…and this is a 
Ask Mitt what he thinks
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: January 20, 2008 9:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Alright, Mormonism is weird…but did you know there are some church 'scholars' who think Bigfoot is actually Cain?
Here's a Bigfoot theory I haven't heard before. Apparently there are some in the Mormon church who hypothesize that Bigfoot may actually be Cain, condemned to walk the earth forever. Matt Bowman provides some scholarly elaboration on this theory on the Mormon Mentality blog.
This is all spun out from an early church leader's tall tale of encountering a hairy giant.
Comments
Posted by: BaldApe | January 20, 2008 9:19 AM
You gotta wonder why "the embodiment of evil" was walking along beside him for about two miles. I mean, wouldn't you think he'd do something, y'know, bad or something?
Posted by: Ociralat | January 20, 2008 9:24 AM
So what does that make the Loch Ness Monster? Surely the Mormons have a hypothesis for that as well?
Posted by: Billy | January 20, 2008 9:40 AM
Well, makes about as much sense as 99.9% of the theories out there.
I was under the impression that Cain moved to Scranton, PA, and opened up a trucking company: "Cain Trucking: Be Good, Be (something or other), Be Able. Cain is Able." No, not kidding. Its a real trucking company and that tag line (of which I do not remember all of it) is painted on the back of every truck. Usually accompanied by a 'go to church' sign of some sort.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | January 20, 2008 9:42 AM
I tried to wrap my head around this little Mormon fable--
I tried to think "Yes, Bigfoot's Cain", but found I wasn't Abel.
Posted by: Scrofulum | January 20, 2008 9:45 AM
Quick, ask him where all his kids came from?
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 20, 2008 9:55 AM
Mormonism is the stupidest religion ever invented - and that's saying a lot.
Anyone who believes in the fraud that is Mormonism is a fucking moron.
Anyone who supports Mormonism is supporting misogyny and racism.
Mitt Romney is a coward:
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
Coward! Moron! Misogynistic, racist, stupid fuck! He doesn't even know how to treat his dog with decency!
Posted by: vjack | January 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Wow! This just gets stranger and stranger, doesn't it?
Off topic, but has anybody figured out how to leave comments on ScienceBlogs blogs in Firefox? I'm getting frustrated with having to use IE whenever I want to comment.
Posted by: Rub R. D'Key | January 20, 2008 10:07 AM
From one who has lived in the backwoods of Washington State for many years I can assure you Bigfoot is not Cain. He is a sentient,peaceful creature who is at least as intelligent as most fundamentalist and certainly more so than any Mormon. They make better neighbors than most humans and have never left a religious pamphlet at my door.
Posted by: Graculus | January 20, 2008 10:09 AM
Its a real trucking company and that tag line (of which I do not remember all of it) is painted on the back of every truck.
Here we have Fluke trucking: "If it's on time, it's a Fluke".
Posted by: Richard Harris | January 20, 2008 10:11 AM
Jumpin' Jeezus!
Heck, but they do say anyone can become President of the United States. With Romney & Huckabilly, 'anyone' includes all the crazies too.
Posted by: Carlie | January 20, 2008 10:14 AM
vjack - I've never had a problem. What error message are you getting?
I'd love to come up with something witty here, but I just Cain't.
Posted by: djlactin | January 20, 2008 10:15 AM
just noticed the header on he website:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/is_bigfoot_really_cain/
museum of hoaxes. wonder whether it's satirical.
Posted by: Rich | January 20, 2008 10:17 AM
I hate it when my head explodes this early. Makes the rest of the day a bit of a drag.
Posted by: Rich | January 20, 2008 10:19 AM
@ CalGeorge- "Mormonism is the stupidest religion ever invented - and that's saying a lot."
One word: Scientology.
Posted by: vjack | January 20, 2008 10:30 AM
Carlie, what happens when I try to comment from Firefox is that a different page opens when I hit post that contains all the information from the original page except that all the fields I just filled out are now blank. When I fill them out all over again and hit post, the fields just empty again, and the comment is not recorded. I figured it might be some extension, so I removed all of them and reinstalled Firefox. No change. Oh well.
