Says you. There are sincere people (the Free Zone Scientologists, and the people in the lower levels of the CoS who are simply dupes) who say otherwise.
Again, says you. The CoS will never have a spiritual core, but Scientology has one that some people have discovered.
I’m an atheist. I’m certainly not going to apologize for any irrational system, and denigrating a faith instead of a group is certainly irrational.
Uh, you sounded as if you’re a Mormon like I’m a Catholic, but whatever. Anyhoo, these things always end badly. Sorry to waste everyone’s time, I’m outie.
Every belief system is separable from the organization or organizations associated with it. For some, like Baptist Christianity, this is quite obvious, and for others, like Roman Catholicism, it is less so, but it is always the case. Scientology suffers from the handicap of being associated rather firmly with a criminal organization calling itself the ‘Church’ of Scientology.
All religious people are loony. That’s what faith is.
Heh heh … well, pretty much, yes; belief-wise, I consider myself a tooth-fairy agnostic, but I was a extremely believing Mormon until sometime in 2000, and I still am a member.
I’m not a religious person at all, but I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to call ALL religious people “Loony”.
Even if we take the concepts behind most organised religions as being prima facie patently silly (“Stop that! It’s silly! This was a perfectly good thread about an organisation recently featured in a controversial South Park episode, and now it’s just gone and gotten silly!”), the tenets of Scientology- and, to a lesser extent, the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, just seem… well, I struggle to understand how ANY sane person could consider them as the Gospel Truth for even a microsecond.
I mean, let’s be honest here- if L. Ron Hubbard’s work can be used as the basis of a belief system, are we going to see the Church Of The Prophet Harry Potter soon? How about a Church Of The Sacred Towel? The whole thing just seems absurd and more than a little unsettling, IMO.
Oh, for crying out loud! You can say that for almost any large organization. The Mormon Church and the U.S. Army have similarities in the way they do things. Pick any two huge organization and a second-grader can find similarities. There’s no point in discussing churches if you aren’t going to talk about their spirituality.
::starts to stomp disgustedly from the argument, stops, turns around ::
And I apologize for the “gross ignorance” comment, although, in my own defense, you certainly didn’t pose your point very well.
:: stomps on out and slams the door behind him ::
Post #22.
Interesting. It doesn’t say I’m not a Mormon, it says “I was a Mormon when I read those books.” And I was. That doesn’t mean me being a Mormon now as well, does it? But arguing along those lines reeks of sophistry, so I concede your point. Perhaps I should have said “typical Mormon” or “doctrine-believing Mormon” instead of just “Mormon” there. Or “the kind of Mormon who thought that Mormons were always in the right, so it freaked me out to see Tom getting the better of the kids of Adenville.”
Anyway … I’m sure there are plenty of Mormons who wouldn’t consider me one of them now regardless of what I call myself, but then, there are plenty of Christians who don’t consider Mormons Christians regardless of what they call themselves, so what can you do?
Huh? Personally, if I found out that a church (regardless of the doctrines and spirituality) had a history of killing people, or deceiving them about the nature of the church to get them to join, I would feel much differently about the church than I would if I found out the U.S. Army had a history of killing people or tricking people into joining. And the point of this discussion is whether said church can ever become “mainstream.” I think it’s clear that it can, although clearly significant changes will have to be made.
I don’t see how my comment that “There’s evidence that the early Mormon church did similar things” could be interpreted as “The spirituality of the two organizations is similar.”
And how is that any siller than Noah’s Ark, say ? Or transubstantiation ? Or an “all powerful God of Love” whose symbol is his own son being tortured to death ? Rising from the dead ? Turning water into wine ? Faith healing ? It’s all silly, it’s all crazy.
And why would those be sillier than a religion based on the Bible ? For that matter, they’d be better; you don’t see Harry Potter killing the firstborn and spreading plagues.
Please ignore the misspelling in Post #92, or excoriate it. Your choice. 
We are getting to a point. religion is about money and expanding it’s base. Hardly the thing of theological truths.
