The Tom Cruise Scientology Video

I don’t know how long this video will be available, so catch it while you can…

Vodpod videos no longer available. from disembedded.wordpres posted with vodpod

 

 

If you’re wondering what the hecky-thump he’s talking about, then this article might help: Tom Cruise Scientology-Video Glossary: What Is He Talking About?

And make sure you watch “the other video Tom Cruise doesn’t want you to see” at To Try a New Sword on a Chance Wayfarer.

Curmudgeonly Yours

Fantasy Jesus

When I was a Mormon I had a great love for Jesus Christ as he was portrayed by my church and in the scriptures (even though my reading was biased by my belief, which I didn’t realise then, of course). Anyway, the other day I heard a Christmas carol being sung and I experienced a few brief moments of nostalgia for those warm happy feelings I used to have as a believer when I thought about Jesus.

As I considered this some more, I understood that the feelings I had once had about Jesus were based upon two things – my own desires and a very clever marketing campaign. I was more than happy to believe that Jesus loved me and sacrificed his life for me. I used to feel very emotional when I thought about this. Who wouldn’t want to believe that they were loved unconditionally and that someone thought they were special enough to suffer and die for? I thought about the words of the hymns I used to sing, and how they reinforced this image of Jesus as our loving Friend, the one who made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. I remembered the church talks and lessons I used to hear, where Jesus was constantly portrayed as this loving, compassionate, selfless person. How he blessed us with his grace, condescending to step down from the lofty heights of godhood to become one of us, so that he could understand our sorrows and help bear our burdens. If one believed everything that was taught about Jesus, it was impossible not to love him.

Of course, that was the whole idea. All the information available to us from Bible compilers and the religious leaders who interpret the scriptures according to their own belief agenda is highly selective and aimed at inducing feelings of love and gratitude towards the person designated our “saviour”. It’s a master class in selling – selling an idea, a dream, a personality.

My feelings about Jesus were not just influenced by the great marketing job carried out by my church and by the scriptures, of course. Probably the greatest contributor to the way I felt about him were my own perceptions and ideals. In a way, Jesus was like a famous celebrity that I had never met personally, but who I had heard enough about to believe that I did actually know him in a personal way. In his book – Breaking the Spell – Daniel Dennett tells of a TV programme that he once saw, in which young children asked what they knew about Queen Elizabeth II:

The answers were charming: the Queen wore her crown while she “hoovered” Buckingham Palace, sat on the throne when she watched telly, and in general behaved like a cross between Mum and the Queen of Hearts.

To these children, this was the way the Queen behaved. Not only her actions, but her very personality, may well have been vastly different from their imaginings, but this is how they saw her, and that is what they believed her to be. It’s the same for believers in Jesus. We get a picture of the kind of person he must be, based not only on what we have read, but how we have interpreted those stories and related them to our own experience, ideas and wishes built up over our lifetime.

The “Jesus” that I was so fond of may have been different from the “Jesus” that another Christian believed in. The way that Jesus is perceived and experienced must surely vary from individual to individual. Even those who knew him personally and spent a lot of time with him (supposing that the man we refer to as Jesus of Nazareth actually did exist), couldn’t know him definitively, any more than we know our partners or close friends completely. There is always going to be room for us to wrongly attribute certain characteristics, qualities, motives and emotions to other people, even those who we think we know well. How much more likely are we to have mistaken ideas about someone who we have never met and only have second hand accounts of at best?

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that I used to believe things about Jesus that made me feel warm and secure and loved, but they weren’t based on any kind of fact or even any intimate knowledge. That Jesus was a combination of advertising hype and my own personal desires. I believe this is the same for all believers. Gentle Jesus, Lamb of God, the Good Shepherd – all comforting images that simply reveal humankind’s own hopes and needs rather than offering any accurate insight into the person (real or mythical) at the centre of the Christian faith.

IslaSkye

Mitt Romney knows better

There’s a particular Mormon forum that I used to be a regular contributer to, for many, many years. I don’t post there now, as I’ve lost the sense of “belonging” that I had in the days when I was an active participant there. But occasionally, I will silently visit and read the words of those who I once had an affinity for, and this brings me to the reason for this entry.

