That's a good way to think about it : Pharyngula

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

In the November7th or November 14th issue of Science magazine, a number of investigators wanted to test the Darwinian hypothesis that you folks say is never tested, and the way in which they did this was to take the receptor protein for the human growth hormone — it's a receptor to which the human growth hormoe fits in precisely — and they did a terrible genetic disservice. They mutated — they cut out an essential amino acid right in the middle of the receptor, called tryptophan. With that gone, just like that mousetrap, it wouldn't have been expected to work. They then allowed a natural selection process to take place to see whether the cells under their own observation could mutate the receptor gene sufficiently to bind the receptor, and after seven generations, lo and behold, there it was. It illustrates beautifully the ability of natural selection to respond to mutations in proteins to co-evolve.

Ken Miller in "Resolved: That evolutionists should acknowledge creation" Firing Line, 4 December 1997, p. 25.

A Taste of Pharyngula

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« Come together in sympathy and to help | Main | Cell biologists, you now have an excuse to bring donuts to class »

More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!

That's a good way to think about it

Category: Equality • Humor
Posted on: January 4, 2010 9:40 AM, by PZ Myers

It's true! The Trophy Wife™ and I never got our temple recommends, weren't sealed, and didn't go through the temple ceremony (which sounds like so much fun), so when the Mormons get their way, our marriage will be invalidated, and I'll be reduced to bragging about my Trophy Concubine™.

Jump to end

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/128489

Comments

Posted by: Bix12 | January 4, 2010 10:01 AM

Right on.

And why shouldn't our gay & lesbian friends suffer the same fate as the rest of us schmucks, anyway?

/;-)

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | January 4, 2010 10:16 AM

Ahh... SMBC - I love you.

Posted by: Givesgoodemail | January 4, 2010 10:30 AM

[homer_mode]Mmmmmm. Trophy concubine.[/homer_mode]

Posted by: Whore of All the Earth | January 4, 2010 10:36 AM

Well, I will say that the temple ceremonies are more interesting than the weekly snore-fest Sunday services for the Mormon masses.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 10:38 AM

In order to be temple-worthy, PZ and his wife would have had to get their tithing up to date.

They could have gotten married in the church recreation room instead of the temple if they didn't have the precious temple recommend card. I attended the wedding of mormon friends in a local ward rec room. It was really strange when the Bishop made a point of stressing that the couple was married for "time only" and not for "time and eternity". He narrowed his eyes and made stern pronouncements that to my non-mormon ears sounded like scolding, and also a very strange tangent to the rest of the ceremony.

Here's a link to a story relating a father's valiant efforts to pay $4000 in tithing so that his daughter could get married in the temple: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon475.htm Excerpt:

The most f*cked up thing about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the way it treats it's own members and families. It claims to be pro family, but it splits up families and screws with people's lives. It makes them pay large sums of money in order to see a loved one's wedding. It takes, and takes, and takes. Whether it is your time, money, or sanity. It sucks you dry and does not give back anything of value except some pipe dream of a perfect afterlife. An afterlife which the church makes you feel is impossible to obtain, and uses this to heap unnecessary guilt upon it's members.
It's not the doctrine that makes the church a damaging cult. It's the way they screw their members over. Such as not letting a father attend his child's wedding unless he pays $4000.

BTW, PZ, there's still time for you and the Trophy Wife. You can join the mormon church, confess to your manifold sins, pay tithing and then get "sealed" in the temple. You can even have your children sealed to you in the temple so that your whole family will never be rid of you, even in the Celestial Kingdom ... but I don't know how the Myers family will keep from bursting out in raucous laughter during the sealings. It's a problem for which there's no solution.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 10:43 AM

CNN has a great story and video about the mormon church influencing liquor laws. Which reminds me: PZ and the Trophy Wife cannot serve liquor at their temple wedding, nor at the reception afterward. Just a reminder ... don't want you to get busted by former CIA agents now working as security in Temple Square..

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl2qTiTnACSo2J28faXiEQZA22htFvePg0 | January 4, 2010 10:47 AM

After 26 years? I'm more than willing to be a concubine. Doesn't matter in the least to me, anymore.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | January 4, 2010 10:54 AM

your manifold sins

I thought only mathematical physicists committed those.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | January 4, 2010 11:18 AM

Ha, Ha - funny but so close to the truth is isn't. The fundies always talk in generics, like "Judeo-Xtian values" and "God the Creator", to gather the support of other mushy-minded Xtians. That is why all the Darwin Debates focus only on the flaws of evolution - any debate that put out the actual beliefs of the YEC CreoIDers would lose most of the audience. As long as people don't really know the specifics, they think they are just supporting some vague, pious "Goddidit". As an example, I saw the debate between Shermer & Wells at the Cato Institute. At one point, Wells enfolded the audience with a comment about "our shared Xtian values". How many people in the audience shared Wells' belief that Rev Moon is the second coming of Christ? Few to none, I suspect. It was a con job by Wells to sucker the audience into supporting his agenda.
The fundies hope to gain political support and then - Wham - their true agenda will be put in place. First, it would be outlawing all forms of union except man-woman marriage; then only religious marriage.

