Cartoon Mormon theology

So from that picture I take it dead Mormons get the same 70 virgin deal as Muslims? Except they get blonde white girls?

Nah, muslims get white blonde girls too, it's the law of symbolism. All virgins wear white garments, have long curly blonde hair, they also live in castles made of glass, with no front entrance. They'll only respond to a mormon, a muslim martyr or a knight in shiny armor.

It's funny to me that they left some of the craziest stuff about the founding of Mormonism out. Like how Joseph smith found the plates which were written in Egyptian heiroglyphics and could only be read with special glasses given to him by the angel Moroni. Apparently, after the first translation of the Book of Mormon was translated, the one and only copy was destroyed, and the angel Moroni had already taken the golden plates along with the glasses from Joseph Smith so that he couldn't do a second translation. He prayed to Moroni, who subsequently returned the plates, but without the magical glasses so Joseph had to re-translate them from memory. This accounts for any errors in the current Book of Mormon. It's telling, I think, that Joseph Smith had been convicted of fraud prior to his religious days. Also of note, the Mormons believe that the great flood was sent to wipe all dark-skinned people from the face of the planet and that the Garden of Eden is located in Jackson County, Missouri. When Jesus returns, he'll come to Missouri. If you're interested in more Mormon craziness, "Under the Banner of Heaven" by John Krakauer is full of it.

Then there's the South Park episode All About Mormons, which told the story of Joseph Smith (with musical accompaniment). Pretty effective at mocking the underpinnings of the LDS faith, although the Mormons didn't come off too badly in the end.

Hey, you know what would be cool? If Parker & Stone did a South Park episode on Scientology! Now that would be neat!

Comedy Central has decided that it's safe to run the Scientology episode of South Park again. It was on a couple of weeks ago. There's nothing better than seeing that nutty story animated with the words "Scientologists actually believe this" printed on the bottom of the screen.

I love that Mormon South Park episode. Anyway, the end result I thought was that Mormons were nice people, but their religion is even more dumb than other religions.
"Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb."

Where do all these beautiful virgins come from? From what I've heard, we've had literally hundred of Muslim martyrs recently. If each one gets 70 virgins, that's 7000 virgins. That's a lot of virgings. Surely, most of them would have to be ugly.

If I remember my Islamic theology, the "virgins" are actually houris, creatures of pure spirit kind of like angels except a lot more fun to wrestle. I believe that there are also supposed to be male ones for good Muslim women to cavort with when they get to Paradise.

So heaven is sort of like the Castle Anthrax?

Oh, I am afraid our life must seem very dull and quiet compared to yours. We are but eight score young blondes and brunettes, all between sixteen and nineteen- and- a- half, cut off in this castle with no one to protect us. Oooh. It is a lonely life: bathing, dressing, undressing, making exciting underwear. We are just not used to handsome knights.

We want an islamic one - pretty please?

I know one shouldn't over-analyze Monty Python, but was there any symbolism in calling that place Castle Anthrax anyway?

"Like how Joseph smith found the plates which were written in Egyptian heiroglyphics and could only be read with special glasses given to him by the angel Moroni. "

I'm not aware of any special glasses what so ever. What I *am* aware of are the two magic stones that he placed into a hat which he put over his face to translate the tablets. which is even weirder.

Or even weirder the fact that he talked about how it was a mormon's duty to travel to mars one day and evangelize to the martians.

Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb!

I've talked regularly with a Mormon I work with. I was surprised how she totally believed that American Indians are the lost tribe, and the Mormons have been spending a large amount of time reserching South American ruins for proof of such. When I told her that genetic studies have shown evidence that American Indians probably came from Asia, she came totally unglued.
Amaging what people will believe in the face of reality......

Mormon Heaven, eh? And just what's that old dude gonna do with all those (judging by the 'toon) 13 year old virgins?
Short-eyes Heaven, more like...

Of course, we all know what lengths some religious groups go to to try to debunk evolution; it's no surprise that they do the same thing with religions they disagree with. It's propaganda--and much of it is half-truths and blatant lies.

When I told her that genetic studies have shown evidence that American Indians probably came from Asia, she came totally unglued.

Well, you probably shouldn't tell her how scholars have learned to translate hieroglyphics. Her head might 'splode if she found out what the papyrus Joseph Smith "translated" actually says.

