Making Fun of Tom Cruise
I just watched the video of Tom Cruise talking about how Scientology has changed his life and how he is now responsible to change the world (with the theme song from “Mission Impossible” playing in the background).
Everyone jokes around about how Tom Cruise is, well, insane. But as I was watching this video, I felt uncomfortable piling on. No matter how strange, Scientology is his religion. Cruise fervently believes in his religion. What’s so funny about that? As the regular target of popular jokes and mild derision, we as Mormons should respect other people’s beliefs enough not to ridicule them. Sorry, Tom.
As strangely as Tom Cruise acts sometimes, I agree with you. His religious beliefs deserve to be respected. I do think however, that his intensity and personality tend to work against his cause, rather for it. There are many celebrities who believe strongly in their religion and they support it much more gracefully than he does his.
Comment by Barb — January 28, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Yeah I agree too ECS. He’s gotten odder and odder, but wasn’t that the whole point of the USA - you could believe what you want and be free from persecution?
I would hope that as a people who are often the butt of jokes and looked upon as being weird, we’d sympathise with him and defend his right to whatever religion he chooses.
Comment by Rebecca — January 28, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Except that Scientology is weird. In the immortal words of Bill Maher, “Mormons should be glad Scientology came along and made them the second weirdest religion.” Moroni has nothing on Xenu.
Comment by Ronan — January 28, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
i have no problem respecting tom cruise’s (or anyone’s) right to believe what they will, especially where religion is concerned. and while i’ve had my share of laughs over some of his antics, i agree that he should not be made the butt of jokes simply because of his religious beliefs.
that said, he has said some incredibly inflammatory things that deride others in destructive ways as a result of his beliefs. for instance, his comments about postpartum depression not being real, that there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance in the human body, and that people should not seek psychiatric help. it’s one thing to espouse certain beliefs; it’s one thing to be excited about them; it’s one thing to live by them in one’s own life; it’s one thing to want to share those beliefs. but to condemn others based on those beliefs and to insist that everyone subscribe to one’s own beliefs–and that if others do not do so, they are merely ignorantly misguided (if not worse)–that’s just wrong. i don’t care whether you’re an atheist or a mormon or a scientologist. and cruise (and anyone else) should be called on such behavior. if it happens in the form of humor, i’m perfectly fine with that.
Comment by amelia — January 28, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Bill Maher….HILARIOUS!
Comment by boysmom — January 28, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
. . . but to condemn others based on those beliefs and to insist that everyone subscribe to one’s own beliefs–and that if others do not do so, they are merely ignorantly misguided (if not worse)–that’s just wrong.
Then why does the LDS church condemn non-LDS homosexuals, and insist (by means of promoting legislation designed to persecute homosexuals and deny them equal civil rights) that everyone subscribe to LDS beliefs? When someone points this fact out, why do LDS members treat them as if they are merely ignorantly misguided, if not worse?
Comment by Nick Literski — January 28, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Can we still laugh at him jumping on Oprah’s couch? I’m pretty sure that was not Scientology ritual.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 28, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
I’ve seen this trope “His religious beliefs deserve to be respected” many times. My question is why? Why should religious beliefs, no matter how weird, or destructive, or sill be respected? Because they are beliefs? Or because religion is just so out there that we have to give it a pass. Or what?
Comment by C. Biden — January 28, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Decent question, Nick.
Last Lemming–see, I always thought that was just sorta sweet
Comment by Janet — January 28, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
I have to agree with Nick and C. Biden’s questions. Where is the line between our personal belief and how it affects others drawn? Sometimes it’s not as clear as we would like it to be. The NY Times had a photo essay a few weeks ago about female circumscion in Indonesia. While it was presented neutrally (at least to me) and very respectfully, it made me angry. I don’t know how you can look at the picture of a five-year-old girl terrified and crying and still manage to just say “those are there beliefs and I have no right to judge”. However, even after viewing that, I certainly didn’t go out and start hating on my Muslim neighbor. Hmm…
Comment by FoxyJ — January 28, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
I think Howard Stern said it best, all religions are pretty wacky if you remove your personal feelings from the situation.
An old man with white hair living in the sky? He loves us more than anything, but prepared a special place where some religions believe sinners will roast in agony for eternity? He chose to tell us ten important things by writing them on stone tablets?
That being said, Scientology is a little wackier than others, and some of the things I’ve read about them harassing ex members and family of current members is a little scary.
Comment by jjohnsen — January 28, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Wow - great questions, commenters!
Amelia- I certainly share your concerns about Tom Cruise pushing his beliefs on others, but I agree with Nick. Don’t we Mormons do that, too? I know I’ve sat in countless Relief Society and Sacrament Meetings where the speaker spends the majority of time telling the congregation how misguided other religions are (re: infant baptism, the trinity, etc.). This may not rise to the level of Cruise’s diatribe against Brooke Shields (which he apologized for), but it’s similar.
FoxyJ (awesome name, btw) - I guess I’d draw the line where children are physically harmed. ‘Course, the Western world circumcises their infant boys, so perhaps we need a more nuanced approach. That said, I think adults should be free to believe in anything they want to. Yes, Ronan, even Xenu.
Comment by ECS — January 28, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Janet - I thought the couch jumping was really sweet, too! Although the seduction of Katie Holmes _was_ a bit creepy…
Comment by ECS — January 28, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
There was a really long (not very favorable) article about scientology at time.com today. Here is a link:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865-1,00.html
Even as I read it I cringed a little every time they referred to Scientology as a cult. But you could write a similar negative article about almost any religion as a non-believer.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — January 28, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Yes, Scientology is a religion, but it’s a religion that had protesters outside of a Children’s Hospital protesting the use of medication in children. Children saw these attacks aimed at them. I was fine with Scientology until then.
Comment by anon — January 28, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
15. let’s be fair at least. The attacks were not directed at the children. They were directed at the people and technologies the protesters believed were hurting the children, a sign that they care about the kids. That isn’t to say seeing the protests weren’t at all troubling to the kids, but these “attacks” were certainly not aimed at the kids.