Posted by: raven | January 20, 2008 10:32 AM
On the bright side and slightly OT. McCain beat Huckabee the Xian Dictatorship guy in S. Carolina, barely. A bit unexpected really. SC is a center of Xian Dominionist power and they are still totally ticked off about losing the civil war. And Huckabee promised them a Xian Dictatorship and a one way ticket back to the Dark Ages.
Only 30% of the SC voters wanted to scrap our 21st century civilization.
Posted by: Venger | January 20, 2008 10:37 AM
#7 this is a test using Firefox, if you can see this then it can post, if you can't it can't. :)
I can post using Safari as well, so maybe its a mac thing.
Posted by: Rick R | January 20, 2008 10:41 AM
Test on a Mac using Firefox 2.0.0.11
It works.
Posted by: vjack | January 20, 2008 10:47 AM
Well, I have been looking for a good excuse to buy a Mac!
Posted by: Seraphiel | January 20, 2008 10:51 AM
museum of hoaxes. wonder whether it's satirical.
It's listed on the Museum of Hoaxes not because it's about Bigfoot, but because it's about Mormonism.
Posted by: gg | January 20, 2008 11:01 AM
"Apparently there are some in the Mormon church who hypothesize that Bigfoot may actually be Cain, condemned to walk the earth forever."
You sure they didn't say that Bigfoot might be "McCain"? The primary race has been getting nasty; maybe this is just another form of "push-polling"...
Posted by: chris | January 20, 2008 11:11 AM
Maybe Nessie is Cain's wife?
Posted by: SMC | January 20, 2008 11:32 AM
That helps explain the presence of Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University (Southeastern Idaho is evidently even more Mormon, per capita, than Utah).
He has an article he wrote tacked to the board outside his door, which begins by saying that his position is that the Book of Mormonâ„¢ is a record of historical fact...
Posted by: Tulse | January 20, 2008 11:58 AM
As my ex-Mormon spouse points out to this ex-Catholic when I say these kind of things, stupid and weird are in the eye of the beholder. Do you think that wine and bread turning into blood and flesh is less stupid than Bigfoot as the embodiment of evil? Do you think that hanging on to bits of anatomy from "saints" and using those to cure diseases is any less stupid that wearing magic underwear? Do you think that the Virgin Mary appearing on toast and in the mold on walls is any less stupid than golden plates from an angel?
I will make no defense of weird religious beliefs, but I think it is especially helpful for atheists to recognize that essentially all religious beliefs are weird. Trying to identify especially stupid religions is like trying to pick out the best of disco -- you might come up with some criteria to do it, but why bother?
Posted by: Christopher Heard | January 20, 2008 12:05 PM
Bigfoot is Caine? I wondered whatever happened to David Carradine.
Posted by: aporeticus | January 20, 2008 12:06 PM
Jules: I'll just walk the earth.
Vincent: What'cha mean walk the earth?
Jules: You know, walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures. Like Caine from "Kung Fu."
Posted by: Uber | January 20, 2008 12:12 PM
I agree with #24 above
Mormonism is the stupidest religion ever invented - and that's saying a lot.
Anyone who believes in the fraud that is Mormonism is a fucking moron.
You should really check out the local RCC chapter. Just as crazy. Maybe more stupid(if thats possible)
Posted by: Carlie | January 20, 2008 12:16 PM
vjack - that one I haven't had happen (running on XP). Could it be the integrated adblock somehow?
Posted by: pixelfish | January 20, 2008 12:31 PM
As an ex-Mormon, I've gotta say that some of the more obscure weird historical shit isn't really aired for the general church populace. Romney, as a devout member, has probably never heard of the Bigfoot = Cain story, which falls less into the category of doctrine and more into what folks might call faith-promoting rumours. (He might have heard of Adam = God, which was slightly less obscure and more doctrinal, considering that it originated with Brigham Young, who is NOT just a two-bit player in the church history.) There is also Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's theory that men dressed like Quakers lived on the Moon. That precious gem has been allowed to slip into obscurity by church leaders, who were probably too embarrassed to let it keep on going.
Anyway, David Patten's story wouldn't have been enshrined as church doctrine. (He not being a prophet. I had to look him up, and let me tell you, they make you memorize all the prophets and most of the major figures of the church when you are a wee tyke. As far as I can tell, he's a guy who got to the inner circle, came up with a huge whopper to try and impress them, and then got shot in a skirmish with Missouri settlers. All over 170 years ago.) It's not surprising that rank and file Mormons haven't heard that story.