#10

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 11:19 AM

More details on mormon weddings, with info provided by ex-mormons:

Quite a few European countries, such as Britain, France, and Germany, do not recognize religious weddings as being legally valid. Couples are required to have a civil wedding first, and then they may choose to have a religious ceremony for their own edification afterward. This applies not only to LDS but to Catholics and Protestants as well (and Jews and Muslims).... In these countries, the laws force the LDS Church to allow temple marriage shortly after a civil wedding...
     In the US, where states grant religious authorities the right to marry couples after issuance of a marriage license, the LDS Church flexes its muscles and requires a one year wait between a civil marriage and a temple sealing. This forces even temple-worthy couples who might want a non-temple wedding as a means of including everyone (example: a convert who wishes to include her parents) to choose between waiting a year and an immediate temple wedding...not to mention enduring the gossip and rumors that arise when someone is not married in the temple and forced to wait.
Loopholes in mormon law:
     1. The one year waiting period between civil/chapel wedding and temple wedding is shortened if one or both members of the couple could not be temple married at the time of the civil wedding due to issues relating to length of membership for converts (this does not apply to couples where both are BIC, Born in the Covenant). Suppose Molly converts to LDS, pays a tithe, etc. beginning in January 2004. Then she marries Peter Priesthood in July 2004. She did not have one year of membership to qualify for a temple recommend, so they are married in a chapel. In this case, where there are no transgressions, the couple may marry in the temple as soon as Molly receives a TR (Jan 2005).
     2. The second exception is dying out but technically is still on the books. It was more applicable where there were few temples and a temple marriage involved a long journey to the temple. If the trip to the temple involves an overnight journey (e.g. by car, not by airplane), the temple-worthy couple is allowed to marry civilly so that they are legally married on their overnight trip to the temple, the assumption being that they can't be trusted to get separate motel rooms and stay chaste on their trip to the temple. This model assumes that the couple may well have consummated their sexual relationship between the civil marriage and the temple ceremony. I learned about this one from reading a TBM bulletin board in which a Utah convert boasted about being able to include all her family by having a civil ceremony followed by a sealing in the San Diego Temple. Since they were travelling to San Diego by car, it would involved an overnight trip and she was allowed a same-week civil ceremony--that all could attend--just before the temple wedding. Even with the increasing number of temples, this ploy could still work as long as the couple chooses a distant temple. I have to hand it to the woman who posted it---she did her best to include her family and also follow her new LDS dictates.

#11

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | January 4, 2010 11:20 AM

Opps, edit on that.....

First, it would be outlawing all forms of union except man-woman marriage; then outlawing all but religious marriages.

#12

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 11:26 AM

your manifold sins
I thought only mathematical physicists committed those.

Manifold = many, and various
The mathematical physicists' sins ... what? More detailed explanation, please.

#13

Posted by: The Science Pundit | January 4, 2010 11:27 AM

your manifold sins

I thought only mathematical physicists committed those.

That shows what you don't know about the pecadilos of automobile mechanics.

#14

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | January 4, 2010 11:27 AM

You know what? I expect that all observant Catholics should sign petitions and vote for the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act:

http://rescuemarriage.org/

After all, they claim wanted to impose their religious beliefs about marriage on gay folks. Why wouldn't they also want to do the same about divorce? Oh, yeah. Hypocrites.

#15

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | January 4, 2010 11:35 AM

Lynna,
A manifold is a space in topology.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Manifold.html

#16

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 12:00 PM

@15

Lynna,
A manifold is a space in topology.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Manifold.html

Ah, I see. Mathematical physicists sin with their coffee cups, donuts, or anything else resembling a torus ... and then they come up with an elegant formula to express the interaction. I'm sure I have that right.

I was disappointed to find that sins involving a möbius strip were not depicted.

#17

Posted by: SteveM | January 4, 2010 12:16 PM

It was really strange when the Bishop made a point of stressing that the couple was married for "time only" and not for "time and eternity".

Aren't all marriages "time only", i.e. "'til death do us part"?