Comment by Stars — January 28, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
The topic of “freedom of religion” for me, is a VERY frustrating one. It seems that people are ignorant of the entire purpose of separation of church and state and fundamental civil rights to whorship or what they may.
The entire battle between governments and the pope have brought our history to the point of the American Revolution. the foudning fathers fought for a country that upheld fundmental civil liberties.
This country protects the right for us to whorship as we choose, but that doesn’t mean that we need not have an opinion on other peoples religion. We can think they are stupid, ignorant, controling, bad, or wonderful. That is the beauty of freedom. We don’t even need to respect each other. We can make fun of each other…..
My mother lived in Iran as a little girl. Her father was hired by the Shaw (sp?) to improve their engineering schools. One of the fellow proffessors had written a note on the back of an article about the sha, which contained a picture. He crumpled it up, threw it away, and was deported within 24 hours along with his family. Had he been a native, he would have been executed.
at least Tom Cruise is making decisions about what he believes. I may totally disagree with his choice, but aren’t any of you sick of the apathy of our country?
Comment by boysmom — January 28, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
I made fun of Tom way before he professed his belief in Scientology, can I still do it? It’s one thing to want to publicize the things you believe, but why wouldn’t Scientologists want to pick someone a bit less confrontational? Pres. Hinckley made great inroads in letting the media into the workings of the Church, but he did it without alienating great majorities of the population with glib commentary.
Plus, the guy, he bugs me…
Comment by McMommy — January 28, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
See, I have a question about this–I’m looking for clarification as this has come up in a recent conversation. Is it true that the church’s biggest beef is the issue of “marriage” and not so much equal rights? I’m not saying that the church is pro equal civil rights for all, but when the church has come out doctrinally and politically, has it been specifically more to do with the term “marriage?” I’ve heard it speculated the the reason the church has gotten involved in the issue could be to preserve the right to perform marriages in temples (if gay marriage were upheld legally, could it be enforced that temples must perform them or else not be able to perform any kind of legally-recognized marriage?). Anyone know?
Comment by Boquinha — January 28, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Boquinha, I had that conversation with my husband. He says that the government can’t interfere with temple marriages (otherwise, they could say we have to let anyone get married in the temple that wants to). But, I tend to wonder if the government would stop licensing churches to perform marriages if they refused to recognize all legal forms of marriage. I also have to put in my point on why I voted against gay marriage. I truley believe that God is condemns homosexuality. If I were to go to the polls and vote for gay marriage, I felt like I would be saying that I know better than God. I don’t have anything against homosexuals and have some great friends that are gay. I just can’t bring myself to vote for something that I believe is not approved by God. Had it passed, I don’t think I would’ve lost any sleep though.
Comment by Tonya — January 28, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Boquinha,
The issue of interfering with a religions ability to uphold its own preferences came up in boston after MA legalized gay marriages. A local catholic charity had been involved in adoptions for years. The catholic church does not currently condone or support same sex marriages.
Side Note: Legally… you cannot maintain a tax exempt status if your organization does not uphold all of the constitutional civil liberties. (ie the KKK is NOT tax exempt)
The catholic charity, either had to start placing adoptions with same sex couples or loose their tax exempt status. According to an article I read (Please if you can find it, that would be super helpful) this issue is worth 3 trillion dollars.
If same sex marriages were passed on the federal level, every organization (religions included) would either need to conform their practices (ie marriage ceremonies, adoptions…etc) so that they were not discriminating against anyone civil liberties.
This has caused lots of open minded liberals, that maybe do not personaly support same sex marriage, but want to support others their personal choices, to take a second look at the topic.
Comment by boysmom — January 28, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
sorry to clarify (long day)
the reason this is a 3 trillion dollar is that there are 3 trillion dollars that are currently tax exempt, that would be open to taxation if same sex marriage became federal law.
FYI. The catholic charity stops providing adoption assistance. Sad right?
Comment by boysmom — January 28, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
wow. there’s a LOT of confusion here with regard to the legal issues. I don’t have time at the moment to correct it all, but let me begin with this one: boysmom, I’m afraid you are simply incorrect about what happened in Boston. Catholic Charities (let alone the entire Catholic church) was *never* under risk of losing its tax exempt status. Never. What happened was that Catholic Charities was operating *as an outlet for the STATE OF MASS* and *in that respect alone* had to abide by the laws of MA which protect gay men and lesbians from discrimination. They had the choice: stop placing children *as a branch/service sector of the STATE OF MASS* or start abiding by the non-discrimination laws of the state. They chose the former. They NEVER stopped placing children for adoption; they were NEVER at risk of losing their tax exempt status. You have been sold a bill of goods by people using the worst sort of scare tactics.
Comment by anonlesbianlurker — January 28, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
ECS, once someone’s beliefs enter the public arena, should they really be beyond ridicule, or at least strong criticism? I’m thinking in particular of evangelizing religions like Scientology that play a zero-sum game of religious truth (and that often have the power to impact the lives of nonbelievers through their members’ influence on public policy).
I just reread my last paragraph, and maybe there’s a difference between ridicule and criticism (though this may be largely subjective). Still, I’m interested to hear your response.
Back to the video: I think that people find it off-putting not because of Scientology’s beliefs (which were not even overtly referenced), but because Cruise is not as polished or articulate as one would expect him to be. Maybe his presentation comes off as peculiar, not his doctrines. I posted a link to the video off my blog not to ridicule Tom Cruise, but because I’m angered at the litigious bullying the CoS uses to browbeat its critics into silence.
Comment by John Remy — January 28, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
As far as the gay marriage goes. Allowing gays to be married legally doesn’t mean the government can force our religion or any other to allow gay marriages. That would be up to the individual churches themselves. The gay marriage ammendment is refering to civil marriage. If the government did stop licensing churches that didn’t allow gay marriage it probably wouldn’t be that big of a deal. In some countries our church isn’t recognized as a religion and a temple marriage is not legally binding. Therefore mormons there usually have two ceremonies, a temple and a civil. If gay marriage were made legal I picture more of this scenario, where there is more of a line drawn beween religious and civil marriage. I personally don’t see it as a bad thing myself. God may have spoken out against homosexuality but he is also a strong proponant of free-agency.