While I believe that the Mormon religion can be pretty crazy, and is certainly as historically unsound as any other religion, if you are actually trying to deal with Mormonism and Mormons on a rational basis, it would be a mistake to view this as doctrine they believe in. Most of what the average Mormon is taught is one more bland flavour of Christianity, and other than the temple rites, fairly indistinguishable from mainstream Christianity. Church leaders in recent years have even stepped back from things I was taught as a kid (barely two decades back) about Kolob or becoming like God. As far as I can tell, the current Mormon hierarchy is bent on mainstreaming the church as much as possible while maintaining a certain level of conservative behaviour. So if you tell a Mormon that their religion is crazy and cite things like "Bigfoot = Cain" most of them will just think that you are the crazy one, and making shit up because certainly they were never taught that at all. They were taught to sing songs about being a child of God and Jesus loving them. Yes, there's weird historical shit running around, but the average Mormon generally doesn't know about it, and the Church discourages them from looking at anything other than official church history. (Which as you might imagine is full of lots of fun omissions.)
One more thing I'd like to point out is that the Mormon church's weird theories were often influenced by other crazy stuff floating around in the religious communities of the 1830s. Information which many mainstream churches and scholars of the time were also perpetuating. A lot of Joseph Smith's ideas did not originate with him. The theory about the American Indians being the lost ten tribes was actually floated a lot during that time. The place where Mormonism originated was the Burned-over District (upper New York) and there was a lot of theological mish-mash. As time went by the more radical ideas were disgarded by the major religions that formed out of there, and they settled into institutional stodginess.
In the long run, you will find that most ex-Mormons didn't leave the church because of weird historical shit but more because the current church, as blandly Christian as it is, is STILL a bigoted, sexist institution. I didn't leave it because the Catholic church was any less crazy than the LDS.
Posted by: danleyj@gmail.com | January 20, 2008 1:15 PM
Christ Almighty. WTF?
Posted by: Ruosa | January 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Cut Mitt some slack. He's not responsible for the loony beliefs of his co-religionists, especially those from well over 100 years ago. Now, his politics are a different story - have at him.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 20, 2008 1:41 PM
Q: Is there such a thing as Mormon "underwear"? if so, are all Mormons required to wear it? What does it symbolize?
A: Like members of many religious faiths, Latter-day Saints wear religious clothing. But members of other faiths -- typically those involved in permanent pastoral ministries or religious services -- usually wear religious garments as outer ceremonial vestments or symbols of recognition. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, garments are worn beneath street clothing as a personal and private reminder of commitments to God.
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2007/12/obfuscation-eva.html
Maybe someone in the press should ask to see Mitt's special undies.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 20, 2008 1:43 PM
Testing a hypothesis - if you can read this, then Firefox can post with Cookies disabled.
Note that a previous test, with Javascript turned off, failed.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 20, 2008 1:46 PM
Testing again... I realized that while I had disabled cookies, I hadn't cleared them out and refreshed the page.
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 20, 2008 1:50 PM
By the way, the error returned when trying to post with Javascript turned off is a bit amusing:
Jimmy ain't here?
Posted by: Moses | January 20, 2008 2:08 PM
They'd look like this:
http://www.salamandersociety.com/romney/070116mitt_ann_romney_mormon_underwear.jpg
Posted by: garth | January 20, 2008 2:19 PM
pixelfish: i am also an ex-mormon, and have no problem making current mormons feel like fools for the idiocies of their fellow travellers on the mormon boat. i especially feel no need to post a 2000 word apologia for mormon wackiness.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 20, 2008 2:33 PM
Via You Tube, 60 Minutes Mike Wallace on the sacred undergarments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9upYoCHyCv4
Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Mormon poobah: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm.
Wallace: Really!?
Mormon poobah: Uh-huh.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | January 20, 2008 3:36 PM
OK, this brings up a question I've always wondered about:
Since Cain was around before the flood, then there was that Noah episode supposedly killing all life, how could there be any descendants of Cain still around? Was Noah a descendant of Cain as well?