#18

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | January 4, 2010 12:27 PM

Aren't all marriages "time only", i.e. "'til death do us part"?

Not Mormon ones - they supposedly last forever in the afterlife.

#19

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | January 4, 2010 12:30 PM

@Lynna (10)

Y'know, that brings up a good point - this bit here:

Quite a few European countries, such as Britain, France, and Germany, do not recognize religious weddings as being legally valid.

Maybe we should go the route of European countries and forbid marriage licenses from being passed out by preachers. It'd certainly solve a lot of problems.

#20

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 12:55 PM

Aren't all marriages "time only", i.e. "'til death do us part"?

You can't get out of a bad LDS Temple marriage ... not even by dying. You're stuck forever. Unless you're famous. Marie Osmond got a divorce.

Mormon men can have a harem after they get to the Celestial Kingdom. Women who die single (oh, the abomination) can be assigned to good mormon men who may already have one or more wives. Mormon men may be sealed to one wife (no more earthly polygamy, unless you can do it and not get caught), but if that one wife dies, a man can be sealed to another wife, and another, etc. The man will remain sealed to however many women he has married in the temple, and he will be wed to them in eternity... one big happy family. Women, however, cannot be sealed to multiple men. No, I don't know how that is supposed to work. Mormons say God will sort it out.

#21

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | January 4, 2010 1:04 PM

There's a SF story here somewhere (which, given my lack of originality, probably has already been written) about future Mormons meddling with human genetics to ensure a more theologically convenient male/female birth ratio.

#22

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 1:06 PM

Kevin @19: I've often thought the same thing. Marriage is a legal contract, and it should be the same for everyone, gay or straight. Churches can continue to solemnize unions if they wish, and they can continue to restrict their rituals to heterosexuals, if they insist, but we should put them out of the business of legalizing contracts. That step alone would go a long way toward removing a lot of the stumbling blocks to gay marriage.

#23

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | January 4, 2010 1:10 PM

@Lynna (22):

Yeah, and no one could restrict or alter rules depending on sexual preference. A gay marriage would be equal (and not separate but equal) to a straight marriage in the eyes of legality.

If a religious couple wants nothing to do with the civil ceremony, then fine, let them get married in the church and not get a civil license. If it's their faith and the sanctity of the marriage they truly care about, no amount of civil legality will show that.

In fact, I would be more amazed at a Christian couple that refused civil marriage rights to be married solely into the church.

#24

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 4, 2010 1:26 PM

I was disappointed to find that sins involving a möbius strip were not depicted.

Topology-porn seems like an unexplored commercial opportunity - Möbius strips, fifty interesting things to do with a Klein bottle and a good water-based lubricant, explicit images of homology, cohomology and homotopy...

#25

Posted by: Knockgoats | January 4, 2010 1:29 PM

...hmm, not to mention illustrating degrees of connectivity using orgy scenes.

#26

Posted by: Red John | January 4, 2010 1:41 PM

Topology-porn seems like an unexplored commercial opportunity - Möbius strips, fifty interesting things to do with a Klein bottle and a good water-based lubricant, explicit images of homology, cohomology and homotopy...

Sign me up.

#27

Posted by: SteveM | January 4, 2010 1:42 PM

If a religious couple wants nothing to do with the civil ceremony, then fine, let them get married in the church and not get a civil license. If it's their faith and the sanctity of the marriage they truly care about, no amount of civil legality will show that.

And make them file their income tax as two singles. And block them from all the other legal privileges of marriage. Make it clear that marriage is a legal construct, not so much a religious one.

...and forbid marriage licenses from being passed out by preachers.

It's been a long time since I got married, but I seem to remember having to bring the marriage license to the priest who merely signs it at the ceremony.

#28

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | January 4, 2010 2:13 PM

"Mormon men can have a harem after they get to the Celestial Kingdom. Women who die single (oh, the abomination) can be assigned to good mormon men who may already have one or more wives. Mormon men may be sealed to one wife (no more earthly polygamy, unless you can do it and not get caught), but if that one wife dies, a man can be sealed to another wife, and another, etc. The man will remain sealed to however many women he has married in the temple, and he will be wed to them in eternity... one big happy family. Women, however, cannot be sealed to multiple men. No, I don't know how that is supposed to work. Mormons say God will sort it out."

Stupid me, I was assuming honesty when they said "We don't practice polygamy", not mere adherence to Earthly Law.

#29

Posted by: raven | January 4, 2010 2:51 PM

There's a SF story here somewhere (which, given my lack of originality, probably has already been written) about future Mormons meddling with human genetics to ensure a more theologically convenient male/female birth ratio.