As far as respecting Tom Cruise, he has every right to believe what he wants. As far as I know he hasn’t hurt anyone. People have the right to make fun of him too. On my mission, we were constanlty mistaken for scientologists. I think we are weird too and there are some very out-spoken zealots in any religion. People have the right to believe and speak out, but should also be prepared for disagreement and be strong enough to take the criticism.
Comment by Melissa — January 28, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
I’ve wondered the same thing. After all, in many countries, temple marriages aren’t recognized by the state since they are not open to the public. I actually think this would be a good thing if it were to happen in the US - having couples marry outside of the temple first and then be sealed afterwards. It would take away so much heartache for those whose families don’t have temple recommends.
Comment by Chelsea — January 28, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
God condemns homosexuality? So why the heck did he make some people homosexual? I realize a couple folks on this thread are drinking the old-school Mormon kool-aid where everyone’s hetero unless they engage in same sex (same gender) activities; which then makes them magically, by the powers of Satan, homo. Pay attention to recent counsel and realize gay activities are not required for “homosexuality.” The Church is slowely admitting that much. I wasn’t required to have sex with a female to be considered hetero. My preference made me hetero way before I ever got lucky with a 21 year old French model when I was 13.
I am disturbed that many Mormons feel the need to slam Scientology. The Bill Maher quote is dead on.
Comment by Carlton — January 28, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
MY two cents:
I don’t care what Tom Cruise’s religious preferences are… I do think he is a joke, though. I lost all respect for him when he interviewed with Matt Lauer and voiced his opinions about PPD. As I recall, he argued fervently that he is well versed in Psychology (while holding his Psychology resource book in hand) and claimed to know all about it.
I’m sorry, but just because Suzanne Sommers wrote a book about bio-medical hormone replacement, does NOT make her an expert on hormone therapy for women with menopause. I have to laugh at my mother for buying into the idea that Chrissy REALLY knows all about the various types of interventions available to women and what works best.
I feel the same way about Tom Cruise. He’s a high school drop out with celebrity status, with the mindset that because he is a celebrity, society at large should become one of his minnions.
Comment by hayngrl — January 28, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
I don’t like Tom Cruise because I think he’s a big ball of crazy. And he SOUNDS crazy in those videos. I had to turn it off because his voice made me want to tear my ears off just so that I didn’t have to listen to him.
I also think Scientology is scary. If the LDS church started going around and personally threatening everyone who posted negative things about them, bringing multiple lawsuits, trying to shut down any negative publicity by any means necessary, only then there might be a basis for comparison. I remember coming across a site called ScienTOMology and reading that website owner’s whacked out run-ins with the CoS.
But that doesn’t really have anything to do with the fact that Tom Cruise is certifiable.
Comment by Sariah — January 28, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
but to condemn others based on those beliefs and to insist that everyone subscribe to one’s own beliefs–and that if others do not do so, they are merely ignorantly misguided (if not worse)–that’s just wrong.
so, all other religions are NOT abominations after all?
Comment by chandelle — January 28, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
that should have had a
after it. 
Comment by chandelle — January 28, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
But the video wasn’t meant for the public arena…which is why Scientologists are mad about it.
When I watched the video I honestly, thought “um, what is the crazy/funny part again?” I could have said most of the things he said about my faith. I guess people find it interesting because you rarely see celebs be passionate about their faith.
I am generally squeamish about poking fun at Scientologists because most of the criticism thrown at them could be leveled at our church. I can imagine if we had a high profile Mormon celebrity who taped a testimony in which they said that the Mormon church is the one true church and the Book of Mormon is true, and Joseph Smith saw God, and then got all choked up, and cried, people would deride it as well.
As far as the argument that Scientology is just more creepy than Mormonism because how it treats apostates and such, check out any ex-mo website for the same charges.
Comment by Katie M. — January 28, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
“ECS, once someone’s beliefs enter the public arena, should they really be beyond ridicule, or at least strong criticism?”
That is a good question. I am wondering what the group thinks of the religious freedoms of say the Westboro Baptist Church. From Wikipedia we read
“The small church runs numerous websites such as GodHatesFags.com,[1] GodHatesAmerica.com and others expressing condemnation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBT), Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as populations it believes are supporting the forementioned groups, including Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, and Americans.”
Are they also to be respected because these are just their religious beliefs?
I always liked Alma’s teaching to Korihor. Believe what you want, but the second you start disrupting the common good with your beliefs, then all bets are off. It applied to us in the 1890’s with polygamy and it applies to Westboro and to some degree Tom Cruise now.
Comment by gilgamesh — January 28, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
One more thought - I do think there is a difference between respecting someones beliefs and tolerating them. I can tolerate Scientolgy, but I don’t have to respect it.
Comment by gilgamesh — January 28, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
I finally finished reading the article I pointed to in #14 that was in time.come today (about Scientology).
The claims in the article are pretty serious, likening CoS to organized crime with several examples of proof. This isn’t people saying they were fooled into believing something that they no longer believe or having social pressure to conform to doctrines. They are saying that their lives were threatened, their assets seized, and in some cases, they were ordered to kill or commit suicide. There is also serious question about tax exempt status.
So, it’s a far cry from the criticism our church receives. It also points out that celebrity endorsers essentially are treated very differently from the low-end “raw meat” members/victims, although the article claims that if they try to leave, they are blackmailed into not denouncing.
It’s not out of the question that time.com could publish something erroneous, but the article is worth a look.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — January 28, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
Tom’s celebrity and zeal is really asking for ridicule. Maybe if he wasn’t so damn intense about everything.
If the LDS had such a spokesman, I would expect the same. But as it is we’ve got some mostly low-key celebrity members. Why? I think a good number of Mormons know they’re peculiar/different/weird. The balance of laying low and at the same time not being “ashamed of the gospel”, is certainly a challenge for many people but especially Mormons. Who like’s to be mocked? Maybe Tom does.