Posted by: matt b | January 20, 2008 3:41 PM
I'm Matt the 'church scholar,' as you put it, from Mormon Mentality, and I'd like to point out that my paper (and the blog post it spawned) does not contend that Bigfoot is Cain, or vice versa. I don't particularly believe it. Rather, I'm exploring the cultural roots of the folktale -which, as some, particularly pixalfish have helpfully pointed out, is not a great deal weirder than most of the other things that human beings have believed ever since we lived in caves.
Anyhow, thanks for the link.
Posted by: jpf | January 20, 2008 4:14 PM
Everyone knows that Sasquatch is Jewish.
Posted by: giordano Bruno | January 20, 2008 4:29 PM
There was a case of alleged rape in Scotland some twenty years ago. The defendant was one of two Mormon Missionaries. In his defence the court was told he could not have been guilty as he wore special underwear-designed to make the act alleged practically impossible. This underwear, was shown to the Court. I can't recall the outcome.
Posted by: Steven Carr | January 20, 2008 4:52 PM
I vaguely remember that case.
Wasn't the accused a woman, accused of obsessively stalking two Mormon missionaires , and raping them?
Posted by: SteveC | January 20, 2008 5:32 PM
If Clinton can be asked "Boxers or Briefs?" I think Romney ought to be asked, "Magical or non-Magical?"
Posted by: JakeS | January 20, 2008 6:11 PM
In my many discussions with mormon missionaries, invariably they say something along the lines of "either the book of mormon is 100% true, or it's a false church, and I cannot accept that it is a false church". They can be just as fundamentally irrational as their muslim and evangelical cousins. I remember a discussion where one the "elders" (read: a pair of 19 year olds who went to missionary school after high school) mentioned his mormon family upbringing. I told him that had clouded his perceptions...a brief expression of rage flickered on his face. I was beginning to think they weren't human with that permanent upbeat attitude they must teach in missionary school (as well as the same 30 arguements, and "travel in pairs so one of you can change the subject if the other is confounded")
Posted by: blf | January 20, 2008 7:10 PM
On the FireFox thing, I've had, an very rare occasions, a similar problem: I preview, and the editable contents window shows the wrong thing (e.g., data from some previously filled in form). But that's very very rare.
I've always attributed it (without any actual evidence) to a feckup with mozex (the extension I use so I can edit the comments with a real text editor). And this is on Linux, of course!
This off-topic comment was edited in vim(1), run via mozex, from FireFox.
Posted by: pixelfish | January 20, 2008 11:06 PM
Garth: I'm puzzled as to why you think I'm issueing apologia. (If you'll re-read my post, I'm not apologising for the church at all, which as I said is a bigoted, sexist institution hell-bent on keeping the weird aspects of the church history and fringe ideas it spawned well in the background. Like every other church I know of.) It was merely my intent to point out that this is a VERY obscure bit of trivia. Not that the trivia is any less crazy, but the average member knows not whereof you speak and this is not part of any currently taught church doctrine. It's one thing to say, "Hey, Mormons believe this," versus "One Mormon guy had this crazy idea once and another Mormon leader once quoted him."
But if it would make you feel better we could still discuss all the batshittery things they STILL believe. Like laying on of hands.
Posted by: Mark Plus | January 20, 2008 11:12 PM
I hope to live to see the day when Cain meets the Highlander and the other immortals at the Gathering.
Posted by: Rjaye | January 20, 2008 11:13 PM
I have seen the magikal undies with mine own eyes, and they are as ugly as in that picture, and about as well made. Not.
I would drive extra careful and stay away from the sexy ones just to make sure no-one saw those ugly things. Plus, get this--some of the ladies wear regular undies with the magical undies. Panties in a knot, what?
Is it me, or is it odd that the undies in that pic of The Mitt and his wife (lovingly photoshopped with his bride)are tucked into the panties?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 20, 2008 11:14 PM
Like laying on of hands.
they all like to play Paladins in DnD.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 20, 2008 11:16 PM
If Clinton can be asked "Boxers or Briefs?" I think Romney ought to be asked, "Magical or non-Magical?"
I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything the moment I read that.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 20, 2008 11:46 PM
I'd like to hear more about the missionary training they receive. My coworker is a Mormon and went on a mission (she lo-o-o-oves to refer to her mission--trying to impress us with her piety and self-sacrifice, I suppose).
