I'm Offended Anyway (But Nobody Cares If I'M Offended)

Sill more fun with The Washington Post, this time over a recently released video of Romney discussing his cult's beliefs. (I've posted a longer version of it, but this new one's just the meat.) One thing that's missing from the Post's article - and which shows how lame reporters are at covering "spiritual" concerns - is any mention of Mitt's again citing that "brilliant man" The National Review called an "all-around nutjob," W. Cleon Skousen. (Mitt mentions him at the 1:30 mark.) Don't forget who Cleon Skousen is:

A historian accused of racist revisionism, and a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He contended that the Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel, claimed that a global cabal of bankers controlled the world from behind the scenes, and wrote a book that referred to the "blessings of slavery."

How nice. He gets my vote! And let's also not forget that - as Mitt argues, since he's a Mormon Bishop, he understands his "faith" better than anyone else - he's already denied the revelations his church is based on are true. (See above.) So - following Mitt's logic - the whole Mormon deal's a fraud. Or a scam - your pick - since he's so aware of what he's doing and does it anyway. (Notice when he says he doesn't take any of it seriously - even to the face of someone who does? Some Bishop.) And there's one more thing - do you notice how, even when faced with someone who agrees with Mormonism, Romney claims the questioner is attempting to "go after my church"? It reminds me of Brandon Flowers' reaction when faced with Richard Dawkins:
 

"I'm offended." In true NewAge fashion, Mormons are always offended - especially by facts and those who hold to them. A trait which conservatives find disgusting - in liberals - but are lining up to endorse in their choice of presidential candidate. Serious question:

Considering the level of hypocrisy and lies flying around, can I be offended now, too?

ADDED: I see Glenn Beck has been answering questions for evangelicals, explaining "the 'magic underwear' was compared to a skullcap" and whatnot. I just have one question - not for Beck but for those evangelicals:

You ever heard a Jew claim his skullcap can stop bullets?

The Lord Of The Jungle (Meets The Law Of The Jungle)

Tarzan,

"In as much as Mormonism encourages healthy living and not putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe, I think it stands as good a chance as any of outgrowing it's status as a cult in relatively short order."

While disagreeing with you, I want you to know I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject, which is a nice digression from the usual on Althouse. Let me address your statement that "Mormonism encourages,...not putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe," because it's the most divergent passage that I feel the need to engage - and can hopefully allow you to see what I do:

Check out this television segment. 

Notice how quickly the Mormon, Brandon Flowers, takes offense. That's a hostile act. He starts it. This hostility to uncomfortable facts - lashing out for leverage and to protect cognitive dissonance - is the entire basis for the Mormon claim to historical "persecution." (You see several instances of the same behavior in the new cult-themed film, "The Master.") There's no reason for it. Richard Dawkins merely said The Book of Mormon is an "obvious" fraud. That's a fact - not an attack - so the Mormon is immediately acting cultishly paranoid, insular, and vindictive - "putting one's self directly at war with those don't believe."

Let me explain further:

Imagine Brandon Flowers had discovered, upon seating, that his chair was "obviously" soaking wet. So he alerts his host, who responds that he's offended at the suggestion - wouldn't that be strange? And wouldn't it be even more bizarre if the host declared Brandon Flowers needed to "do more research" than his moist bottom has already?

This demand for "more research," too, is a common cult tactic, BTW, designed to keep the ignorant and/or insecure off-balance, and chasing an imaginary answer when any fool can see what's right in front of them.

For instance, Homeopathy is just water, but it's cultists insist science needs to "do more research" in order to understand why they call it medicine. Billions of dollars have been wasted under this ruse, all coming to the same conclusion - Homeopathy is simply water. What's the cultist's answer to that?

You guessed it:

Still "more research" is needed.

It buys the cults time, but nothing more, because people eventually catch on.

The problem for religious cults is, if they stay too vague (say, referring to God as merely "a higher power") there's not much to seriously devote oneself. But if they get too specific (as in the Mormon claim Jesus will return,...to Missouri) they're revealed as fruitcakes - which is why Mitt Romney lied about the Mormon claim to prophecy when talking to an outsider. In this way, Mormonism - like all cults - has a self-destruct mechanism embedded within, and, no matter how long it's existed, it's days are now numbered:

They simply can't justify their behavior in the 21st Century,…

 

Richard Dawkins Meets The Mormon Brandon Flowers, Leader Of The Killers - Romney's Favorite Rock Band

“There is far more beauty in the real understanding of the reality of nature than there is in reading some ancient book – or in reading some modern book which is what the book of Mormon is. I have to say that when I read the book of Mormon recently, what impressed me was that this was an obvious fake. This was a 19th Century book written in 16th Century English. That’s not the way people talked in the 19th Century – it’s a fake. So it’s not beautiful, it’s a work of Charlatanry.”