Been done. Ursala LeGuin wrote one where the forerunners made it so there was a large excess of women to men.

At first the men had it easy. After a while, the women ended up owning and running the society and the men were kept baby makers.

The Mormons would undoubtedly make sure the women were pre-pithed so they didn't cause any trouble.

#30

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 2:51 PM

Stupid me, I was assuming honesty when they said "We don't practice polygamy", not mere adherence to Earthly Law.

The mormons have a long history of saying one thing and doing another, as in the time they supposedly outlawed polygamy but really just pushed some of their polygamists to move to Mexico or Canada, (the polygamist colony in Mexico included the ancestors of Mitt Romney). Lots of folks who stayed in Utah continued to practice polygamy as well, and there are even records of polygamists being sealed to additional wives in the temple after the no-more-polygamy announcement. It's called "Lying for the Lord", or sometimes called "milk before meat", or "We never provide meat when milk will do."

The latest instance of Lying for the Lord is the LDS announcement that the Church is neutral when it comes to politics.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform," spokeswoman Kim Farah's statement said.

Don't ask yourself how this squares with the phone banks they set up in church Wards to campaign against Prop 8 ... it'll just give you a headache. Don't ask yourself how this announcement squares with a lot of LDS church policies that seem to actively defy the separation of church and state ... more headaches, more eye rolling.

One of the earliest examples of Lying for the Lord comes from Joseph Smith:

The Lie: In May 1844, Joseph Smith preached a sermon in Nauvoo:
[William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.... A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now [William Law] has charged me with adultery....I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. - (History of the Church 6:410-411)
The Truth: By May, 1844, Joseph Smith had "married" over thirty women, after secretly instructing them that he had received a revelation from God commanding him to practice "celestial marriage" (polygamy). The revelation now is canonized as scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 132. The marriage ("sealing") ceremonies were performed in secret, with one of Smith's church colleagues officiating. About one-third of the women had legal husbands still living. Most of the women stated later that their relatiionship to the prophet involved sexual intercourse. Since none of these marriages were legal under the civil laws in effect at the time, all these relationships were adulterous. For details, see Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City 1998.

#31

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | January 4, 2010 3:04 PM

I was disappointed to find that sins involving a möbius strip were not depicted

That would presumably involve removing only one side of the clothes but nevertheless ending up with all of the removed? And there has to be a joke in there somewhere about it being especially edgy but I can't quite make it surface.

#32

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 3:19 PM

Mormons campaigned vigorously against the Equal Rights Amendment. On earth they lost, but in their churches and in their Celestial Kingdom they won.

Mormons are currently campaigning vigorously against equal rights for gays. They think they're winning, but I think they'll find the war was lost while they crowed over a few battles. However, in their Celestial Kingdom, they will always beat the gays. According to the mormons, gays will finally become straight when they get to the Celestial Kingdom, (assuming they managed to be chaste on earth).

As for möbius strip sex, at least it's never-ending.

#33

Posted by: Monkey | January 4, 2010 3:58 PM

Mormons are on my annoyance list. A couple of grad students from Stanford started a site, www.goodreads.com , where people who like books can trade favorite reads.

The Morons took over. They pumped their book up to #3 greatest book of all time.

In the comments, it seems that the LDS are switching methods from knocking on doors to cyber-missionizing. The number of comments along the line of "I've never heard of this book before, but I read it and my life is perfect now!" is unsettling. All astro-turfed, but dammit, I used to LIKE that site...

Anyway, if anyone would like to annoy some Mormons, there are plenty hanging out there.

#34

Posted by: Pope Bologna XIII - The Glorious High Sauceror of Pastafarianism and Grand Poobah of His Holy Meatball. | January 4, 2010 6:04 PM

Monkey: they "Mormongulated" the book!

#35

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 6:53 PM

The Morons took over. They pumped their book up to #3 greatest book of all time. In the comments, it seems that the LDS are switching methods from knocking on doors to cyber-missionizing. The number of comments along the line of "I've never heard of this book before, but I read it and my life is perfect now!" is unsettling.

You are right about the cyber-missionaries. An ex-mormon mentioned that elderly relatives who are still true believers have been spending 10-20 hours online for the LDS Church. They are considered to be actual missionaries, with the mission of battling Satan on the internet, and of presenting a mormon presence wherever they can. It's not unusual for a Bishop to extend to retired couples a "calling" to go on a mission, but what is new is a mission restricted to the internet.

Apparently, the LDS church is also lurking on ex-mormon and anti-mormon blogs. This blogger posted screen shots of the mormon lurks on her blog, and a few humorous comments as well.