"Where do all these beautiful virgins come from?"

In the words of Uncyclopedia.org,

Did you know...
... that when a suicide bomber dies and goes to paradise, he is given 72 virgins? The beautiful irony in God's universe is that the 72 are all male Star Trek geeks.

Rocky:

I've talked regularly with a Mormon I work with. I was surprised how she totally believed that American Indians are the lost tribe, and the Mormons have been spending a large amount of time reserching South American ruins for proof of such. When I told her that genetic studies have shown evidence that American Indians probably came from Asia, she came totally unglued.

Reminds me of this website.

Reminds me of this website.

Yowza!

Well, it's not animated, but there's a site with Bible stories done in Legos! http://www.thebricktestament.com/

(It's almost as much fun as Peeps doing Romeo and Juliet!)

As a long-time lurker and Mormon turned athiest, the beliefs and comments on this thread are full of half-truths and no more accurate than those put forth by the ID crowd to explain evolution.
I totally agree that Mormonism is silly and wrong, but no more or less so than any other branch of Christianity. To think that fundamentalist xtian groups would give an accurate view of Morminsm is beneath the generally excellent level of comment on this blog.
Not to be an apologist, but Southpark: funny but very wrong. Many wives in heaven: Only the one(s) you marry in the temple and only if you live according to the covenants you make. First hundred pages or so of the book of Mormon (purportedly) stolen. Not recovered and not retranslated. No belief that the flood was to wipe all dark skinned people from the earth, etc.
More troubling: I was always taught that the American Indians were the "Lamenites" of the Book of Mormon, now the church is backpeddling and saying that there were "many groups" on the continent and that the American Indian is just one of them. There's plenty of other revisionist history that's cause for concern, but books and blogs where the author(s) are against Mormonism but for xtianity are not reliable places to find them.
dichosa

"I've talked regularly with a Mormon I work with. I was surprised how she totally believed that American Indians are the lost tribe, and the Mormons have been spending a large amount of time reserching South American ruins for proof of such."

On top of that, they even believe that when indians and other people with colored skin convert to mormonism their skin begins to lighten up, as does their hair and eyes. They're dark because they're evil you know.

And they ALSO believe that the mayan god Quetzequatl actually is Jesus christ, and they think the mayan word for "spirit" was mistranslated as "snake." Of course when you tell them all the nasty shit that went on with Quetzequatl, they deny all that......because *that* can't be true.

I was two days away from my baptism into the mormon faith when I was fifteen. They intentionally hide their wackier beliefs until AFTER baptism, under this bullshit shroud of "the tenants of faith aren't for those not of the faith," but in reality they don't want people running away when they hear of batshit insane ideas like God actually having a physical body, marrying Mary, having sex with her to impregnant her with jesus, and then divorcing her, and yet somehow she's still a virgin.

Look out for white salamanders!

I totally agree that Mormonism is silly and wrong, but no more or less so than any other branch of Christianity.

That was my point, actually. I think a similar cartoon could be made for Catholicism that would highlight the goofiest beliefs--transubstantiation, the trinity, the assumption, on and on--and make the whole enterprise look silly.

We could do the same for Islam, but the resultant riots and deaths and vandalism would be rather costly.

I totally agree that Mormonism is silly and wrong, but no more or less so than any other branch of Christianity.

That's debatable. Other Christian groups have this whole mythology based on magical events that happened at real times and places. The Mormons eat that whole ice cream cone, but add a second scoop with the Book of Mormon, which does not have any historical basis whatsover.

Who wants 72 virgins anyway? In SubGenius Heaven, you get 72 pornstars.

Actually some scholars are now saying that the whole 70 white virgins thing may have been a mistranslation. And what it actually says are 70 white raisins. I'm not an expert, so I don't know whether that is true or not, but if it is, there are going to be some pretty pissed off martyrs in Heaven.

Guardian article on the raisin-virgin thing

Seventy-two virgins? For eternity?!? Have you ever had to put up with more than three at any given time? Think of a 50's pajama party, only it goes on forever!

They're insufferable--self-absorbed, narcissistic, coquettish--after only a short while, you'd have to get away to drown their memory in beer (one each--that's three cases--almost enough).

But you can't; it's eternity. Remember the polka?

Now if you offered me seventy-two once-divorced, well-preserved, slightly-desperate thirty-somethings with creative imaginations and ticking biological clocks, I think I could look forward to the afterlife.