Comment by cj douglass — January 29, 2008 @ 12:27 am
Scientology is a destructive cult started by a science fiction writer who said that the best way to make money is to start a religion. It’s a money making scheme with very disturbing and possibly illegal practices. Ever heard of Lisa McPherson? Did you see any of the stuff that happened in the past year to the BBC reporter that was running an investigation on it? Weird, creepy stuff.
So, basically, no. I’m not going to give it respect. I’m going to openly mock the obviously insane celebrities supporting it, only not too loudly, because I don’t want to be the next person stalked and harassed by crazy brainwashed people.
Besides, ECS, you wouldn’t sound anything like he did on that video. I expect that you would be coherent.
Comment by Firebyrd — January 29, 2008 @ 2:02 am
My opinion, personally, is that religions are not to be mocked. Freedom of religion is to be respected absolutely. I would never in a hundred years become a scientologist, but I’m not going to mock them, even if I disagree with them, even if I find their beliefs laughable.
A second thing was brought up in the comments about homosexuality. Personally, I think everyone, gay or straight, deserves full civil rights–including the right to marriage. For me this isn’t a religious matter at all, it’s a political matter. If we believe people are “created equal,” how can we justify treating them with inequality?
Comment by AYW — January 29, 2008 @ 2:53 am
I have a question about this–I’m looking for clarification as this has come up in a recent conversation. Is it true that the church’s biggest beef is the issue of “marriage” and not so much equal rights?
Since the 1970s the Salt Lake County DA’s office has had an official policy against discrimination in employment on the basis of gender or sexual identity (though that may have changed in recent years, it was going strong in the 80s).
The issue is very much about government intervention. Consider all the venues the Boy Scouts have been banned from or had intervention in.
While some people may think that is unlikely, or point to the resolution of a number of Boy Scout cases, it has shaped feeling. Recent cases involving the Catholics in Massachusetts, where the Catholic Church is very strong, have also raised similar concerns.
That said, it is of note that President Hinckley did remark that we would need to have civil unions. I’m not sure where that takes us or would have taken us, whether that was thought out or off the cuff, but it is an interesting point.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — January 29, 2008 @ 6:51 am
What was REALLY funny….
Comment by John Dehlin — January 29, 2008 @ 7:27 am
Ooops….here’s the link.
Comment by John Dehlin — January 29, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Oh yeah…and this.
Comment by John Dehlin — January 29, 2008 @ 7:33 am
Cute in love, crazy in love, or just crazy?
Comment by John Dehlin — January 29, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Even Jonathan Coulton got into the act…. (the song, the lyrics, the blog post, and the live video).
Does this count as piling on?
OK…I’ll stop now.
Comment by John Dehlin — January 29, 2008 @ 7:43 am
OK….one last one…this time from a lady (this is FMH…after all).
Comment by John Dehlin — January 29, 2008 @ 7:53 am
I think we need to be very careful in separating freedom of religion (meaning that people are free to practice and believe what they want, without interference from the state) and freedom from being mocked for those beliefs. The constitution does not guarantee that all beliefs or people are protected from criticism, only that they are afforded equal protection under our laws.
As a disaffected Mormon, I saw some pretty strong parallells between the Tom Cruise video and a typical Mormon testimony. I refrained from pointing these out to my husband, because as a believer he’s not likely to see it that way. But we’ve had more than one laugh over what a nut Tom Cruise is, and discussed the ridiculous claims of Scientology before, and I don’t feel like there’s anything wrong with this.
Comment by Cheeriogal — January 29, 2008 @ 8:08 am
You answered your own question
There _is_ a line between ridicule and criticism, but sometimes it’s hard to tell exactly where the line is until it has been crossed. It’s absolutely fair to, say, criticize Scientology for requiring members to devote substantial financial resources to their Church before they can achieve full membership status. I don’t think it’s fair, however, to say that people are crazy for believing in thetans or Xenu or the truth claims of the “E-Meter”.
I agree that Tom Cruise is overexuberant and borderline incoherent in the video. But as one commenter pointed out, this was an internal, copyrighted Scientology video that was disclosed to the press without authorization. I know that some of the internal videos or documents in the LDS religion, if disclosed, would lead to raised eyebrows and open the Church up to ridicule. We need to be careful how we treat other believers (and non-believers).
Finally, I appreciate the distinction between ridiculing Tom Cruise because of his strange personality and ridiculing him for his Scientologist beliefs, but the Scientology always seems to be thrown into the mix of his personality quirks as evidence that only crazy people believe in Scientology.
Oh, and I’d be happy to discuss the civil rights issue of gay marriage in the context of freedom of religion, but let’s save that discussion for another post (in the works).
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 8:08 am
That said, it is of note that President Hinckley did remark that we would need to have civil unions.
If that is true, he’s right in line with our remaining three democratic contenders for president.
Comment by cj douglass — January 29, 2008 @ 8:19 am
46:
How is this different than having to pay a full tithe in order to have a temple recommend?
45:As a disaffected Mormon, I saw some pretty strong parallells between the Tom Cruise video and a typical Mormon testimony.
I’m a practicing/believing member, and I saw this too. Honestly, I think any religion can look ridiculous from the outside. I don’t respect them all, there are a few I think are absolutely off their rockers, but it doesn’t feel right to me to openly mock them. It just hits too close to home, I guess.
Comment by Chelsea — January 29, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Sorry for messing up with the block quotes.
Comment by Chelsea — January 29, 2008 @ 8:54 am
I definitely think it’s a bit unfair for LDS to pile on Tom Cruise and Scientology. First, their beliefs would seem a lot less weird if they incorporated more traditionally Christian or religious terminology into their world-view. Mormons talk all the time about ideas that sounded outrageous when Cruise was describing them using esoteric acronyms.