#36

Posted by: raven | January 4, 2010 7:06 PM

Apparently, the LDS church is also lurking on ex-mormon and anti-mormon blogs.

I read somewhere that the Mormon church used to hang around outside a gay club in SLC and write down license plates.

Then they would cross check them against a database of BYU students.

It is hard to imagine that SLC even has a gay club.

The thought police are alive and well in SLC. Yo, Mormon Thought Police. We know you are out there. I don't think I'm going to be joining your toxic cult anytime soon.

#37

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 7:21 PM

Raven, Here's another example of the Mormon Thought Police on internet patrol. A journalist who blogs under the handle "The Girl Who" posted this when she was covering a speech by Dallin Oaks (a speech you may remember since PZ also posted a comment on it):

Within minutes, I kid you not, MINUTES, the usually elusive LDS spokeswoman called me directly.
HER: I need you to take down your tweet.
ME: (still cringing at term "tweet" as it's brings farting to mind) Why? I didn't divulge any information contained in the embargo.
HER: Yes you did.
ME: No, thousands of people know Elder Oaks is delivering a speech at BYU-Idaho. They're at it right now. And the rest was simply me elaborating on what I'm doing in the newsroom which is sending a reporter to get reaction from the NAACP.
HER: But you wouldn't know to get the reaction from the NAACP without the embargoed story. TAKE DOWN THE TWEET.
ME: I don't understand. I did not release any information contained in the embargoed story. I am tweeting (cringe) about my day in the newsroom, not details of the embargoed story.
HER: I need you to take down the tweet.
At this point my hands were shaking because OH MY GOD THE LDS CHURCH WAS CALLING ME PERSONALLY TO MAKE ME REMOVE A TWEET and then I hung up. And TOOK DOWN THE FUCKING TWEET! I let myself be bullied by some stern-talking Mormon church spokeswoman even though I believed her to be wrong.

#38

Posted by: raven | January 4, 2010 7:33 PM

www.affirmation.org:
Every weekend, there is an exodus of gay BYU students to one of the most popular gay bars in Salt Lake City, The Sun. Extreme caution is taken to park far enough away from the bar as not to have license plates identified by BYU Security.

Thought I'd make sure my memory was correct. Got a hit right away off of google.

#39

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 8:38 PM

Yes, raven, good hit on google! The mormons treat gays much like J. Edgar Hoover treated suspected communists, taking names and recording license plates at meetings of "subversives". Ugh. Here's a link to a story (well-written) by one of the gay guys who belonged to Affirmation, a former BYU student. Excerpt:

I am gay. I am an active member of Affirmation, a social and support group for gay and lesbians Mormons. I know many will believe that I left the Church because I'm gay, and that is true, but perhaps not in the sense that you might think. For years I harboured doubts about the Church, but put them aside. However, when I confronted my sexuality, it became painfully obvious that the Church was ignorant on the subject. To compound matters, it feigned an understanding of human sexuality which conflicted every accepted professional opinion and modern science. This lead me to finally confront my other concerns about Mormonism, namely: racism, sexism, polygamy, anti-intellectualism, and a fear of its own past.
I admit that before leaving the Church, I had some sexual experiences. In high school, I experimented with a couple of fellows, one of them who was Mormon. However, I "repented" of this by going to my bishop and confessing. He was dumbfounded. He told me to fast, pray, and gave me a blessing that I would not be tempted again by such attractions. I believed him, but it is obvious to me now that he lacked the basic training that a religious counselor needed to confront issues of teenagers confronting their sexuality.

#40

Posted by: JNOV | January 4, 2010 8:40 PM

@Lynna, OM: Yup, I'm the blogger who was lurked by TSCC today. That was fun! My abusive language didn't make them stop, but maybe comparing their stalking to a bad case of herpes (apologies to all afflicted) will make them go away.

Looking at the pages they viewed, they were more interested in my criticisms of Philly's mission president. He might be in deep doo doo (that's a medical term). ;-)

#41

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 8:51 PM

Welcome, JNOV, I liked the display of screen shots from your lds.org lurkers. Catch them with their IP undies showing. [For those who don't recognize it, JNOV's acronym "TSCC" in comment #40 stands for The So-Called Church -- at least I think I got that right. I don't speak fluent ex-mo.]

#42

Posted by: JNOV | January 4, 2010 8:57 PM

Yes, you are absolutely right. There are a ton of abbreviations, but folks who grow up Mormon (BIC "Born in the Covenant") are taught that they belong to "The One True Church." Now, yeah, most believers think their way is the only way, but they don't tend to say, "I belong to The One True Church." So, exmormons tend to call it "The So-Called Church" when they leave.