Fortunately, I'm a little less than focussed in the thinking area, so as soon as she mentioned being on a mission (25 minutes into my first interview, I believe), I imagined her going over a waterfall tied to a cross à la the 1986 movie with Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro, surrounded by Northern Californians dressed and painted like the GuaranÃ.
Now I don't mind so much when she talks about her travails Christianising the savages, since I get to hear Ennio Morricone's score in my head when she does.
Anyways, I've asked her about some of her experiences, but she knows I'm an atheist, so she's cagey about some of the more wack stuff.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 21, 2008 12:04 AM
She may not be trying to impress. Among devout mormons, the mission is a major rite of passage -- I knew so many students at the U of Utah who would suddenly disappear at the end of their freshman year to come back a year or two later. It's considered an indicator that one is dutiful and responsible and all that stuff, rather like being an eagle scout.
Most of the missions I heard about were dreary things. There are some that are hazardous (Mormon missionaries are killed in Peru, for instance), but most involve putting on your white shirt in the morning, going out in pairs on bicycles, and getting doors slammed in your face all day long. Then in the evening you get to listen to your mission leader exhorting you to be faithful and persevere, with maybe a chance to listen to the radio or read a book.
Usually, missions are the most boring wastes of time ever, but the fervent mormons will tell you all about how important it all was.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 12:12 AM
. There are some that are hazardous (Mormon missionaries are killed in Peru, for instance), but most involve putting on your white shirt in the morning, going out in pairs on bicycles, and getting doors slammed in your face all day long.
I always enjoy seeing them on the T. black pants, white shirt, black tie, name tag, dull hair cut, pasty complexion. Always make a point to text me friends "the mormons are coming" when I see 'em.
Posted by: spurge | January 21, 2008 12:25 AM
When flying into Logan from SLC I had the pleasure of sitting next to an older Mormon couple.
They at least had the courtesy to wait until we were close to landing before they tried to convert me.
They failed.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 12:40 AM
When flying into Logan from SLC I had the pleasure of sitting next to an older Mormon couple.
From MSP to Logan, I had my head buried in The Ancestor's Tale.
Last christmas (I think it was last year) I ended up sitting next to and chatting with one of Willard's neighbor's. She seemed like a pretty cool woman, and was doing some kind of biology (I think cell) research at Harvard.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 21, 2008 3:15 AM
Mitt sez:
I cannot disagree. However, it disturbs me that Mitt apparently does not recognize the dissonance between this view and another view he espoused, which is that his country should only be led by a person of faith. Is that qualifier not an implicit religious test? Given his record of political opportunism, I speculate that he does recognize this dissonance - which makes him a hypocrite and a panderer.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 3:23 AM
Mitt sez:
hmm, i just got a vision of a magic Mormon ball, where you shake it up and bits of Mormonisms and Mittisms appear in a little window on the bottom when you turn it over.
maybe Mitt could use that as his science adviser?
we could sell them so everyone could play along!
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 3:43 AM
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
If "faith" matters, then the content of that faith matters, particularly as it is used to make decisions.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 3:44 AM
And Kseniya, he fails to see something else. The state cannot use any religious test. I, as a citizen, am free to say, "Mormonism is batshit and I don't want someone that crazy controlling the levers of state," without there being any Constitutional violation. He gladly elides past that very issue.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 3:58 AM
which makes him a hypocrite and a panderer
you mean they aren't all such?
i just got done detailing the fact that McCain railed against the fundies in 2000, and now in 2008, has not only pandered to them, but changed his own damn religion to fit!
he was episcopalian in 2000, now he's "baptist".
I guess the only difference between Romney and McCain is that we can point to Romney's insanity as being the driving force BEFORE he decided to run, while McCain's has only been slapped on as an afterthought, like a cheap suit.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 4:03 AM
for the other folks who can't sleep, some things to ask Willard his thoughts about :)
Posted by: Kseniya | January 21, 2008 4:05 AM
Yes, exactly, but I don't think he fails to see it - he's avoiding it. He's manipulating the concept to his own advantage.
In the public forum, he selectively invokes the "religious test" prohibition when the baleful eye of the Christian right is upon him and it benefits him to do so, yet he makes no mention of any such prohibition when he offers up his own religious test in the very same forum. He points to the Consitution when the examination turns to his own idiosyncratic faith, and acts as if it doesn't exist when he states that faith is necessary to lead.
