decline a selection that was featured in the mailing I threw in the trash. I refused acceptance of book and returned it unopened and called again. I was told that they would update my account to show I was no longer a member, and stop sending me stuff.

A couple weeks later I got yet another packet of offers from them. I opened it, just in case, and found a letter stating that they had processed my termination of membership, however as a 'courtesy' to me they would continue to send me regular offers and club notices just in case I still wanted to buy something from them or rejoin.

I think they kept sending me stuff about twice a month for another six months after that, until they finally gave up. I only stopped getting email from them when I changed my email address a year or so later.

Well yea, I know about those too. All these "only a small monthly payment" - type things I stay far away from.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well yea, I know about those too. All these "only a small monthly payment" - type things I stay far away from.

Well that's the funny thing, they weren't getting any money from me and hadn't for years. There was never a fee to belong, only the need to decline (or by default accept) the purchase of one or two books every month. Once it was obvious to me I was never gonna buy from them again, doing that became a PITA as did all the mail/email from them. A waste of money on their part and of time on mine.

But apparently they don't take 'no thanks go away' very seriously. I've had breakups that were easier!

[tater]

I've been non-religious since before I was Confirmed—yeah, I lied to the priest, and everyone else. It was easier to be an atheist-agnostic on the sly at that point. Besides, by relatives gave me presents.

I tend to see no religion as any sillier than another.

Hitchens was asked in some debate to disprove god or something of the sort. He in reply asked what logical pattern the questioner used to disprove other religions besides their own, and he'd simply follow the same pattern for theirs.

My neighbor up the street was LDS. Nice family, and they were never pushy about it. Kids played together sometimes. Wife still is, but the husband died last year (and they moved). I went to the service, and the thing that struck me was that there was more "sales pitch" for the faith than I'd expect at a funeral. Was kinda creepy.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Honestly, when it comes to this subject, i have had so much passed my way as far as info and weirdness, i don't even know where to begin. The only thing that sticks out in my mind, is my GF is 33 years old ,and never heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre. I guess they don't like that being known. Of course she went into this whole religious persocution thing as an excuse for what happened. Anyway... its all weird to me.

Sorry to keep responding directly to your comments. It's just that you keep reminding of things I'd forgotten.

When I first came to Utah the prevailing line was that Mountain Meadows never happened. By 1990 it was an accepted fact, but the people who perpetrated it were a small group and were driven to it by the Evil Gentiles. Now it is accepted, but LDS opinions vary. Of course dedicated historians are willing to believe that any group of people is capable of commiting any atrocity against anyone, as long as they believe they have been sufficiently provoked, but most Mormons, like most members of other faiths, are convince that they are right so if someone does it to them they're being persecuted, but if they do it to someone else "they deserved it".

I've always been fond of the ancient Hindu phrase, "No God should ever be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship Him."

Oh yes, they are organized on an uber level. Its damn near its own system of goverment. I have never encountered a religous denomination as organized to the extent of mormonism.

Which leads to wonderful discussions about Church-and-State relations around here.

@ Frau Kaleun: Great quotes on the meaning of "Cult". I used to be a devout evangelical, and of course the Mormons were a cult. Today they're just another group of believers I can have fun talking to.

[Ducimus]

Heh, the word "cult" leads to some interesting discussions around my work. Since im not at work i can type this and not have it go over company logs.

The word itself seems to be used on any religious denomination or movement that is not mainstream, by mainstream beleifs. Mainstream christianity considers everything else not christian a cult. In reality, the only difference between a cult and a religion is how many followers you have. So now here's the funny part. I work for an internet security corp. Have been for the last 10 years. Part of that is maintaing a database of urls. It's an ongoing process and is built upon each and every day. URLs are catagorized. (I think thats as much as i can say without breaking NDA) We used to deliniate between "religion" and "cult". The criteria for these catagories was set down upon us by upper management.. who at the time.. were all mormon! In hushed tones down in the cubes, we'd make reference to the "mormon mafia" that ran our company.

So what went into religion and what went into cult? Well, obviously everything mainstream christian was a religion, everything, and i mean EVERYTHING else, (including things like Buddism) was put in cult. Every time data was put into these catagories, I and my coworkers would cringe. Later on we had some shuffle in management, some wiccan raised a big stink about being labeled a cult and threatened a lawsuit or something, (i dunno), but management backed off and went with customer demands. Now EVERYTHING gets tossed into religion, (cult no longer exists ) and the mantra from up high now, is "were not in the business of deciding what is a religion and what is a cult". (which were thinking the whole time, but dared not voice it) but none of that happened until the "mormon mafia" was broken up.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah, that sounds right to me. Frau K quoted some great definitions, but I grew up with the idea that anthing smaller than worldwide was a 'cult'. Of course this means that the first Christians were also a cult. One thing I loved from my recent reading of Tacitus and Suetonius was that since the Jews and Christians didn't believe in all the Roman, Egyptian and other gods, they were considered 'Atheists'.

[CaptainHaplo]

Nobody wanted to argue polygamy.... sheesh!

The reality of the situation is this...