And thanks for the welcome! I'm just waiting for the loonie-tunes from the Mormon apologetics Rube Goldberg machine to troll the shit out of me. That's why I'm checking referring pages.

It's nice to be among friendlies!

#43

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 9:04 PM

JNOV, expect to have all your ideas thrown out on the basis of "vulgarity" alone by any mormon trolls that have enough balls to comment. Bad language, oh noes!

We had a couple of visiting mormons on Pharyngula recently. PZ posted Mormon Prophecy and it quickly racked up about a 1000 comments. Enjoy the smack down. (The two main mormon commenters were James and bravestarr, IIRC.)

#44

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 9:23 PM

JNOV, Just thought I'd point you to the endless thread for future use. (There's always a quick link to the endless thread in the left hand column.) When this thread drops off the front page, and if there are no mormon-related threads in which to post your examples of the TSCC's dumbfuckery, you can always post on the endless thread.

Following the money when it comes to the LDS Church is something I wish I could do better (as does everyone). Here's a repeat of a post from Gorspel Dactrin that was on exmormon.org today:

Hinckley [Gordon B. Hinckley, previous President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator]: "I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people."
Here, Hinckley is saying that the stipend is modest IN COMPARISON WITH EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION IN INDUSTRY AND THE PROFESSIONS. Hinckley is also trying to spin the "business income" of the church as being separate from tithing. This is of course a bogus distinction because the Church-controlled business enterprises came into being through investments of tithing. If they take this distinction seriously, it means they're engaged in a form of tithing laundering--or, more acurately, tithing soiling. They take the pristine tithing money, invest it into dirty mundane for-profit business enterprises and then... Presto Shazam! ... it's no longer "tithing money" it's "business income."
One of the things that Mormons who know about the pay like to do is compare the GAs to CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies (who typically received multi-million dollar annual executive compensation packages). What the Mormons conveniently forget is that the GAs have lifetime job security, no accountability for performance and total control over their work load (for example, a GA who isn't feeling well, can slow down and it has no effect on their job security or income). So the actual type of work that GAs do is quite a bit easier than that done by a highly paid CEO or professional. And, reading between the lines, if you look at what Hinckley is saying, it can easily be inferred that the "living allowance" for the top GAs is in the six figures and that does not include a lot of fringe benefits, such as use of Church-owned properties and resources of various kinds.

Another ex-mo added that the children of General Authority dudes attend BYU for free. Pretty sweet gig for those guys. No big mystery as to why they continue to toe the line.

#45

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 4, 2010 9:39 PM

JNOV - Well hell if you're going to kick the religious, come sit by me and we can share a Walnetto. Welcome!

#46

Posted by: JNOV | January 4, 2010 9:53 PM

I'm skimming. I promise to read more later and engage properly, but life just kind of blew up just now. Huzzah! Ugh. I've got you guys bookmarked, and I look forward to learning from you and sharing the wee bit I've got in the noggin'.

Thanks, Patricia! Will you keep a seat warm in hell for me next to Kissinger and Cheney? Don't worry -- I'm about ready to send Barry there, too!

#47

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 4, 2010 10:12 PM

The LDS Church seems to have an official policy of restricting the free speech, and the the politics of it's members. Care for the Flock, Excerpt:

Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the Church said: “This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.”
However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold....
Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church.

#48

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 4, 2010 10:17 PM

JNOV - Cheney...haw, I intend to meet him in the seventh level of hell and give him the benefit of a #10 knitting needle prostate exam. *smiles sweetly*

#49

Posted by: MrJonno | January 5, 2010 6:06 AM

Quite a few European countries, such as Britain, France, and Germany, do not recognize religious weddings as being legally valid. Couples are required to have a civil wedding first

Not convinced thats actually true at least in the UK. Most weddings in the UK are civil with no religious involvement however a priest can legally marry you. Through the document you sign is the same for everyone regardless of religion.
In this respect the priest (or imman etc) is acting as a civil servant.

Its not really a big deal , interesting civil weddings are not allowed to mention god or religion even pop songs that contain religious content (through that is usually ignored)

More details
http://www.weddingguideuk.com/articles/legal/englandwales.asp

#50

Posted by: Miki Z | January 5, 2010 8:48 AM

Here in Japan, all marriages are registered with the civil authorities. Weddings are private affairs with no legal significance. The Christian-themed weddings are hugely popular here, though. A new wedding chapel just opened down the street from me and is advertising for a white actor with beard to play the role of "priest".

#51

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 9:38 AM

[blogwhoring alert - apologies]

If anyone cares, here's the breakdown of my COJCOLDS visitors and my assumptions of what went down yesterday.