(He doesn't say which faith, so one might naively conclude he means any faith; but of course everybody knows the code. In this context, "A person of faith" can only mean "a Christian, and only a Christian." So much for no religious test, eh, Mittster? Hypocrite.)
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 4:10 AM
Yes, exactly, but I don't think he fails to see it - he's avoiding it. He's manipulating the concept to his own advantage.
Which is exactly how he turned Kennedy's speech on it's head. Kennedy said, "Yeah, I'm a Catholic. However, when it comes down to the Constitution or Rome, the Constitutions wins."
Romney's saying, "You don't get to ask me about that."
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 4:20 AM
(He doesn't say which faith, so one might naively conclude he means any faith; but of course everybody knows the code. In this context, "A person of faith" can only mean "a Christian, and only a Christian." So much for no religious test, eh, Mittster? Hypocrite.)
but he's not a xian, he's a mormon.
which of course makes it all the more obvious he is pandering, or else he's very, very confused.
If baptists think catholics aren't real xians, how on earth could they think mormons are? (yes, yes, excusing the obvious: they're demented fuckwits to begin with)
before xians start thinking Mitt is just like them, they actually might want to take a gander at the book of Mormon, first.
they might notice rather large discrepancies between Mitt's "bible" and their own.
It's not like the book of Mormon is any harder to find than the KJV online.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 4:53 AM
Which is exactly how he turned Kennedy's speech on it's head.
where's Lloyd Bentson when you need him?
oh, wait, here he is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI
Posted by: Barklikeadog | January 21, 2008 7:27 AM
My one and very weird relationship I had with a Mormon was so bizarre. I couldn't get her to drink a coke or a beer for that matter, but she would drink Pepsi, cause they own it. BTW she would drink me which threw the idea of hypocrisy out in the open. After a night of 'stuff' where she imbibed me, we had a deep religious discussion that ended like this:
Me: Honey , doesn't matter what you say or do, your not going to get me to convert to Mormonism. (See, she wanted to get married)
Her (with big doe eyes, lashes batting) Yew don't know That!
Me: (After moment of incredulous silence) Yeah I F*cking do!!.
For 2 weeks after I got calls at all hours of the night, flowers, cards, tears....Seems they don't just send the geeks in with the clean cut suits & bicycles to do recruiting.
Every Moron.. oops.. I meant Mormon had a bag full of hypocrisy at their disposal.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | January 21, 2008 8:05 AM
Barklikeadog,
One rather cynical friend of mine advised me to get a vasectomy and marry a Mormon girl. Apparently, they'll try very hard indeed to get pregnant.
-jcr
Posted by: Randy | January 21, 2008 8:57 AM
folks may or may not think mormonism is for loonies, but I find the amount of idiocy shown by the anti-mormon (anti-religion) crowd among the comments astounding.
Posted by: spurge | January 21, 2008 11:03 AM
@ Randy
yawn
Posted by: deanna | January 21, 2008 3:03 PM
Barklikeadog, it often works. My partner's brother converted to Mormonism to marry his girlfriend. I went to school with a lot of Mormons girls and they were known to be huge partiers - and they did drink alcohol. I suspect that they were encouraged to be popular to pull the heathen boys into the fold, one by one. I have no proof, but it was common belief around our high school.
Posted by: Mooser | January 21, 2008 3:51 PM
Trying to identify especially stupid religions is like trying to pick out the best of disco...
That may be, but indentifying the differences between a cult and a religion is not that hard. Mormonism has many of the characteristics of a cult, not a religion. As an example, these would be : claiming a "special" revelation or dispensation completely outside of the traditional scriptures, a hierarchal structure in which members swear obedience to persons, not principles, and the use of religious secrets, special knowledge given to initiates.
These are some of the characteristics of a cult, and Mormons fulfill them all, and a bunch of others besides.
And I do believe that Mormons are the only religious denomination which has killed committed mass murder of settlers in Mormon territory on the orders of its religious leaders! This alone should make Mormonism anathema to every thinking person.
Posted by: Mooser | January 21, 2008 3:54 PM
"religious denomination in the modern US...", that should be. I would not want to detract from the accomplishments of any other religion, and so make that qualification.