That other thing isn't Heaven--it's Hell.

On the other hand, getting handed a small baggy with a handful of raisins in it and being told to make them last for eternity is another vision of hell.

I am a former former who has done extensive research on my former faith.

The video is a snippet of The Godmakers by Ed Decker, a former Mormon turned Christian fundamentalist nutjob. While a lot of it is spin, 95% of the content accurately reflects actual theology once taught by Mormon prophets and "general authorities."

As far as the South Park episode, there is nothing in there which does not accurately reflect one version or another (because there are many) of early Mormon Church history.

Not to be an apologist, but Southpark: funny but very wrong. Many wives in heaven: Only the one(s) you marry in the temple and only if you live according to the covenants you make.

Oh, yeah. That's a whole lot better[/sarcasm]

If Mormon heaven looks like Utah, whose heaven looks like Minnesota?

Scott

I need to add a bit more to my previous comment as an ex-mormon atheist. First, I like the thread and have no problems with the idea. I think PZ is 100% right, we need cartoons for all of these sects, including Roman Catholicism, Islam, xtian fundimentalism, etc. My argument is that these parodys can do great good and be more effective by being 100% accurate. The South Park episode would never be seen as accurate by a practicing member of the LDS church (that's the big one, to differntiate it from the dozens of sects that are grouped together under the Mormon name).
The plain inaccuracy and bigotry in many of the comments is jaw dropping to me. There may be individual members of the LDS church who have odd beliefs, but the LDS chuch has no belief in Mayan Gods being Jesus (nor have I ever heard this one), or God having come to earth to impregnate Mary, etc.
More damning is the dark skin to light skin controversy. I was taught (I'm PZ's age) that dark skin was a curse put upon the Lamenites for refusing to obey God and that by coming back to God they would get lighter skin and become "delightsome", now Mormons are taught that the members will become lighter by intermarriage.... Also, the white salamander episode was a forgery by a Mormon by the name of Mark Hofmann. Much more damning than the story, is the fact the the highest members of the church believed it to be true and bought the letters and evidence from Hofmann and then tried to hide them from the membership. I was always taught to question everything and that anything that was true would stand up to every question. One cannot question ones Mormon beliefs honestly without questioning Christianity and then all religion. For me, none of it stands up and I no longer believe.
Finally to Quork: I agree that it's debatable on the basis that you purport, but to mix myth (lies) with some verifiable historical context gives no more creedence to a mythology that doesn't have any verifiable historical context. In fact after reading Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" and "Misquoting Jesus", I'd say the Book of Mormon if anything is much more beliveable than the New Testiment, with its forgeries, additions to text, and changes in text. If you're an atheist as well, we probably don't fundamentally disagree, but if you're trying to argue invalidity of Mormonism based on the bible and historical events, you're silly and wrong ;)
Again, apologies for this very long post, but a good source of erudite argument against Mormonism comes from a web-site by Bob McCue, and ex-mormon bishop and tax attorney. He's accuate, has been there, and is a great help to recovering Mormons. Here's a link to the Post Mormon section of his web-site. You can also read his Mormon section to see how his beliefs have changed, etc.
Dichosa

Scott Hatfield wrote:

If Mormon heaven looks like Utah, whose heaven looks like Minnesota?

The Goa'uld - according to Brig. Gen. Jack O'Neill. Probably for the walleye, though, not the virgins.

but add a second scoop with the Book of Mormon, which does not have any historical basis whatsover.

As if any of the other books do. The book of Mormon has as much historical basis as any in the OT or NT. At least all the locations in it are in existence.

Dichosa,
Thanks for the information.

I always thought hte special underware thing was strange, but no stranger than drinking blood and eating flesh. Although n the virgin thing I wouldn't want a 13 year old virgin. (ugh! too young. I agree on the desperate 30 something. :) )

I agree on the desperate 30 something.

But not the desperate 30 something trekkie, please. Having to role-play as Vulcans in the grip of pon'farr gets old fast.

There may be individual members of the LDS church who have odd beliefs,

I guess they aren't True Mormonsâ¢

now Mormons are taught that the members will become lighter by intermarriage....

Again, that's so much better

Book of Mormon if anything is much more beliveable than the New Testiment, with its forgeries, additions to text, and changes in text.

