Join 3,423 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Mormon Heaven, Mormon Hell, Mormon Underwear?
July 24, 2002 9:51 AM   Subscribe

Mormon Heaven, Mormon Hell, Mormon Underwear?
posted by interrobang (74 comments total)

 
Oh man, Mormon underwear. That's a hoot. I heard a story once of a Mormon in Montana (I think it was Montana, anyway, I like semi-alliterative phrases) who said that he was kidnapped by a woman who then tied him to a bed and attempted to have 'relations'. He claimed his holy underwear saved him (from sex).
posted by insomnyuk at 9:58 AM on July 24, 2002


you forgot this Mormon.
posted by jasonspaceman at 10:01 AM on July 24, 2002


You exceeded the maximum allowable number of links within one sentence. You are hereby warned.
posted by xmutex at 10:09 AM on July 24, 2002


Queer Mormons
posted by mediareport at 10:10 AM on July 24, 2002


Mormon Movies

[Interrobang, you like-a the Memepool, no?]
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:38 AM on July 24, 2002


Whats so annoying about Mormonism and Scientology is that we know they are bullshit, since they were derived in modern times. I wonder if most mormons really belive the Isrealites settled in america?

Bleh, I wish it was possible for athests to (honestly) start their own religion. It seems like it would be fun (and profitable too!)
posted by delmoi at 10:40 AM on July 24, 2002


Whats so annoying about Mormonism and Scientology is that we know they are bullshit, since they were derived in modern times.

What does the one (knowing they are bullshit) have to do with the other (they were derived in modern times)?
posted by biscotti at 10:53 AM on July 24, 2002


biscotti: did you read this?
posted by interrobang at 10:56 AM on July 24, 2002


Whats so annoying about Mormonism and Scientology is that we know they are bullshit, since they were derived in modern times.

This is a joke right? Age does not make truth.
posted by skallas at 10:59 AM on July 24, 2002


But it does wonders for cloaking falsehood.
posted by badstone at 11:04 AM on July 24, 2002


Christian underwear. As an aside.
posted by transient at 11:13 AM on July 24, 2002


interrobang: thanks, I know at least some of the history of Mormonism, and I recognize that recorded history can debunk some of their claims. But I interpreted delmoi's statement to mean that a religion's being derived in modern times made it bullshit, which is why I was asking for clarification. I don't see that Mormonism as a whole is any more or less "bullshit" than any other religion merely because some of their accepted doctrine is provably wrong (since this is true of most/all religions of any age anyway).
posted by biscotti at 11:15 AM on July 24, 2002


But it does wonders for cloaking falsehood.

::: gives badstone a prize :::
posted by rushmc at 11:16 AM on July 24, 2002


biscotti: I figured that delmoi was talking about how we don't have any evidence that Some Guys got together in 200 CE and said: "hey, let's invent christianity!" But we do have Joseph Smith's faked hieroglyphs, and L. Ron Hubbard's notebooks.
posted by interrobang at 11:21 AM on July 24, 2002


for those recovering mormons, there is help to be found.

not sure what spawned the Mormon Mad post, but it is Pioneer Day in Utah today. here's how to make yours memorable:

Pioneer Day Food
Butter
Zip Lock Ice Cream
Brigham's Doughnuts
Honey Candy (taffy)

Pioneer Day Crafts
Pioneer Cabins
Corn Husk Dolls
Handkerchief Dolls

Pioneer Day Games
Three Legged Race
Button Spinner
Stick Pulling
Sack Race
Wheelbarrow Racing
Tug of War
Marbles
Horse Shoes
posted by witchstone at 11:22 AM on July 24, 2002


interrobang's fourth link reminds me of my favorite Mormong joke:

Where do fat Mormons go when they die?

To the Cholesterol Kingdom.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:23 AM on July 24, 2002


Mormon, of course. Mormong is something else entirely.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:23 AM on July 24, 2002


transient, your underwear reminded me of the chorus,
" lay your hands on me " - bonjovi
posted by thomcatspike at 11:26 AM on July 24, 2002


HMM Why is it the wacky religion has the hot women?

Seen them mormon girls. I live in the biggest population of mormons outside of utah, the east valley suburbs of phoenix.

BTW If i started a religion, what better fund raiser then to make them buy your underwear.. ok i am ranting less booze more coffee...
posted by crackheadmatt at 11:26 AM on July 24, 2002


biscotti: did you read this?
posted by interrobang at 10:56 AM PST on July 24


Interrobang, atheists.org isn't exactly an objective source & doesn't really hold up as a reason to debunk anyone's belief system. Besides, I can't find anything on the "Mormongism" crash mentioned.
posted by whatnot at 11:30 AM on July 24, 2002


Whats so annoying about Mormonism and Scientology is that we know they are bullshit, since they were derived in modern times.