#52

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 9:40 AM

Yeah, it would be nice if the link worked. Let's try this again.

#53

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 5, 2010 9:56 AM

Holy shit? SLC has a non LDS mayor?

I probably should have known that but I didn't.

Oh and shocker, LDS is pissed about Liquor.

#54

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 10:03 AM

Yeah, SLC is the least mormony area of Utah. I think the mormons might actually be a minority, but that's just in SLC. That's why the recent gay and lesbian non-discrimination ordinance passed. I believe they left out protections for trans people, though. (I'm going by memory -- if you guy need links and sources, I'll dig them up.)

#55

Posted by: raven | January 5, 2010 10:11 AM

Utah is gerrymandered to the max.

SLC has a nonLDS majority. One mayor was a Protestant woman.

Since they crowd the pagans into one place, there are a lot of LDS districts. IIRC, out of ca. 100 state legislaters, all are Mormon but 2 in a state with 65% LDS.

This is essentially depriving pagans of the right to vote and be represented. No doubt what a Mormon theocracy would look like when their prophecy that they will rule the USA happens. Fortunately, most of Joseph Smith's prophecies failed.

#56

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 10:17 AM

Since they crowd the ~~pagans~~ gentiles into one place, there are a lot of LDS districts.

;-)

#57

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 5, 2010 10:24 AM

Gerrymandering in Utah:

... in 2001, the last time district boundaries were drawn, Utah was named by the Wall Street Journal as one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation, and it’s the reason we have an artificial super majority in our legislature today.
Park City and Summit County are victims of gerrymandering. Our representatives live as far away as North Ogden and Vernal.
Fair Boundaries, a non-partisan coalition of citizens, recently filed an initiative for redistricting reform to set up an independent commission to oversee the process. They will start circulating a petition to put this on the 2010 ballot. For more information on redistricting reform go to www.fairboundaries.org or www.americansforredistrictingreform.org.

#58

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 11:00 AM

Well, it looks like another day of Fun with the COJCOLDS! Too bad I need to change my Cheetos-stained shirt and maybe bathe and leave the house and such.

#59

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | January 5, 2010 11:12 AM

My version of the "slippery slope slips both ways" was:

If you start defining marriage according to the Bible, pretty soon you'll have incest and polygamy!1!11!

#60

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | January 5, 2010 12:05 PM

What's COJCOLDS? Though I suspect I'll regret asking.

#61

Posted by: SteveM | January 5, 2010 12:28 PM

What's COJCOLDS? Though I suspect I'll regret asking.

"Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints", the official name of the "Mormon" Church. "Mormon" comes from the title of their "Bible", The Book of Mormon.

#62

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 12:28 PM

"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"

When I see it abbreviated as "COJCOLDS," I always think of a cold virus brought on by cognitive dissonance.

#63

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 12:33 PM

JINX!

Yeah, they prefer to be called the "COJC..." or "LDS" for PR purposes. They are trying to be accepted as a main-stream sect of Christianity, hence the recent prominence of "Jesus Christ" on their official literature (they've increased the font size). They are also trying to move away from "Mormon," but good luck with that!

#64

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | January 5, 2010 1:53 PM

When I see it abbreviated as "COJCOLDS," I always think of a cold virus brought on by cognitive dissonance.

It looks like it should mean cold testicles. Probably served as a delicacy for degenerate hierophants.

#65

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 5, 2010 3:00 PM

The mormon community is not immune to crime, nor to raising criminals. A murderer, Christopher Gribble of Massachusetts, bragged about his crime. Gribble was also a young mormon man participating in mission-prep classes, was home-schooled, and his father is active in the LDS Church (member of the High Council).

This coverage of the accused killers does not mention the kid's mormon background, but ex-mormons who know him, and some who attended classes with him, filled in the details.

#66

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 5, 2010 3:11 PM

Per the discussion up-thread about Salt Lake City being more liberal, and having a more diverse population, here's more proof of that:

Stan Penfold, a progressive and longtime community activist, was sworn in Monday as the Salt Lake City Council's newest member. He also is the first openly gay person to hold the post.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14120043 The council still doesn't have any persons of color. One step at a time, I guess.

#67

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 5, 2010 3:38 PM

In comment #65 I made a mistake. Gribble is from Mount Vernon, New Hampshire, which is near the Massachusetts border. Some of his accomplices lived in Massachusetts.

#68

Posted by: mothwentbad | January 5, 2010 3:42 PM

It's a nice thought, but the trouble is that this direction of the slippery slope is empirically falsified. The slippery slope argument is usually employed against change. In an alternate universe where gay marriage was allowed for a long time and then suddenly under debate, this argument might hold more sway.