We huff and puff about scientologists’ views on mental illness and their criticism of scientific psychiatry, yet some of our most prominent living leaders (BKP, for example) have made very dismissive comments about the physiological/medical nature of depression or the value of psychotherapy. Many LDS reject the science behind evolutionary theory and most LDS reject the APA’s position on homosexuality (although I’m trying not to get sucked into Nick’s threadjack). Those criticisms and rejections of established science are not taken as cultish because they are more popularly shared among other “properly” religious (read: conservative Christian) groups.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Just to expand a bit on my assertion in the previous comment “mormons talk all the time about ideas…” — I’m thinking common LDS folk beliefs about hordes of unseen beings trying to prevent people from attending temples; unseen devilish powers controlling water (a common explanation of the prohibition on missionary swimming); three undead Nephites secretly wandering around the world performing random acts of horticultural kindness. You give these various unseen beings unorthodox designations (Xenu) and film a group of overly-speculative missionaries discussing the critical, world-changing nature of the work they are engaged in, and you have a youtube clip roughly as “embarrassing” as Tom Cruise’s testimonial.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 10:02 am
#19:
Is it true that the church’s biggest beef is the issue of “marriage” and not so much equal rights?
Well, here’s the thing. First, the LDS church taught that homosexuals were sick people, who could only be forgiven if they experienced an entire change of sexual orientation (see Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness). Then the LDS church taught that orientation wasn’t a problem, but any sex outside of marriage was a problem. Then governments around the world began to realize that it was discriminatory to refuse marriage to same-sex couples, so the LDS church began to spend millions of dollars in an effort to deny equal civil rights (which includes marriage, despite your delineation) to homosexuals, because after all, if you allow gays to marry, and your argument has been “sex outside marriage is wrong,” then you have to acknowledge that their marital sex is okay. Right now, I know of a gay LDS member who is legally married to his husband. His stake president wanted to ex him, and the story became public news. The LDS church has entirely backed away from any action, presumably for PR reasons. Still, the LDS church’s official position is that they are against not only same-sex marriage, but any legal relationship between two persons of the same sex that might (in their words) “approximate” marriage. A few statements have seemed to soften this a bit, but not officially.
It also should not escape attention that the LDS church jumped on this bandwagon hand-in-hand with the same evangelical groups who consider the LDS church a non-christian cult. According to Mitt Romney, Hinckley actually had a meeting with Jerry Falwell, where they agreed to work together against an equality initiative in California. It’s a way to convince other so-called christian churches that the LDS are just like them, and should be welcomed by them.
I’m not saying that the church is pro equal civil rights for all, but when the church has come out doctrinally and politically, has it been specifically more to do with the term “marriage?”
No, the LDS church is officially against same-sex marrage and any legal structure that would “approximate” marriage. In other words, they are fighting any legal structure that might give a law-abiding, tax-paying gay couple the same legal rights as a straight couple.
I’ve heard it speculated the the reason the church has gotten involved in the issue could be to preserve the right to perform marriages in temples (if gay marriage were upheld legally, could it be enforced that temples must perform them or else not be able to perform any kind of legally-recognized marriage?).
There was a time when the LDS church was against marriage between persons of different races, also (well, unless it was “lamanite” to white, but that’s another story). The Supreme Court overturned laws against African Americans marrying caucasians, but certainly the government didn’t require any church to perform such marraige ceremonies. If the LDS church had persisted in this condemnation of different-race marriages, it would simply have continued not to perform them. The same is true for same-sex marriage. There’s simply no way the government is going to require any church to perform a marriage that is against its doctrine. Frankly, I don’t know a single homosexual person who wants any religious group to be required to perform same-sex marriages. We’re interested in equal civil rights, and that includes your right to practice your faith by refusing to perform certain kinds of marriage ceremonies.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 10:05 am
#20:
I don’t have anything against homosexuals and have some great friends that are gay.
Some of us are old enough to remember when people used to say, “I don’t have anything against blacks–some of my best friends are blacks!” These days, most of us recognize that as a cover for racism.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
#21:
Are you sure it was an issue of losing tax-exempt status? My understanding was that the Catholic adoption group was accepting federal funding, and that was why the government would require that they uphold civil rights. That’s just one reason why religions should never accept financial help from the government—it comes with strings, and government ends up controlling religion. (BTW, Hinckley recognized this, and said that the LDS church would NOT participate in Bush’s “faith based initiatives” program for that reason.)
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 10:11 am
#33:
That is a good question. I am wondering what the group thinks of the religious freedoms of say the Westboro Baptist Church.
I’m all for Westboro Baptist Church staging their protests! The more those people stage their obnoxious protests, the more normal, responsible people will learn to condemn and/or ridicule bigotry. Besides, I believe in a little document called the Constitution, and that means I protect the right of others to say things I don’t agree with.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Hey, Nick - thanks for answering these questions. Let’s save the same sex marriage discussion, however, for another post. Hope you and others interested in this topic will stop by then, too. Thanks!
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 10:22 am
#39:
That said, it is of note that President Hinckley did remark that we would need to have civil unions. I’m not sure where that takes us or would have taken us, whether that was thought out or off the cuff, but it is an interesting point.
Stephen, do you have a cite where Hinckley said that? Thanks!
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 10:23 am
No problem, ECS. Sorry if I monopolized.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 10:25 am
Hi, Nick-
No problem at all. For obvious reasons, however, I’d like to separate the discussion about marriage and gays from Tom Cruise and Scientology.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 10:29 am
I’m just hoping my previous comments (#51-52) don’t get buried under the litany of subsequent NL comments. I’d really like to get reactions from the discussants here.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Yup. But without the Mission Impossible soundtrack. I said this to a friend this morning - Mormons think they’re perfectly normal for believing in things like golden plates and “Reformed Egyptian”, but that other religions are obviously false for believing in silly things like transubstantiation.
Pot? Meet Kettle.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 10:50 am
Ok, I’ll take the bait Brad. I think you’re wrong. The crazy part of the Cruise video, and the part I see getting the overwhelming bulk of the outright ridicule has nothing to do with Xenu or any other scientology belief or practice (does he even mention Xenu? I didn’t hear it if he did). On the contrary, it has everything to do with Tom’s oddball demeanor and bizarre means of expression, which cries out for ridicule. And by the way, this is not a new thing for Tom. He was equally strange and incoherent with Oprah, where it was chalked up to being “in love.” What’s his excuse this time? Bad editing? Drugs or alcohol? Religious rapture? Without one of these excuses, the only possible explanation is that he’s lost his mind, because his means of expression makes no sense, at least to people from this planet.