They are bullshit because they are religions not because they are modern.
posted by plaino at 11:36 AM on July 24, 2002


Islam is a stupid piece of crap as well, and all the people who follow it are worthy of derision. Same goes for Tibetan Buddhism and African Tribal Spirituality. Stupid and bullshit.

Right? Right?
posted by evanizer at 11:44 AM on July 24, 2002


"Islam is a stupid piece of crap as well, and all the people who follow it are worthy of derision. Same goes for Tibetan
Buddhism and African Tribal Spirituality. Stupid and bullshit.

Right? Right?"

Yes.Ë?
posted by interrobang at 11:46 AM on July 24, 2002


Mormon Humor

And they're called garments by the way. And you can only take them off for the three S's. Showering, swimming, and the other one.
posted by euphorb at 11:52 AM on July 24, 2002


Pooping.

For the naughty "s" you just pull them aside.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:58 AM on July 24, 2002


Brigham's Doughnuts

That's just...no.
posted by rushmc at 12:00 PM on July 24, 2002


evanizer, I'm sure your intention is to force some people into seeing the issue from a different perspective, but I'm pretty sure most people around here are pretty much just going to agree.
posted by Doug at 12:05 PM on July 24, 2002


Welcome to the Mormon Zone-Jokes,News,Games and fun for the LDS Community

I love these kinds of sites: here is where you get the real human face of a religion. Does anyone know if such a thing exists for Scientology?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:05 PM on July 24, 2002


evanizer,

The problem isn't knee-jerk anti-religious backlash, as you suggest with your little bit of satire its that all religion is groundless, but grounded on faith - belief without proof. To raise a few above others is ridiculous. To expect people who do not think faith is a good idea to respect every religious uttering is nonsense.
posted by skallas at 12:08 PM on July 24, 2002


its that all religion is groundless, but grounded on faith - belief without proof.

I would add that religion is the pre-packaging of faith.

The ability to hold a belief is a strength. Succumbing to a pre-digested McFaith designed by others is a weakness. I don't espouse a life without faith; but, a belief system based on anything other than one's own thought processes and self-examination is not real faith. It's manufactured or ..."bullshit" as has been said already in this thread.
posted by plaino at 12:21 PM on July 24, 2002


"Does anyone know if such a thing exists for Scientology?"

[Agent K]: No sir, we at Scientology do not have a sense of humor we're aware of.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:21 PM on July 24, 2002


skallas, Rock On. Exactly, and much nicer than i tend to phrase it.
posted by th3ph17 at 12:21 PM on July 24, 2002


"Does anyone know if such a thing exists for Scientology?"

[Agent Krash_Davis]: No sir, we at Scientology do not have a sense of humor we're aware of.


Guess I'll have to make up my own. Hmmm...

Q: What's Ron's favorite type of consomme?

A: Clear!

Ha ha hah... okay, maybe not.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:27 PM on July 24, 2002


pinkstainlesstail: this may interest you

"you might be a mormon if" (ripped off of "you might be a redneck" that jeff foxworthy did, of course). a lot of the stuff is in-jokes, but if you've known any mormons and/or utahns, you might find it amusing.
posted by witchstone at 12:30 PM on July 24, 2002


So then you all have no faith in anything? Nothing at all? Not the anti-globilization movement, or democracy, or Shakespeare, or science? That's...scary.

And it's also bogus. My point that there is a yawning, gaping double standard around here still stands- and it pisses me off. Most everyone is just as indoctrinated to a set of beliefs (or non beliefs) as these Mormons are. You just refuse to either see it or admit it. Make fun of the Mormons all you want (my family, on the paternal side, is Mormon, and my direct paternal ancestor was one of Joseph Smith's right-hand men, so I am more qualified than most people here to make jokes) but don't be affronted and sanctimonious if someone else decides to skewer one of the great sacred cows of Metafilter. If you contend you have no faith, I expect you to be consistent.
posted by evanizer at 12:31 PM on July 24, 2002


So then you all have no faith in anything? Nothing at all? Not the anti-globilization movement, or democracy, or Shakespeare, or science? That's...scary.

No that's a lousy argument. Religious faith is not the same as activism, ideals, and movements. Purposely misusing the word isn't convicing. In a religious context faith would be:

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2)

What you're doing is trying to do is avoid the issue that religion is truly groundless and make some kind of straw man regarding non-religious events/ideals like democracy in an effort to validate and equate secularism with religion.