Posted by: Tulse | January 21, 2008 4:43 PM
Oh, dear, Mooser -- you're going to make me defend Mormonism:
That's one of the standard slurs against Mormonism, and for this ex-Catholic it really does look like pots and kettles discussing their exterior hue. But, to get more specific:
You don't think it's weird that God stopped talking to people 2000 years ago? In any case, the Pope certainly seems to have "special revelations", since he's spoken ex cathedra on various issues that are not directly in the Bible.
Again, the Pope. And, for that matter, all the fundies who seemingly blindly follow preachers no matter what disgraceful behaviour they engage in that is at odds with biblical "principles".
The Three Secrets of Fatima, anyone?
I like how you skipped right over the Crusades and the Inquisition there, much less the Spanish conquest of the New World.
Ah, yes, that's not a weasely qualifier -- why restrict this to the US if the beliefs of a given religion are worldwide? In any case, while we're on the subject of mass murder and Mormons, would you care to discuss what happened to Mormons in Nauvoo or Missouri?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Mormonism doesn't involve insane, weird, nonsensical beliefs that can sometimes drive its believers to commit violence. I'm just saying that's true of most religions, and to think that Mormonism is somehow special in that sense is just silly.
Posted by: Mooser | January 21, 2008 4:47 PM
Mormonism: The Church of Infinite Credulity.
Just when you've suspended enough disbelief to complete the Golden Gate bridge, they've got an even bigger whopper for ya'
Posted by: Tulse | January 21, 2008 6:04 PM
Mooser, I've got a response to you hung in in moderation-limbo. However, as for
I personally figure that after you accept virgin birth, water into wine, multiplication of fishes, walking on water, and returning from the dead, anything else is pretty much minor league by comparison. Miracles are miracles, and wacko religious beliefs are wacko religious beliefs -- do you really think there is a principled difference?
Posted by: Mooser | January 21, 2008 10:29 PM
Yes, I very much do! If you don't know why the LDS Church is much closer to a cult than a religion, use Google and find out. Suffice it to say that it wouldn't matter to me what the Mormons beliefs are, the way they are used in the Mormon Church represents a danger to every civil and rational right we hold dear. Much, much more than even some of the nuttiest evangelicals. And Mormons are never, never honest about what they believe not even to each other! That's wht they have all kinds of levels and initiations and secrets.
And you don't seem to be disturbed by the fact that Mormon church leaders feel they have the right to order, for religious reasons and on a religious basis, the deaths of non-Mormons. For that reason alone they should have been outlawed after the massacres of settlers. Or does someone want to say they didn't happen?
Look, I'm really tired, it's late, but religion for spiritual comfort doesn't bother me. Religion for personal and agregate power is another thing entirely. The Mormons are not a religion, they are a cult. So we'll never know what they believe, cause we don't know what level of initiation we're talking to (if Mormons should write in and say "we don't believe this or that"): they only know what they told them. If not, why are there any, any secrets in the religion?
In short, there are vast differences between Mormons and other mainstream Christian religions, starting with never knowing if a Mormon is telling the truth, or even knows the truth.
Posted by: LukeRazor | January 21, 2008 10:47 PM
RE the use of firefox for comments. I am using firefox on an XP pc right now so If it works so can yours. If you really can't get it to work can I suggest the IE Tab plugin. You can set it up to always use IE to render this site so you don't have to worry about it again
Posted by: Tulse | January 21, 2008 10:53 PM
Again, just to be clear, I'm an ex-Catholic, married to an ex-Mormon, so while I come by my knowledge of the religion primarily through my spouse, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. That said:
Golly, religious people ordering the deaths of people who aren't of their religion! I can't imagine any other religious group doing that! I can't imagine the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Spanish conquest of the Americas, or the World Trade Centre, or...
And while we're talking about the terms "murder" and "Mormons" in the same breath, try Googling "Nauvoo", or "Mormon War" (with reference to Missouri).
Yeah, like that never happens in other religions. I'm glad the Pope is so poor and has so little political clout. I'm delighted that there are no televangelists who are wealthy. I'm happy that no imams issue death edicts.
(Just what is the HTML entity for "eyeroll"?)
And we need to know that why, exactly? What do their religious beliefs matter?
Also, believe it or not, having secrets does not make a cult (try Googling, for example, "Three Secrets of Fatima").