In their beliefs, Scientology is perhaps no worse, etc. But in their behaviour, Scientology is a bunch of thugs. You can’t say that about Mormons as a group.
I’ve seen quite a few pairs of conservatively dressed young guys cycling through the streets for years. But they’ve never knocked on my door.
False. In order to become a full member of the church, one must be baptized and confirmed into it. There are no other requirements. I am a full member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have never gone on a mission. Missions are encouraged, but not required.
As a child I formed a friendship with a Catholic boy my age; my entire hardshell Southern Baptist family was appalled. Catholics bowed down before graven images and worshiped them. They served wine as a part of their church service and everyone knew that was just wrong; Christians didn’t drink alcohol. Back then, anyway, and if they did, it was because they had a cold or a weak heart or something; if they HAD to drink whiskey, they didn’t enjoy it. Catholics went to confession and everyone knew that only God could forgive sins. I think it was then that I began to seriously question everything related to religion; I liked that kid but couldn’t have him as a friend because he might lead me astray. Episcopalians were Catholic at heart, everyone knew that, and Methodists were sprinklers, not total immersionists, if that’s a word, and one had to be bathed in the blood of the lamb or one wasn’t saved and how could one be bathed without total immersion?
Yeah, I know what they think: Baptists are right; the rest of you poor benighted folk are doomed and we are glad of it.
This part always confuses me. What do Baptists teach about the last supper? Were they drinking grape juice? And Christ’s first miracle… didn’t he change water into wine? Or was that just grape juice, too? Was there some point in the development of “true” Christianity that drinking wine was discovered to be sinful? That is was OK before a certain point, but not after that point?
Thanks for the correction, Monty. I have no interest in spreading misconceptions. I don’t consider myself an expert on Mormonism, but I thought that this was basic enough information that I was safe in expounding it. Let me just :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: for the injury I have inflicted on the Straight Dope mission.
GQ-ish sort of hijack if you please:
Not defending Scientology (or any other religion), but just curious, exactly who is profitting from the $ being scammed by Scientology? Does someone “own” Scientology? If so, who? L. Ron’s estate? Is there a board of directors at the top like a closely held corporation? Is it run like a pyramid scam?
Because if no one is specifically profitting from it, and all the income is turned back into buildings, salaries, outreach, and the like - and that makes the believers/givers feel good - then I’m not sure that’s too different from many/most other religions.
“Immaculate conception” doesn’t refer to Jesus being Incarnated without the benefit of a mortal dude’s sperm; it refers to Mary’s conception (that is, the point at which her soul was created and infused into her body) without the stain of Original Sin on her soul. I would bet we’ve had whole threads in the past on this subject.
(Like a lot of former Catholics, I like to nitpick points of the mythology. I can’t really imagine what it would be like, as an adult otherwise capable of reason, to believe all that stuff is literally true.)
I lived in Utah for a year, surrounded by Mormons. Nice people, mostly; nobody ever tried to convert me.
My grandmother always maintained that the wine Christ created didn’t have alcohol in it, nor did any wine that might pass his lips. It might have been alcoholic when it was poured into his cup but it wasn’t when he drank it. I don’t know where she got all that. I don’t remember her saying anything about the wine the disciples drank but if Jesus was present, then it couldn’t have been “bad.”
I don’t know when Southern Baptists decided any and all alcoholic drinks were bad; I was taught that from the time my parents began to force me to attend Sunday school and church.
Oh, you can if you like. I think probably every missionary has that happen. Usually they’ll grin and offer to trade church meetings. They’re not supposed to get into Bible-bashing fights, but some do anyway.
I had one friend who served in the South, and a preacher asked them in to pray. He said a fairly inocuous prayer and when they said “Amen,” he decided that meant he had saved them!
I can only speak for fundie Presbyterians, but my parents truly believed that all references to wine in the bible were mistranslations or misconceptions. They used non-alchohol grape juice for communion.
If you start with the premise that “your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost,” then you wouldn’t want to do any harm to such a godly appendage. Therefore, wine isn’t wine at all.
Isn’t it amazing what flights of logic can be taken when belief is paramount?
I’m a drinking member of a non-drinking church. the Assemblies of God. Various explanations I’ve heard over the years-
JC & the early C’tians drank “new wine”, grape juice that had not yet fermented.
If it had fermented due to time passing, it was heavily diluted.
Since the miracle of Cana was, of course, a miracle, Jesus produced miraculous grape juice that delighted but not intoxicated the wedding guests. (Ever see the old movie THE BISHOP’S WIFE?)
Water was of dubious quality & wine was used to kill germs. Plus, they couldn’t keep juice very long without it fermenting. Since we have clean water & ways to preserve juice, we don’t have to drink alcohol.
Yes, it is amazing. You start with the answer, and then work your way back to the “facts”.
I am not endorsing the view. Just reporting it. The logic seems awfully tenuous to me.
Believe it or not, a lot of them do claim it was unfermented grape juice. Never mind that grape juice could not be pasteurized at the time and could not be prevented from fermenting almost immediately. Also never mind that we have plenty of documentation that wine meant wine.
Another explanation, with more historical validity, is that the wine people drank with meals or to quench thirst was usually watered down. Wine was a way to kill bacteria in water and make it more drinkable. Unwatered wine was consumed to get drunk. Those who favor the notion of a teetotaling savior can therefore argue that the wine Jesus made at Cana and distributed at the Last Supper was diluted, low alcohol table wine, not party wine.
[Steven Wright]
Hey, Jesus, willya quit turning the water into wine already? I’m trying to take a shower here!
[/Steven Wright]
I know I’m getting here a little late, but look at the history of the LDS.
The level of shit thrown at the Scientologists today is NOTHING compared to what the Mormons were given when they were a young faith. They are reasonably well regarded today only because we (as in more mainstream denominations) have mostly gotten used to them being around.
As you’ve probably noticed, there’s far from universal agreement on this.
And it’s not the sort of thing with a definitive answer - it really depends on one’s definitions.
We’ve watched Scientology being made up by a bunch of charlatans within living memory while the bunch of charlatans and madmen who concocted mormonism and the credulous people that sucked it up are safely behind the veil of history.
This leads to another question: in 100 years, will Scientology be a fringe-but-generally accepted religion, much like Mormonism is today? Will there be a handful of $cieno congresspeople, and amybe a candidate for president?
Wow, scary.