Your point about inaccurate stereotypes of Mormons is well taken, but I have to disagree with you on this one, in the light of modern archaeology. The Book of Mormon contains references to many things that simply didn't exist in the New World in ancient times--horses, wheat and iron tools and weapons, to name a few. The accuracy of the Book of Mormon was rejected on these and other grounds, including the Asian ancestry of Mesoamericans, long before DNA evidence confirmed the latter. Despite its many flaws, the New Testament isn't chock full of anachronisms.

In addition, thousands of text changes have been made to the official Book of Mormon, as well, over the past 150 years.

Ian - that's two L's. There's another Col. O'Neil with one, and he has a lousy sense of humor.

By the way, I hear there's a sequel to the first Stargate movie on the way, completely ignoring the series. I don't know why anyone would think that's a good idea.

PZ - I take it you have experience in the pon-farr roleplay?

A relative whose son converted, married, and raised his kids in the Mormon church showed me that movie, the Godmakers. That was an interesting experience, sitting with two very devout Roman Catholics, watching a "documentary" that characterizes Mormon beliefs as not only heretical but ridiculous. The irony of their situation, dissecting another faith with the arbitrary tools of their own, was completely lost on them. A review of The Godmakers from a committee of religious folk.

Obviously, none of you people have actually been to Utah recently. This picture looks nothing at all like Utah. This picture severely under-represents the true percentage of thin, young people in Utah.

Yes, they do have rather more kiddies running around, but I sure see a lot of fat people when I visit every year.

Looks just like Utah.

You've got to be kidding me. I've driven through Utah, and most of it looks about like Tatooine.

I'm a protestant-turned-deist who studied Mormonism for years (trying to convert myself or deconvert an LDS girlfriend) - so I don't have the "street cred" of an exMormon but I've learned enough to notice a lot of the misconceptions.

First, ignore the video. The producer is Ed Decker, a man whose piles of obvious anti-Mormon half-truths and distortions have probably converted more people to Mormonism than any bike-riding missionaries.

That Southpark episode had some half-truths and untruths too. There's a good analysis here: http://www.i4m.com/think/southpark.htm

So from that picture I take it dead Mormons get the same 70 virgin deal as Muslims?

The only "get lots of virgins" scripture is D&C 132, and the only number it mentions is 10. Joseph Smith, Jr. eventually was "sealed" to 30 or 40 women, but about a third of them already had other husbands, so presumably both the numeric and the virginity requirements were relaxed.

Modern LDS members believe that men who marry multiple women in serial monogamous temple marriages in life will be polygynists in heaven, but they don't believe there will be lots of spare women to pass around. Some 19th century LDS leaders taught that faithful LDS women who died unmarried (or married to monogamists who refused to live the law of "celestial marriage" a.k.a. polygyny) would be given to faithful polygamist men in heaven.

To summarize, I'm afraid that in LDS theology the only virgins who might be waiting for you in heaven are the rare unfortunate girls who died that way. Those Muslims get all the breaks.

He prayed to Moroni, who subsequently returned the plates, but without the magical glasses so Joseph had to re-translate them from memory.

The new translation was supposedly from *different* plates, because Satan was going to change the words on the first translation and use the differences to make Joseph look like a fraud. Fortuitously it turned out that all the story that Joseph had translated already was also written on a second set of plates, so he wrote those out in English instead.

The story about the magical glasses ("Urim and Thummim") is muddled - all the oldest descriptions of Joseph's translations have him putting his "seer stone" in a hat and reading supernaturally illuminated transations off of it. I think even according to the official story the "Urim and Thummim" were taken away and the seer stone had to be used for all of the Book of Mormon that was eventually published.

Also of note, the Mormons believe that the great flood was sent to wipe all dark-skinned people from the face of the planet

No - in fact LDS prophet John Taylor taught that "after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God."

And for modern Mormons it's not so bad - few of them still believe any of this "blacks represent the devil" and "blacks were less valiant in the war in heaven" crap. Some try to rationalize by saying "God knew society wasn't ready for a religion to preach racial equality", but most of them just try to put their religions official racism "on the shelf" and only think about it rarely, thankful they're past it.

I'm not aware of any special glasses what so ever.

I'm not aware of any official description of them as such, but LDS paintings have portrayed the "Urim and Thummim" as glasses.