The bible has been a product of meeting where the top members of the church decided what books to include and exclude. It is modified regularly. Like the old eating meat on Friday one. How many catholics are being broasted in hell for it today. Yet god wrote it. Sure he did.
Heinlien is still too close to us. If deep into the future he gains respect from the philosophiers of their time .it could change. Dont see how. Does he get mention in todays philosophy or religion classes.?
[aside]Wonderful, I think we’re on the way to having the whole “Religion, Bad!” crew aboard on this one. I was afraid we’d be stuck with those who claim that it’s bad only if the religious organization acquires any wealth.[/aside]
In any case, there have been a couple of good posts in between the shouting in which there was brought up the question of the use of the term “mainstream”.
If we’re talking about the various congregations themselves, there is indeed a difference between theological and social concepts of mainstream/alternative/fringe, and in each of those realms between “mainstream”, “alternative, but accepted”, and “kooky fringe”. That does not just apply to what I’ll call New Religions – once upon a time, in much of what became the USA, even Catholicism was socially viewed as an “alien” religion. “New Religions”, or new movements within established religions, may have to first aim for social acceptance, and even that may have to wait until the evolution of their doctrines (and yes, all theologies evolve with the society they serve, AND SO WHAT; even Christian Fundamentalism has evolved, it’s one of those delicious ironies…) converges with the general social climate.
Something by the name of Scientology indeed may at some point become a “socially accepted” though minoritarian life-system, what with all the star-power publicity behind it, if several of already discussed changes work their way into the system; it probably would require some sort of Scientological Reformation among the upcoming generations of people born-into the belief system: it’s not going to happen while the entity known as CoS continues making itself a focus for antagonism.
Just as there are quite a few Mormons who think they know about the LDS but really don’t. Mormons are certainly not unique in this regard, but not one Mormon I have met or spoken with personally knew very much – if anything – about most of the more controversial, ludicrously anti-scientific beliefs that are still part of that faith. For just examples concerning astronomical matters alone, there are cases such as Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s assertions that the Earth didn’t form in the Solar system but actually flew through space from Kolob after the “Fall” (see Where was earth created and out of what? (a believer’s site)) and that the Sun shines by “borrowing” the light of Kolob. The number of examples of anti-scientific beliefs in Mormonism, like Scientology, are considerable.
I think that one can fairly reasonably objectively say that Mormonism and Scientology are roughly equally laughable and ridiculous in their more (even just moderately more) controversial doctrines and beliefs. What the LDS Church has done to reduce the social impact of these vast implausibilities and impossibilities is to alter a handful of teachings but also to stop teaching very much of the official doctrine to their adherents so they’ll fit in better with their neighbors’ more orthodox beliefs and experience less cognitive dissonance.
I think that’s the oddest definition of “mainstream” I’ve ever heard. I agree with the dictionary:
By that definition, Mormonism is only mainstream in its more overt social aspects, and only that by avoiding and not teaching their more controversial doctrines. They certainly aren’t mainstream in their beliefs. Scientology certainly tried that tactic, but their secret doctrines achieved widespread notoriety anyway. That has not happened for some reason with Mormonism. Most people don’t seem as interested in the many wierdnesses of Mormonism outside of polygamy.
But Monty is pretty much always touchy when it comes to defending his rather bizarre religion :D, if perhaps not as touchy as most Scienos. I believe that the CoS and the LDS are too directly comparable in looniness if not in many other ways for Monty to take any criticism standing down (but I guess I can understand that).
Personally, I think comparing weird religions (or, if you prefer, religions that are widely thought to be weird) that managed to go “mainstream” with Scientology – a weird religion that hasn’t yet managed it – is valid and useful in this thread and is entirely relevant to the OP. And if a religion is “bashed” by discussing it’s doctrines, beliefs, and history, then what isn’t “bashing” a religion?
I guess we just need to trust you.
Seriously, though, no one has “equated” them.
Really? They can’t even be compared?
Here’s one point of comparison I mentioned earlier: Xenu flew through space to get humans to Sol/Earth in the CoS, while Earth flew through space to get humans to Sol in the LDS. I wonder if anyone can think of any other points of comparison…