Comment by MCQ — January 29, 2008 @ 10:57 am
FWIW, I have never heard a Mormon say that, and I would never say such a stupid thing. It’s certainly true that, taken in isolation, all religious beliefs, including the resurrection and atonement, sound absolutely nuts. But I don’t see Tom being ridiculed for particular religious beliefs, as much as for just behaving like a complete loon.
Comment by MCQ — January 29, 2008 @ 11:03 am
Here’s the transcript to the video.
Perhaps if you knew the Scientology lingo, Cruise would have been more coherent to you. Again, keep in mind this video is a copyrighted internal production by the Scientologists. Plenty of people cry and carry on when they bear their Mormon testimonies. Cruise is bearing his testimony about Scientology.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 11:03 am
MCQ - I’ve never heard anyone say the word “transubstantiation”, but I have heard people say things like “Do you know the Catholics believe that their sacrament is Christ’s literal body. How weird is that?” I’ve heard, frequently, similar statements about other religions’ misguided beliefs.
Language like the “great and abominable Church” a.ka. “whore of all the earth” isn’t exactly a paragon of religious toleration, either./p>
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 11:07 am
MCQ,
If you really think that scientology has nothing to do with people’s ridicule of TC — that it can all be reduced to his demeanor — then we’re talking past eachother.
To me, he seems like a genuinely good, likeable, if occasionally idiosyncratic guy with beliefs that I don’t share and that are (a little) farther out of the mainstream than mine. His demeanor has only been ridiculed since he’s started to wear elements of his beliefs on his sleeves. His sometimes erratic speaking style and proneness to loud laughter may be slightly atypical, but are by no means crazy and have never been treated as such before he became inextricably linked with scientology.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 11:19 am
Mormons do and believe plenty of things that would seem certifiably insane if scientologists did them: participation in esoteric private rituals that involve passwords, secret signs, and handshakes; wearing special underwear with special markings that we believe protects us from the evil power of very real evil beings; forbidding our missionaries from swimming; refusing to drink tea; believing that resurrected proto-Native Americans delivered gold books to a dirt farmer in upstate new york who then ascertained their translation by burying his head in a hat and reading a “seer stone.”
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Amen, Brad Kramer.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 11:25 am
For obvious reasons, however, I’d like to separate the discussion about marriage and gays from Tom Cruise and Scientology.
Wow….you obviously don’t watch South Park do you? (Okay, okay…I’ll stop, but I couldn’t resist!!)
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 11:32 am
i have been in multiple meetings where the speaker/teacher never quite crossed into mockery of other religion’s tenets, but certainly put more emphasis on “disproving” them than was necessary. i vividly remember being an idiotic teenager and, after visiting a friend’s church engaging in a little too much imitation of the pastor. i was rightly called on the carpet for it and that has been a lesson in humility to me for all my life since.
Tom may be nuts, but i won’t make fun of him for it. There’s so much anti-Scientology crap out there that it would be impossible for me to truthfully know if it really is a dangerous organization or not. i can’t possibly sift through it all. HOWEVER, if it really is a semi-criminal enterprise, what better way to protect itself then by being a religion? they certainly wouldn’t be the first example.
Comment by colleen — January 29, 2008 @ 11:36 am
LOL, Nick. That’s EXACTLY why I made that comment. Glad someone picked up on it
The South Park episode about Guitar Hero is my absolute favorite.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Yet another argument for why church organizations should be subject to all neutral laws of general applicability.
Comment by ECS — January 29, 2008 @ 11:45 am
The multiple videos on U Tube ridiculing Tom Cruise are cut and paste edit jobs. The point of them is to make something funny out of something more serious. It is only by taking his comments and actions completely out of context that he looks the way described comment #64 “But I don’t see Tom being ridiculed for particular religious beliefs, as much as for just behaving like a complete loon.”
If some unknown Scientologist has been the subject in the original video no one would have bothered. He is being ridiculed because he is a celebrity. As awful as that may be it goes with the territory. In context what he says and does would make sense.
However, the Scientologist’s claim that they can cure mental illness does a disservice to thousands of people who suffer to the extent that their lives as contributing, accepted members of society is tenuous at best. If the Scientologists actually have proven therapeutic methods that will help these people live normal lives then these therapies should be made available for testing and evaluating as well as for use by the broader community. Unfortunately this is not happening. So I can only conclude that they are not the benevolent people who want to help people that they claim.
Comment by Claudia — January 29, 2008 @ 11:50 am
I think the reason that Tom Cruise appears so over the top is that he appears to cross the line from fervent believer into fanaticism. It’s one thing to think that your religion does good. It’s another thing to think that if someone was in a car accident, you are the only one who can help. (Although I am very comforted any time I drive the streets of Clearwater, Scientology’s spiritual headquarters , and the city in which I live, that should I find myself in a car accident with a Scientologist nearby, I’ll be all right.
)
Comment by dpc — January 29, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
I used to have a little more respect for Scientology as a religion. Then I moved into my current house and started receiving their advertisements for the former resident who had apparently worked with them in the past. Now I think of them more as a business.
Rather than a church which tithes its members, it seems more like a school where one pays tuition in exchange for knowledge. Or a copyrighted system of health that you can learn, but not share. If you are interested in finding out more about Scientology you can, but you need to pay for the privilege. The cheapest way to get the info is to just check out copies of Hubbard’s works, but they don’t really explain the church/system of treatment.
It would be as if we charged to meet with the missionaries or attend meetings. (I think people in our faith can learn the entire gospel without a $150 set of sriptures or Know Your Religion/EFY type events.)
I have read the wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology ) and various other free information, but they smell strongly of anti-literature. It’s hard to know how much is fact twisting and how much is what they really believe. And as the TC video shows the church gets pretty upset when people find out for free.