What I *am* aware of are the two magic stones that he placed into a hat which he put over his face to translate the tablets. which is even weirder.

Although I think there have been multiple "seer stones" in Mormon history, there was just one that went into the hat.

When I told her that genetic studies have shown evidence that American Indians probably came from Asia, she came totally unglued. Amaging what people will believe in the face of reality...

This is one of the parts of Mormonism that has become so thoroughly debunked that even Mormons don't all believe it anymore. The Book of Mormon is clearly describing continent-spanning civilizations which grow to fill otherwise empty land, but all the BYU apologists are currently trying to stuff the million-person battles down into some forgotten Guatemalan jungle.

I totally agree that Mormonism is silly and wrong, but no more or less so than any other branch of Christianity.

Sorry, but I've got to disagree. The ranking of cultishness in the large relatively-homogenous religions I've looked at goes (from least to most):

Catholics
Seventh Day Adventists
LDS Mormons
Jehovah's Witnesses
Moonies
Scientologists

The different Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim groups are all over the map, but perhaps half of them are better than the mainstream Catholics. Of course there are many super-crazy splinter sects of the above groups too, but (except for among the Protestants) all the ones I know about are much smaller groups.

You're right that all religions have some nutty beliefs, but there are big differences in how much evidence there is that those beliefs contradict reality, and in how much domineering control the religious leaders and popular scriptures try to impose on the members.

There's plenty of other revisionist history that's cause for concern, but books and blogs where the author(s) are against Mormonism but for xtianity are not reliable places to find them.

Again, it's a matter of degree. There are some Christian evangelists (e.g the Tanners) who may honestly come to incorrect conclusions, and then there are others (Ed Decker, say) who dishonestly distort raw facts. The latter is far more worrisome; I can always come to my own conclusions, but it's much harder to library-hunt for my own primary sources.

On top of that, they even believe that when indians and other people with colored skin convert to mormonism their skin begins to lighten up, as does their hair and eyes.

Whenever you say "[Mormons] believe", to a lesser or greater extent you're going to be wrong. It's true that LDS prophets have taught that vile "good converts' skins get lighter" idea within the last half century, and like most of their old racist sermons it's never been officially retracted, but I don't think many members believe it today. The "God had physical sex with Mary" sermons are even older, and I don't think the "Quetzalcoatal was Jesus" meme even came from their official leaders to begin with; it's an old bit of Catholic grasping at straws, which has been coopted by some LDS writers.

Other Christian groups have this whole mythology based on magical events that happened at real times and places. The Mormons eat that whole ice cream cone, but add a second scoop with the Book of Mormon, which does not have any historical basis whatsover.

The LDS have their own "supernatural fiction added to historical fact" book too; it's the "Doctrine and Covenants". As for Christianity, while it's true that the only obviously non-historical myths come from Genesis, there's reason to suspect that much of the Gospels as well as the earliest parts of the Old Testament could have been made up after the fact.

we need cartoons for all of these sects, including Roman Catholicism, Islam, xtian fundimentalism, etc.

Couldn't hurt. As a deist and agnostic, I'd like to add those (and atheism) to the list. If you can't find something to laugh at in your own beliefs, it's not a good sign.

My argument is that these parodys can do great good and be more effective by being 100% accurate.

I couldn't agree more.

the LDS chuch has no belief in ... God having come to earth to impregnate Mary

Most current LDS members probably don't have that belief, but their "prophets" from Brigham Young to Ezra Taft Benson preached it and published it. The backpedaling that you've noticed happening to Mormon doctrines didn't just start in your lifetime; it's been going on since the beginning and it's been in high gear since around 1900.

The book of Mormon has as much historical basis as any in the OT or NT. At least all the locations in it are in existence.

You may be thinking of the D&C. No location from the Book of Mormon has ever been found in the New World, and proposed locations have ranged from the Great Lakes to Guatemala to Chile. The Bible obviously isn't all accurate but it at least has more historical foundations - see Asimov's Guide To The Bible if you want an intelligent atheist's perspective.

our point about inaccurate stereotypes of Mormons is well taken, but I have to disagree with you on this one, in the light of modern archaeology. The Book of Mormon contains references to many things that simply didn't exist in the New World in ancient times--horses, wheat and iron tools and weapons, to name a few. The accuracy of the Book of Mormon was rejected on these and other grounds, including the Asian ancestry of Mesoamericans, long before DNA evidence confirmed the latter. Despite its many flaws, the New Testament isn't chock full of anachronisms.