Nor is science based on faith, but it does have its core assumptions. Its one thing to assume that casuality exists and to avoid solipsism and another to fully subscribe to some religious cosmology. Call me crazy, but playing around with semantics and claiming the other guy is just as bad as you are isn't convincing and it shows desperation on your part.

but don't be affronted and sanctimonious if someone else decides to skewer one of the great sacred cows of Metafilter.

Yeah, you're a real rebel. With reasoning like this you could topple Metafilter!
posted by skallas at 12:45 PM on July 24, 2002


I know I haven't posted in a while, but has African Tribal Spirituality actually become a big movement on the ol' mefi?
posted by Doug at 12:52 PM on July 24, 2002


don't be affronted and sanctimonious if someone else decides to skewer one of the great sacred cows of Metafilter

Is Metafilter now a religion? Can I be a priestess because that sounds pretty sexy.
posted by Summer at 12:53 PM on July 24, 2002


transient: A thousand thank you's. I've been looking for a gift for someone and the evange-lingerie is *perfect.*

evanizer: Understanding the usefulness of the scientific method is not necessarily the same as blind "faith in science" (side note: there's a plausible case for the idea that Buddhism isn't quite a religion).

Oh, yeah: Jewish underwear
posted by mediareport at 12:57 PM on July 24, 2002


Nice try, evanizer, conflating the casual use of "faith" to mean "belief" with its religious use. There's no double standard, just two properly different standards, one for substantiated belief in real things, another for willful abandonment of reason and acceptance of ridiculous fantasies on the say-so of arbitrary authorities.

But you know that, you troll you.
posted by nicwolff at 12:58 PM on July 24, 2002


Metafilter: Religious tolerance? What's that? Only if you're islamic or something "exotic".
posted by owillis at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2002


Scientology for kids?>
posted by interrobang at 1:16 PM on July 24, 2002


Make fun of the Mormons all you want (my family, on the paternal side, is Mormon, and my direct paternal ancestor was one of Joseph Smith's right-hand men, so I am more qualified than most people here to make jokes)

well evanizer...you and i and witchstone are probably all related somehow then. All old-school mormon families. I cut my garments into tiny pieces 6 years ago this summer. I don't make fun of mormons specifically--it was my lifestyle for 25 years, and its my cultural heritage--even though i'm pretty damn good at it as a former insider.

I don't have faith in the worldwide environmental movement, or in the democratic party, or ralph nader or the secular humanist movement. It has nothing to do with faith, only evidence and decisions. Trust would be a better word--and no, i don't really trust that list--and Hope or Agreement would be most accurate.

once again, skallas, right on. Why are people so offended by that?
posted by th3ph17 at 1:22 PM on July 24, 2002


My point that there is a yawning, gaping double standard around here still stands

And you're not excluded from it, buddy.
posted by rocketman at 1:35 PM on July 24, 2002


well, th3ph17 is my cousin's cousin, so we are related (by marriage).

but only a mormon or former mormon would even know what a cousin's cousin is.
posted by witchstone at 1:37 PM on July 24, 2002


yeah...but i would bet that we have at least one common ancestor back in the 5-6 generation range. Hard to avoid.
posted by th3ph17 at 1:45 PM on July 24, 2002


evanizer's right. The situation is not religion vs. no religion. It's one religion vs. another. If you think you have no religion, you haven't examined yourself closely enough. That atheism.com site is just the most extreme example of this: someone has made a religion out of opposing religion. For many people, their religion is the arts, or their family, or science, or gaming, or hatred, or love, or money, or their own appetites. As Bob Dylan once said, "You've got to serve somebody..."
posted by Faze at 2:00 PM on July 24, 2002


That's...scary.

Why?

For many people, their religion is the arts, or their family, or science, or gaming, or hatred, or love, or money, or their own appetites.

That's preposterous. You've just diluted the meaning of the term "religion" down to meaninglessness. Religion is a very specific thing, and that's fine. Why do some feel the need to redefine it in such a way as to try to include those who decline to participate in it? Insecurity over their own choices?

Believing != not believing, not matter how you slice it.
posted by rushmc at 2:09 PM on July 24, 2002


For many people, their religion is the arts, or their family, or science, or gaming, or hatred, or love, or money, or their own appetites.

But these are not religions. Your statement has no meaning. It's like saying: "The sky is really red and people who think it's blue just don't know that blue is another form of red."