But I guess the point is that the other direction of the slope is just as absurd, and I missed the point?

#69

Posted by: JNOV | January 5, 2010 9:10 PM

Ugh. The Mormon Church lurked me all day.

Hopefully I'll have something more interesting to talk about soon.

#70

Posted by: Lynna, OM | January 5, 2010 11:15 PM

JNOV, what does LDS.org expect to get out of lurking your blog ... besides keeping a few senior citizen missionaries busy? What are they looking for? A revelation, a clue as to what they should do next about the fact that they can't control information? Maybe they secretly like you. Or maybe they need to learn how to curse creatively.

#71

Posted by: plien | January 6, 2010 7:31 AM

In the Netherlands all people are married civilly, those who prefer can get a religious marriage after.

#72

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 6, 2010 7:50 AM

Stan Penfold, a progressive and longtime community activist, was sworn in Monday as the Salt Lake City Council's newest member. He also is the first openly gay person to hold the post.

Well any large city is going to be more liberal but that's pretty shocking. I'll have to say when I lived in Jackson and would travel through Salt Lake on the way to the desert or to go skiing or whatever Salt Lake always creeped me the fuck out in a fascination kind of way. I mean it is a beautiful place but I had it in my mind what went on there and it was always interesting.

Good for them.

#73

Posted by: JNOV | January 6, 2010 8:13 AM

Lynna, here's what I think: They monitor every tweet that mentions "mormon," "lds," etc. Sure, I brought attention to myself by my copious use of hashtags, but, really? They have people monitoring every single tweet? What a major waste of time. I've tried to make their lives easier for them, but they haven't accepted my invitation.

Honestly, what church monitors all the tweets that mention it?

I've always been hesitant to call TSCC a cult, but this stalking has me thinking about writing a special post on cults, and maybe I'll grow a pair of ovaries and really take TSCC on.

"A religion is a cult that has attained political power." I'm not sure who said that, but I'm beginning to think that defn is too simplistic.

#74

Posted by: JNOV | January 6, 2010 8:20 AM

Housekeeping question: Is there a way to receive emails when someone comments on a thread?

#75

Posted by: JNOV | January 6, 2010 9:24 AM

Oh, and they do active twitter searches for key words, so they're drilling down deeper than just checking hashtags.

#76

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | January 6, 2010 11:30 PM

"Honestly, what church monitors all the tweets that mention it?"

The "Church" of Lawology.

Don't say it correctly, there'll be trouble. LDS legislates less, I suppose.

#77

Posted by: cpsmith | January 9, 2010 4:38 PM

Didn't more or less that exact thing happen in Texas a little while back?

#78

Posted by: JNOV | January 9, 2010 11:06 PM

@Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Doom: First of all, I love, love, LOVE you screen name!

I've written seven posts about LDS and Native Americans today. Let's see what happens. If they want to waste their money on letigation, so be it. I haven't done anything illegal.

Here's today's poke in the eye It's "Lamanite" Day

#79

Posted by: JNOV | January 11, 2010 11:32 AM

Damn, I can't type. Anyway, "Lamanite" Day was quite a success! Here's the rundown for "GLBTQ Day: Celebrating Nearly 180 Years of LDS Homophobia, Bigotry and Violence!" this Saturday:

1. Morning dose of Boop and outline and brief description of the day's posts

2. Background on LDS doctrine w/r/t heaven, the CK, etc. and why GLBTQ folks who do not consummate hetero temple marriages will not get into the CK

3. Pressure to marry someone of the opposite sex even if you're out to the bishop

4. Notable quotes about GLBTQ folks from church leaders

5. Excommunication for being gay

6. A comparison of the process of acceptance of sexual identity and the process of leaving Mormonism

7. Evergreen, past and present - BYU aversion torture

8. Prop 8 and other political meddling

9. Church-induced suicide and violence

10. Personal stories posted by GLBTQ exmormons

HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Top Five Most Active

1Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)
Orac 02.14.2012
2February 2012 Open Thread
Tim Lambert 02.01.2012
3The Trouble With Theistic Evolution
Jason Rosenhouse 02.12.2012
4Still more evidence that Morgellons disease is most likely delusional parasitosis, 2012 edition
Orac 01.26.2012
5Periodic Table of Swearing
ERV 11.26.2011

Pharyngula

Search

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

That's a good way to think about it

TrackBacks

Comments

Leave a comment

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Channels

RSS Feeds

More ScienceBlogs

Top Five Most Active

Science News from NYTimes.com »

From NYTimes.com