(And I do have to say regarding Tom, Katie and baby–man, they are beautiful people!)
Comment by Jami — January 29, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
After reading the transcript I did see some points where, yes, he did sound like some of the more fervent, less articulate members that get up on Fast Sunday and proceed to make everyone feel uncomfortable with a mixture of gospel and fantasy that they feel is gospel. Of course, we don’t make those people the spokespeople for our church. I don’t think that they are doing themselves a service by allowing someone so confrontational and inarticulate to form public opinion about their church.
Claudia, that is exactly my problem with Scientology as well.
Comment by McMommy — January 29, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Claudia said:
“However, the Scientologist’s claim that they can cure mental illness does a disservice to thousands of people who suffer to the extent that their lives as contributing, accepted members of society is tenuous at best.”
You are sounding suspiciously like a Suppressive Person.
Comment by dpc — January 29, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
I haven’t read the comments but Amen to this post
Comment by Emily Jane — January 29, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
I totally disagree. His jumping on the couch and laughing hysterically about his love for Katie was, in fact, ridiculed and treated as crazy and had nothing to do with Scientology.
Comment by MCQ — January 29, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
ECS - I’m so glad you wrote this post, because last week or whenever it was that this video came out, I had pretty much the same reaction. I kept thinking that this video was an example of a sort of inverse Scientology Rule.
If Tom were a Mormon saying pretty much the same thing, with the same fervor, it wouldn’t seem “psychotic” or all that insane. Have you read the hateful comments that go along with the video? Have you met a missionary who’s really excited? I agree with Brad on a lot of his points.
I have no personal respect for Scientology per se, (let’s face it - the stuff that’s printed about them makes them seem really evil), but if the shoe were on the other foot, I don’t think there’d be that much to fault him for. You know that part when he’s saying things like, “you know that you’re the only one who can help that person…” And I’m thinking that it sounds very close to someone in F&T saying, “And I know the church is true and I felt the spirit guiding me.”
Incidentally, I love hearing testimonies and I’m a practicing member of the church. I just don’t think Tom Cruise sounded all that nuts. Just excited about his beliefs.
Comment by meems — January 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Celebrities are in the spotlight. They are going to be ridiculed and mocked by the people that don’t like them. This is true no matter what they believe. I think that most of them have thick enough skin to deal with it. Honestly, does Tom Cruise really care about the whole jumping on the couch thing? I doubt it. Does he really care that some people think he’s kind of a nut with the Scientology stuff? I doubt it.
I don’t believe religion should be mocked and think that people should be more tolerant. That being said, I don’t think that you have to believe in or necessarily respect something just because it flies out a celebrity mouth.
Honestly, I’m tired of celebrities using their status to throw around what they think everyone else should believe. I can’t watch award shows or talk shows if the celeb up there starts ranting about something that is THIER. It’s embarrassing to think that there are people out there who can’t form their OWN opinions on something without having to back it up with a celeb.
TC bothers me because he is so arrogant. Talk about respecting others beliefs? Show me some respect for PPD and I’ll show you some back.
Interesting discussion though.
Comment by Julia — January 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
The money paid for Scientology is /not/ equivalent to tithing. You can be a member of the church, even a member in good standing, without paying tithing. Tithing is also based on honesty. You can claim to be paying a full tithe even if you are not. You do not have to pay tithing to be ordained to the priesthood or receive leadership positions. Scientology, on the other hand, has set prices for various classes to raise you up in the religion, prices that increase the farther up you go.
Also, it’s not just the lingo that makes TC incoherent. It’s that he does things like stop in the middle of sentences and says ridiculous things like he’s the only one that can help in x situation.
The BBC’s documentary is available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-126281853779690652 .
Yes, a lot of the stuff we believe in sounds weird without context, but trying to compare the LDS faith with scientology is just…blech. When was the last time a prophet taught us to attack unbelievers by announcing that they are child molesters and other harassment?
Comment by Firebyrd — January 29, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
in response to nick (#6), who asks:
i believe the church is mistaken in doing so. and i believe LDS members who insist that others live by their beliefs and standards are wrong for doing so. just as wrong as cruise is for the same behavior on different issues.
Comment by amelia — January 29, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Fyrebird,
I’m not making a substantive comparison. I’m trying to demonstrate formal similarities from an outside perspective. I’m not certain, but I’d imagine that the beliefs and practices of scientology seem far less weird to scientologists than to Mormons. Similarly, our religion is inscrutably weird to outsiders and we should be mindful of that before casting aspersions from the outside onto others.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
I don’t agree with that. Tom Cruise has been a spokesperson for Scientology for many, many years and his public image had always been a very positive one. He was regularly one of the highest grossing Hollywood stars.
The reason Tom Cruise is attacked as being crazy now is because before he started dating Katie Holmes, he fired his longstanding publicity team. You know, the people who kept him in check and didn’t let him act like a lunatic. He hired his sister to be his publicist, and he got to do whatever he wanted. Hence, the craziness began.
Then he finally realized what had happened to his carefully cultivated public image (i.e., he had totally demolished it), so he hired a new publicity team. But the damage was already done. I don’t think people will ever take him seriously again.
I think he is beyond arrogant. His attack on Matt Lauer for being “glib” and claiming that he (Tom) knew more about psychology than, you know, people who went to school for years to study it, just irritated me and his claim to having any knowledge whatsoever on how PPD should be treated is just infuriating. I’m very glad Brooke Shields managed to take him down a peg or two on that particular issue.
Comment by Sariah — January 29, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Brad Kramer said:
“Similarly, our religion is inscrutably weird to outsiders and we should be mindful of that before casting aspersions from the outside onto others.”