And quoting Bob Dylan on any subject???
posted by plaino at 2:09 PM on July 24, 2002


You believe strongly that all religions are bullshit. You have faith that you are right. You have faith that you can reason, but how do you know if your reason is sufficient? How do you know you even exist? Why do you depend on such things as evidence? Have you any proof other than your own experiences that suggest that you are not the abstraction of a two-year old's imagination? No, you don't. Some things can't be proven. To exist in this world and to believe that you can reason, ultimately, requires an equivalent amount of faith.
posted by insomnyuk at 2:15 PM on July 24, 2002


I am very, very sorry. I'll go back to posting about nice things from now on and spare us all. g
posted by interrobang at 2:17 PM on July 24, 2002


Punctuation has no place in the religious dialog taking place in our society.
posted by rocketman at 2:28 PM on July 24, 2002


insomnyuk: When I don't cross a road at a Don't Walk sign because all the data I've come across to that point dictates that I might get hit by a car, I'm exhibiting as much faith as people who believe that magical beings are watching them from the skies and judging their every move? Do you honestly believe this?
posted by Doug at 2:40 PM on July 24, 2002


faith?

...that word you keep using...i do not think it means what you think it means....
posted by th3ph17 at 2:43 PM on July 24, 2002


To exist in this world...requires an equivalent amount of faith.

Funny, I exist in this world because my parents utilized a process of sexual reproduction common in our species and brought me into it. No part of that process required an iota of "faith" on my part.
posted by rushmc at 2:46 PM on July 24, 2002


Doug: you are making an argument that appeals to experiential knowledge. How do you know someone's religious experiences are invalid, when clearly, you rely on experience yourself. You are still using reason to think that your experiences are a reliable indicator of the future, are you not? So every time you cross the street, you are using some modicum of faith, consciously or not. You rely on it, you expect it to work. I think that requires faith.

You have faith that your parents are who they say they are, don't you, rushmc? Have you ever questioned them before?

The whole epistemological debate can get pretty messy, and I admit that I am not well versed or qualified to debate it, which is why I'm talking about it on MeFi. Can we get an existentialist in here to make some convincing arguments?
posted by insomnyuk at 2:48 PM on July 24, 2002


I want to know why the Mormon religion prescribes what underwear its' believers wear. Is it a show of devotion? Is it supposed to protect the wearer? Is it for cleanliness? What is the POINT of Mormon underwear?
posted by aacheson at 2:49 PM on July 24, 2002


the underwear is a symbol of vows the person makes with god during a ceremony in the temple.
posted by witchstone at 2:54 PM on July 24, 2002


Found this at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/chi/chi00.htm

"Wearing and Caring for the Garment
The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn. "
posted by aacheson at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2002


The above link is to the Mormon Handbook
posted by aacheson at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2002


It's not that I have faith that you are right it's that I've yet to see any data that says that I'm wrong. Something must be proven true or it's assumed false.

Zero is default.
posted by Mick at 3:00 PM on July 24, 2002


i think there is a big difference between organized religion and spirituality. if i'm not mistaken, what people were criticizing/making fun of/whatever on here was organized religion in one of it's forms. i have big issues with organized religion (of any kind, no sacred cows for me) because of the tunnel vision, exclusivity, and mass marketing nature of it; but it doesn't mean i don't believe in anything (which is what religious people seem to assume: no religion=no morals). on the other hand, atheism could also be seen as a religion in some ways because so many atheists, like so many christians, muslims, jews, what have you, insist that their way is the right/only way. i guess that's why i'm more comfortable with agnosticism. go ahead and believe in your god (or don't believe) but don't try to push that on me. i'm not sure if this is making sense to anyone else, but what the hell.
posted by witchstone at 3:10 PM on July 24, 2002


Can we get an existentialist in here to make some convincing arguments?

Sure!

If I know that twice two is four, this knowledge is in the highest degree impersonal. Once I know it, I know it, and I need not struggle continuously to make it my own. But the truth of religion is not at all like that: it is a truth that must penetrate my own personal existence or it is nothing; and I must struggle to renew it in my life every day. A learned theologian may be in possession of all the so-called truths of rational theology, able to prove and disprove propositions and generally hold his own dialectically with the best; and yet in his heart God may have died or never lived. On the other hand, an illiterate peasant who knows nothing of formal theology, who may not even be able to state accurately the tenets of his creed, nevertheless may succeed in being religious. He is in the truth, as we say, and people who know him can recognize this fact from his presence, his bearing, his way of life."
-Soren Kierkegaard, The Irrational Man

To an existentialist, the essential act is an epistemological act: it is the act of belief. Rational knowledge is trivial and secondary. In the words of Camus: "Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest--whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories--comes afterwards.... Whether the earth or the sun revolves around the other is a matter of profound indifference. To tell the truth, it is a futile question." Of course, Camus sees the religious faith in which Kierkegaard found his meaning as unnecessary: a philosophical crutch and easy way out of a difficult problem. Camus argued that meaning could be found simply in the struggle to live in an absurd, chaotic universe.