In addition, thousands of text changes have been made to the official Book of Mormon, as well, over the past 150 years.

Prof. Bleen:
I strongly agree with the first part of your post. My first complete reading of the book of Mormon at the age of twelve, led me to lots of doubts. I knew that there weren't any horses, camels, wheat, iron, etc. If a twelve year old can see it, why don't others? The explanation I was given is the same that they use for evolution: we don't know all the answers. We may find existence of.... etc. Just like American Indians are now not the Lamenites can be explained by the "We haven't seen all the DNA", etc.
On the other-hand, I cannot agree with you at all about the New Testament. It seems almost nothing but anachronism. People out of historical context that didn't exist or reign when the NT indicates they did. And yes the Book of Mormon has thousands of textual changes, the largest percentage of them punctuation, etc. Every single change is available for anyone to see and compare online. Ehrman, indicates that there are more textual variants in the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament. And then which version are you talking about? From which sect? The one that belived Jesus was just a spirit and never had a body, or the one that believed Jesus was just a man who had God's spirit come into him as he was baptized and that left before he died on the cross, or the ones that forged and added the verses about Jesus bleeding from his pores in the garden of Gethsemane so they could prove that Jesus had a body? My point isn't to defend Mormonism, but to defend the point that the New Testament isn't any good either. It's inaccurate, comes in thousands of variants, is full of anachronism, and can be seen through by a 12 year old. Say what you want, but you can't use it to debunk Mormonism or anything else.
Will:
I don't recognize you as one of the usual trolls around here so I don't know if you are but intentionally missing the points and going nowhere with your smartass comments have me nearly convinced. I certainly don't think the points I've made are better at all, just more accurate than what's being reported.
Dichosa

Stogoe wrote:

Ian - that's two L's. There's another Col. O'Neil with one, and he has a lousy sense of humor.

That's because he never got over taking the lead in McGyver

By the way, I hear there's a sequel to the first Stargate movie on the way, completely ignoring the series. I don't know why anyone would think that's a good idea.

Probably a new Mel Gibson vehicle. He denies the series ever happened.

PZ - I take it you have experience in the pon-farr roleplay?

Where do you think that picture in the Obscenity! thread came from?

My very favorite part of this cartoon is that the fundies who produced it felt the need to remind everyone that they are talking about "the mormon Jesus" (as opposed to the "real" Jesus, I guess).

I'd have to agree with most of the other former LDS posts - While I too now consider myself an atheist, I found the LDS faith at least as internally consistant as any others. Far too many people try to debunk it with untruths - That won't work! Use truth, it works far better.

I thought THIS bunch of people at least would realize that, and might check their sources before poking fun. Other 'christian' churches won't even admit that the LDS (That's the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints) are christians at all! Shouldn't that be a clue that they might not be a good source of debunking material?

The things that others find strange or foolish in the faith, may seem perfectly normal to the LDS. The 'funny underwear' for instance, so many people seem to find that bizarre and off-putting, but the reasons for it are simple and internally consistant. With no paid clergy, ALL LDS members take part in the services. There is no priest in robes, everyone has that obligation. Since they all have normal jobs to support themselves, temple-going 'Mormons' wear their ecclesiastical 'robes' on the inside, to remind -themselves- of the covenants they made with god, rather than to trumpet the news to the world.

Oh, it all made just as much sense to me as any other religion, and many of the teachings seemed FAR more christian-like than those I found in other churches. I was told time and again by other 'christians' that 'You Mormons are so nice, so willing to help your neighbors, so family-oriented.. It's a shame you're all going to hell!' (Because the LDS believe that one must follow Christ's examples and actually DO something to deserve heaven, many born-again faiths charge that the LDS are trying to 'work their way into heaven', and ... Apparently you can't do that?!?)

Insanity! I liked the faith for what it taught, they were one of the very few churches who spent more time on the 'Love One Another' teachings than the old testament fire and brimstone and hate. But they don't always do what they teach - The vote in Utah a couple of years ago to severely restrict the rights of same-sex couples for example. For a church that preaches about 'free agency', the right to live and worship as they please, and harps on the persecution they recieved before having to travel across the plains to Utah, they sure turned around fast and tried to legislate other people's rights away, didn't they?

Eventually the dichotomy became too great - But I'd already ruled out all the other Christian churches for one reason or another. I realized that I no longer believed in the entire judeo-christian idea - I was FREE!

It was Science that got us out of the middle ages, Science that brought us all the prosperity and incredible new technology, the new insight into ourselves and the universe around us that we have today. Why would God reward us so strongly for using our brains to question the world around us, then set up a huge evidentiary lie (like the fossil record!) to hide His presence from every experiment?

No, if there was a god, s/he obviously WANTED us to use our brains - And when I did, I came to the same conclusion so many of you have. There is no evidence for god. None! Not one single experiment that gives even a hint of any supernatural presence, any fingerprint of creation.

And here I am today! I freed myself from the shackles of religion over 10 years ago now.

The reading material is a lot better. :) This past couple of weeks I've read Zimmer's 'Parasite Rex, At The Water's Edge', Soul Made Flesh', Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, Sagan's 'Demon Haunted World', and others. Great reading!

Oh my, this HAS become long, hasn't it? Sorry!

So Mormon heaven is kind of like Elizabeth Smart's abduction ordeal, times twenty?

The thing that separates LDS from mainstream X-tianity isn't the absurdity (which is similar) but the dishonesty. Probably the authors of the gospels really believed that the subject of their stories really did all those impossible things like turning water into wine. Gullible, sure. Stupid, yes. But probably not dishonest. But Joe Smith *knew* there was no magical gold plates. He was *lying*.

Dichosa: "we need cartoons for all of these sects, including Roman Catholicism, Islam, xtian fundimentalism, etc."

roystgnr: "Couldn't hurt. As a deist and agnostic, I'd like to add those (and atheism) to the list. If you can't find something to laugh at in your own beliefs, it's not a good sign."

My comment: Atheism is not a member of the set of sects.

Jonathan:
I regularly enjoy reading your posts, but I don't know that you can say with authority what you are saying. I suspect that Joseph Smith knew that he was a liar and unethical (at least to start with), but I'm not sure. I think Koresh with his wackos in Waco new he was lying, but when did he begin to believe what he was saying? Contrary to the South Park claims, there were three witnesses to the Book of Mormon who claimed that they were shown the gold plates by an angel and eight more witnesses that claimed they were shown the gold plates by Joseph Smith. Several of the witnesses were excommunicated and several left the LDS church, but none of them re-canted their testimony. Liars, duped, whatever, but they certainly stood by their claims.
As to the truth of the New Testament Gospels, they were written long after the events they describe. The authors names were added to them much, much later than when they first circulated. Different branches of the hundreds of different early Christian sects had control of them and wrote their own versions. Dozens of differing versions, real and forged circulated among the various sects. The canon of books in today's accepted New Testament didn't come together untill one group became strong enough to discard those parts they didn't agree with. Further, they didn't hesitate to rewrite any part of the books adding and subtracting as they saw fit. Unfornately the earliest texts we have are over 400 years after the claimed facts, with only a few fragments going back 200 years after the fact. That's a lot of time to hide history, add lies, and make it all say what you'd like it to (for the good of us all of course). Mormonism has has fewer than 200 years to align its texts, hide the history of its founders, and fool the world.
Again, the point here is not to be an apolgist for the Mormons, but to make certain that "truth be told" it's all the same.
Roystgnr and LesserOfTwoWeevils thanks so much your posts they helped me see that I'm not alone here and gave me more insight.
Dichosa

"He was *lying*."

Or he was crazy.

Or perhaps...he was LORD!

Sorry, but I've got to disagree. The ranking of cultishness in the large relatively-homogenous religions I've looked at goes (from least to most):

Catholics
Seventh Day Adventists
LDS Mormons
Jehovah's Witnesses
Moonies
Scientologists

Maybe but the Catholics seem pretty cultish to me as well. Unlike the Protestants.

You're right that all religions have some nutty beliefs, but there are big differences in how much evidence there is that those beliefs contradict reality, and in how much domineering control the religious leaders and popular scriptures try to impose on the members.

Are there many religious supernatural beliefs that do not contradict reality?

Scott Hatfield: Nyarlathotep?

BTW, Peter Kirby's excellent Early Christian Writings website is a good source for all the gospel bits and pieces.