Earlier today, I read the transcript of Mitt Romney’s speech, the link to which I had come across at the forum that I refer to, and a certain paragraph jumped out to me. Actually, there were more, but I want to say a few things about this one paragraph:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

I read that and immediately thought to myself, “Oh, come on, who are you trying to kid? Whose eyes are you trying to pull the wool over?” Of course, it’s quite obvious that he’s trying to appease certain Christians who find his brand of religiousness troubling. But seriously, as a practicing Mormon, the importance of willingly submitting to the words of church authorities will have been indelibly etched on his psyche, so I don’t believe for one minute that he’s capable of temporarily disentangling himself from a lifetime of Mormon indoctrination at the drop of a hat. If Romney is as devout as he appears, I doubt that he will be able to ignore his deep-rooted prejudices, his innate Mormonism.

So I just want to show how a “good” Mormon, like Romney, views the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although he says that they will never “exert influence on presidential decisions”, the church authorities, especially the prophet and President of the Church, wield a huge amount of power in the lives of Latter-day Saints. I hope to demonstrate this by referring to an address that’s very well-known in Mormon circles.

In 1980, Ezra Taft Benson, who was at the time a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave a talk called The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, which has since become a Mormon classic, where he explained that if a person hopes to be crowned with God’s glory in the hereafter then that person must follow the prophet. This “grand key” – as he called it – is chief in importance as it alone unlocks the door to the highest heaven and all the membership of the Church knows this, so there’s no getting around it. This talk encapsulates everything that orthodox Mormons – including Romney, if his profession to be a faithful church member is correct – believe about their prophets. So though Romney claims emphatically that he can ignore his firmly implanted beliefs when making crucial decisions, I very much doubt this, given the paramount significance of the prophet’s utterances in the lives of Latter-day Saints.

Benson says that “the prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything” (fundamental 1, emphasis mine) and follows that up by quoting from Mormon scripture:

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. [Doctrine & Covenants 21:4-6]

Did you hear what the Lord said about the words of the prophet? We are to “give heed unto all his words”–as if from the Lord’s “own mouth.”

Suppose the prophet makes an official declaration that runs counter to a presidential policy decision. How would Romney, as a Mormon, respond to this? Am I to seriously believe that he will choose to ignore the Lord’s mouthpiece and, in effect, ignore the Lord himself?

In his talk, Benson addresses this dilemma and answers it (fundamental 7):

The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Said President Harold B. Lee:

You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life…. Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow…. Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church. [in Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152-153)

How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.

So where’s the wriggle room for a professed faithful Mormon when it comes to choosing between obedience to the Lord’s anointed and political expediency?

In his speech, Romney suggests that its inappropriate for a spiritual leader to become involved in political matters, that their stewardship is solely “within the province of church affairs”. But Benson says (fundamental 5):

The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you’ll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

And he reinforces this concept later in his talk (fundamental 9):

The prophet can receive revelation on any matter–temporal or spiritual.

Said Brigham Young:

Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs…

In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, “Ye Elders of Israel…. will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the Kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?” Not one of them could do it….

I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be. [Journal of Discourses, 10:363-364]

The Mormon prophet is able to pontificate on any subject he feels inspired to speak about and it’s the duty of church members to “heed” his words and incorporate them into their everyday life, and even mindset. The prophet’s words will always be preeminent in relation to “earthly knowledge” or the wisdom of men.

When Romney says that the prophet’s authority “ends where the affairs of the nation begin” he’s pitting himself against Brigham Young who stated that no man should “point out the path a Prophet of God…or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things.” Of course, I don’t believe that Romney thinks he knows better than God’s chosen representative on earth, as that would belie his persona of being a good Mormon, so I can’t help but think that he’s deliberately being disingenuous by making such a statement.

In all, there are 14 fundamentals that Benson talks about – read the talk! – which give a correct impression of what all true blue Mormons believe. I hope the points I’ve brought out give a glimpse into how important the concept of obedience to higher authorities is within Mormondom. And as a former Latter-day Saint who found the prospect of being a latter-day ain’t more attractive, I understand completely the homage that members pay to those powerful men who sit in the highest quorums of the Church. This is why I find Romney’s statements utterly unbelievable.

To think that he would allow a lifetime’s worth of propaganda not to “exert influence” on him is a ludicrous idea, more so as he believes that his indoctrination is a good thing that will eventually lead him through the pearly gates. He would have been taught from a very young age to follow the prophet, and that that is where safety lies. It’s preached week in and week out at church and reinforced in the home. Not only are church authorities always exerting influence over him by virtue of what he’s been taught to accept as true from childhood onwards, Benson’s summary of what Mormons believe regarding their prophet explains what Romney’s attitude would really be if he was faced with a conflict between political necessity and the pronouncement of the man he upholds as God’s mouthpiece on earth.

Curmudgeonly Yours

Dave Allen on religion

Curmudgeonly Yours