But that also shouldn’t stop us from evaluating religious actions. The fact that the Thuggees believed that killing people would set the arrival of Kali back by a thousand years doesn’t mean that I can ‘t turn a blind eye out of worry of casting aspersions onto others
Comment by dpc — January 29, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
from what i’ve read, the rendition of scientology that the celebrities experience varies CONSIDERABLY from that which the rank and file are exposed to. they’ve customized the religion to appeal to the hollywood set as a PR tool. the money, luxury, perks and benefits of belonging to the “upper echelon” of scientology is markedly different than the dark underbelly of scientology, which is saved for people who are born in it and want to get away from it. this is one HUGE difference between scientology and mormonism.
of course my sources are just some articles written by “nobodies” who wanted out from the clutches of the organization. after reading their stories, i undertook a little research project to try and learn more via more reputable sites (wikkipedia, books, etc). what i found is that while most have just a regular “church” kind of experience with scientology, there are many people who have had really scary, horiffic things happen to them. the international face of scientology is quite frightening: bounties have been placed on the heads of some individuals who tried to leave…to bring them back dead or alive.
from everything i’ve read, there are three renditions of scientology: the vanilla version that most members are exposed to, the decidedly scary, weird, decidedly cultish place that is a reality for others, and then the special hollywood face of the religion…which is reserved for big-name stars like john t and tom c to keep their public image up.
Comment by justsayin' — January 29, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
The South Park episode about Guitar Hero is my absolute favorite.
WOW! I LOVE THAT SONG! (clap, clap….)
Comment by Nick Literski — January 29, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
I just watched the BBC Panorama vid that Firebyrd linked to…it’s an excellent peek into Scientology for any interested parties.
Comment by Blue — January 29, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Definitely a classic!
Comment by Chelsea — January 29, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about:
That is just gibberish. It’s cukoo for cocoa puffs. And it has nothing to do with Scientology. It would be equally crazy no matter what religion Tom was.
Comment by MCQ — January 29, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
How do you expect the average LDS would respond if Matt Lauer told them the position of the ASA on homosexuality? The vigor or obnoxiousness of the claim that, based upon knowledge we have received from divine sources, we know more than the ASA would likely depend on the personal disposition of the person asked. If this is really just an argument about Tom Cruise having an obnoxious personality, seems like a colossall waste of time.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
I think it speaks loads for the ‘hold’ Scientology has on others when you consider that Nichole Kidman has said basically nothing about her divorce from Cruise.
I think she fears what would be done to her or her relationship w/ her kids.
Comment by me — January 29, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
er, APA
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
94, or she just wants the details of her divorce kept private. The Church’s reason for not granting public access to B Young’s divorce proceedings might be that they’re hiding something hideous and damning. Or, it might just be that they respect the privacy and dignity of those involved. Can’t know for sure, but I suspect that maintaining an amicable relationship with the father of her children might be a more plausible reason for not publicly airing dirty laundry than fear of a vengeful cult.
Comment by Brad Kramer — January 29, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Brad, that’s just idiotic. The average LDS person is not going to get into an argument with Matt Lauer on something like that. We don’t claim revelation on that issue. (If you do, maybe you could point it out to me). We are neither vigorous nor obnoxious on that issue, or at least no one I know is (escept, I guess, YOU).
You seem incredibly determined that the issue with Tom MUST be about his religion (cause anything else is just a darn waste of your time). Well, sorry to waste your time, but most people I have heard making fun of Tom couldn’t give a rat’s ass what religion he is. He’s just non-denominational nuts. But you go right on stomping your little foot and demanding that it be about religion.
Comment by MCQ — January 29, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
Still think Scientology is just an innocent, nice little religion we should be holding hands and singing “Kum-bai-yah” with? Check out this link, a court transcript with a woman under oath describing how Scientology forces their Sea Org women to have abortions:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/aff_mt.html
I really, really think that Scientology is a definite case of there not being smoke without a fire. There is nasty stuff going on there. No one responded to my mentioning Lisa McPherson or her suspicious death, I noticed.
Comment by Firebyrd — January 29, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
Scientology is a little wacky, but my main issue with Tom Cruise is he’s overrated and I don’t think he’s a very good actor. That’s all. He bugs me.
Comment by Jessica — January 30, 2008 @ 2:35 am
Hey, MCQ! Be nice.
Comment by ECS — January 30, 2008 @ 7:19 am
#98, It’s on the internets, it must be true!
Comment by Carlton — January 30, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
#97: “Non-denominational nuts” - I think I met some of them on my mission!
#82: I wasn’t saying that Scientology’s financial demands are the same as tithing, I was saying that they could appear this way to an outsider.
Comment by Chelsea — January 30, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
It is also good to remember that Tom has a camera in his face all the time. Think how scary it would be if you had a camera catching everything you have said while in a passion and then publishing it for all to see. If someone were to record all the things I’ve said in relation to my personal beliefs and testimony I would very possibly come off as insane and prejudiced, and judgemental. But that is because I often speak my thoughts before the thoughts are totally formed and finished. I’m just lucky that I’m not rich and famous.
Does Tom come off as over-the-top, insensitive, wrong, brainwashed, egotistical? Sure he does. Does he get paid enough money to make up for the fact that he is a public figure and therefore open to public scrutiny? Sure. Does it behoove us, as knowledgeable members, to refrain from mocking another? You bet it does. Discuss it, disagree with it, chuckle at it as a first reaction, but don’t mock. It is unbecoming to anyone.
Comment by Liz — January 31, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Also, and I’m not saying that I know enough about Scientology to say that it isn’t harboring some dark secrets, BUT… I have read many things by people who have left the Mormon church that make us sound like an evil, abusive, hellish cult. While my family was born and raised in the church, my sister left the church at 16. She is now willing to believe her friends when they tell her that there are nasty dark things that happen in the temple, and we can’t convince her that it is all rubbish. So just be wary about what you are ready to believe about other religions.
Comment by Liz — January 31, 2008 @ 10:47 am
[…] just read the post on fMh about the Tom Cruise Scientology video that I mentioned in The Xenu Files. It’s interesting how many people there are unwilling to […]
Pingback by Green Oasis » Your Fly Is Down — February 1, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Quote by ECS:
Hey, MCQ! Be nice.
Comment by ECS — January 30, 2008
Ummm, where were you when I was accused of ‘dancing on the graves of babies?
Comment by me — February 3, 2008 @ 10:50 pm