God - a Higher Being - Creator - Flying Spaghetti Monster - insert your preferred term here - is by definition - above humanity as he is defined in most religions. Thus - any attempt by mankind to "define" god - is trying to put the infinite into a finite box. It simply won't fit. Thus, every religion that tries to dictate what god is - or is not - must by definition be wrong in at least some way. Thus - every ORGANIZED religion has its theological problems. This doesn't just work for Judeao-Xtianity (Protestantism), but applies to Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, etc. Even "anti-religion" suffers from the same problem - as they still haven't explained where the mass that started the big bang came from, among other problems......

Religion is a crutch and a yoke to mankind. It was intended as a guideline - and has turned into a way to control the masses. When you can face that reality, then you can move beyond "religious doctrine" - and accept that some things are beyond the human mind to reason, or understand. This is the truth of faith, and in it there is an individual opportunity for you to face the infinite.

[frau kaleun]

^^

To add to this, it's been my experience that any attempted definition of that transcendental mystery called "divinity" says way more about the person(s) doing the defining than it does about anything else.

[Platapus]

Well a cult is what you belong to when you disagree with my religion.

[Ishmael]

As a Brother of Equal Indignity of the Ancient & Honorable Order of E Clampus Vitus,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Clampus_Vitus

we have 170-year familiarity with the Latter-Day Saints. Also, in the interest of historical accuracy, we do not accept the official Church history as necessarily accurate. We invite our historically-minded friends to investigate the life of THIS man,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Brannan

a friend of Joseph Smith, an early LDS member and the leader appointed by Smith to bring a shipload of Mormon settlers by sea to the New Zion of California. We also invite you to investigate the other concurrent stories involving

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Battalion

and this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush

and this man,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...nnett_(soldier)

The original plan of the LDS, as our historians have found, involved a triple migration to California, Brannan's party by sea, Young's overland party and the Mormon Battalion under Col. Stephen Watts Kearney. It was only when Young's party emerged from the Wasatch range to see the Great Salt Lake that Young had his epiphany.

While this was going on, Brannan's party had already arrived in California with the Mormon Battalion arriving soon after. Many of Brannan's party had settled in the Sacramento area and Brannan had signed a deal to open a dry goods store there in addition to the one he had begun in San Francisco along with his paper, The Alta Californian. All but two of the people Marshall hired to build the sawmill at Coloma were Mormons from Brannan's party. This is where things get interesting.

Contrary to most historical accounts, Bennett was WITH Marshall and, some say, actually saw the gold in the millrace first. Because the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo had not yet been signed, both men were sworn to secrecy by Sutter and kept together until the discovery could be reported to Col. Mason, the military governor of California and his adjutant, Lt. William T. Sherman, who were in Monterey. The only towns between Sutter's Fort and Yerba Buena were in Vallejo, where David G. Farragut was organizing the Mare Island Shipyard, and the newly created town of Benicia, where the ferry landing to the newly-renamed San Francisco was located.

Now there are many historical accounts naming Brannan as the source of the News of the Gold Strike at Coloma, but almost no information on how he obtained it. Here is the answer to that riddle as I have gleaned from local Benicia historians.

On Brannan's trips from SF to Sacramento, he would often tend bar at Von Pfister's Saloon in Benicia. Captain Von Pfister had hired Brannan for the job due to the Mormon's teetotaling ways. So it was Brannan who was working the day Marshall and Bennett rode into town to catch the ferry and packet to Monterey for their report to Mason and Sherman. As they were sitting in the Saloon, with about 2 ounces of gold dust and nuggets in their pockets, Marshall and Bennett witnessed a whole group of Missouri boys who had just come in from Mt. Diablo with news of a coal strike there. This was a big deal since coal could be mined to supply the steamers bringing settlers west. So after about 3-4 hours of talk of the Coal strike, Bennett finally got fed up with it and stated the following:

"I'll show you the kind of "Coal" we're finding at Sutter's Mill!"

and slammed a bag of gold nuggets on the bar. Brannan, on seeing this, took the rest of the day off and spent it and the following day buying up every pick, pan and shovel in Benicia, Vallejo and SF that he didn't already own. Only then, when he owned every piece of mining equipment in Northern California, did he march down Market street yelling,

"Gold! Gold! Gold from the American River!"

Meanwhile, all the Mormon work crew were all finding gold wherever they turned around so work on the sawmill came to a halt. After first holding Sutter up for higher wages, the Mormons finally quit and moved 1/2 mile down the American River to Mormon Island to pan out their piles. This was Brannan's destination after selling out his mining equipment in order to collect the 1/5 of the Mormons' gold as tithes to the church. Sherman's Journals have an amusing story of his and Mason's first encounter with Brannan at Mormon Island some weeks after.

And that's how the word of the gold discovery leaked out, why the Mormon Tabernacle is gilded with California Gold and why they live in Utah instead of California.

Now why should you believe any of this tale? Because one of our Clamper brothers, Samuel Clemens, based his tale, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County" on a Clamper doins. Also, it was our Brotherhood that was responsible for the great Drake's Bay Plaque Hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_Plate_of_Brass

Credo Quia Absurdum
ECV