Note the distinction here. Firstly, I think we should, for the purposes of this discussion, restrict the word "faith" to items of religious faith. This best avoids confusion. There is then belief which is not religious in nature--my belief, for instance, that my life is fundamentally worthwhile. Then there are all those other, trivial things, such as the identity of my parents and the question of whether or not I should obey the "don't walk" sign.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:37 PM on July 24, 2002


Something must be proven true or it's assumed false.

This standard is simplistic to the point of being useless. It can be turned on its head by simple semantic games. Consider for example, this proof of God's existence under the proposed standard: It cannot be proven that God does not exist. Similarly, we can prove that God does not exist: It cannot be proven that God exists. Whoops! Paradox!
posted by mr_roboto at 4:05 PM on July 24, 2002


My logic skills are not as fresh and honed as those who quote philosophy and ecclesiology (.. but I know what I like.)

The Catholic church, which I was a part of till my adolescent mind realised the con-tricks being pulled on me, does not collapse when I take the piss out of it - as I have on many occasions - and strangely, neither am I struck by thunderbolts by an off-pissed deity (old testament, ancient egyptian, animist, islamic - of any shade - shinto, etc.).

You need no supernatural being or ancient revealed scripture to tell you to respect others, whether their persons, their hard-earned property, their ideas, etc - because you want these attitudes extended to yourself. Personally, I won't elevate religious beliefs beyond the status of respectability - and only that level is reached if they fulfil certain self-evident (to me) criteria: that I am not taken for a fool or a cash-cow. That does indeed rule out every church I've ever come across, apart from the British branch of the Quakers (who, intypical dissenting style, are not even sure if they should describe themselves as a church anyway!)

I cannot disprove the existence of a god, and noone else can prove 'it's' existence. We surely have that as a starting point. How many angels are on that pinhead, or the necessity of a certain restriction on your undergarments, is so much human construction which Occam tells me I don't need.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:29 PM on July 24, 2002


Mormon dating
Mormon clothing
posted by tdstone at 6:56 PM on July 24, 2002


Sometimes I wonder at the mindset that turns a simple observational, somewhat humorous post into an existentialist/rationalist debate over religious experience...

From my own observance (Heisenberg and all that), of a rather small sample (what I remember reading on Mefi), the first stone is thrown by the atheists/scientists (delmoi, that's you here). That's a proof of something; I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to what.

I've seen this particular puzzle ad nauseum, and all I have to say about it is that it stems from irreconcilable viewpoints, namely 1) That reason is our best resource for making sensible (not rational!) decisions, and 2) That faith is. I do not believe it possible for any proponent of one to convert a proponent of the other. I myself am in the faith camp, with reason supplementing, but I refuse to defend myself as to why, because none of my reasons are valid under assumption 1. Yay circles.

Have fun all.
posted by e^2 at 8:33 PM on July 24, 2002


I don't know, my understanding of polite conversational policy back in the old daze was that you don't goof on other people's religions--underwear excluded.

Quoting Bob Dylan is allowed, plaino, except you don't quote his crappier songs, a rule honored here in the breach.

Or quote the Simpsons--the idea is to communicate some from common knowledge, shared experience, I believe. If you choose to march to the beat of a different drum machine, so be it, but it does narrow down the pool of who's going to get it..

I think it was La Rochefoucauld who said we find it more bearable to criticized for our character than for our tastes.
posted by y2karl at 9:02 PM on July 24, 2002


Mormon swingers. Oh my heck!

Sort of.

ncmo.org is dead now, dangit. Fetchin' ignernt, that's what that is.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:05 PM on July 24, 2002


Domo arigato, mr_roboto!

I love existentialism. Or do I?
posted by insomnyuk at 9:11 PM on July 24, 2002


My word. Go away for a few days, and look what I miss.

Well "miss" is a pretty strong term.
posted by silusGROK at 9:46 AM on July 25, 2002


"spared" woud be a better description methinks.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:54 AM on July 25, 2002


Amen.
posted by silusGROK at 2:04 PM on July 25, 2002


My god, was Robin Williams once a Mormon??? Is that him in his underwear in his pre-Mork & Mindy days?
posted by Sal Amander at 11:25 AM on July 26, 2002


« Older I don't know about you, but this scares the hell o...  |  American Family Pictures 2002.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments