South Park, Scientology and Mormonism
Posted on March 20th, 2006 by Clark Goble
Lots of people have been commenting on the South Park - Scientology issue. I. like many, are eager to see what awaits Scientology on Wednesday when the new season of South Park begins. LDSLF has up a discussion of the boycott issue of Tom Cruise films. I want to ask a different question. Over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars someone raised a very interesting parallel between the Scientologists and the Mormons. Allow me to quote him.
However, I would like to point out one small thing. The part of the South Park episode that describes the history of Xenu and scientologist beliefs is particularly irksome to scientologists. My understanding is scientologists aren’t supposed to have this information revealed to them until they are ready for it. While this may not be a perfect analogy, it is similar to if South Park described and made fun of LDS temple content.
If that were to have happened, you can bet more Mormons would’ve been up in arms. What people get thinskinned about can be confusing if you’re an outsider.
[. . .]
Suppose instead of the episode on Mormons South Park did, they instead did an episode where they did a mock version of the endowment ceremony. Do you think the Mormon reaction would’ve been the same? They probably would’ve been more upset, right?
I’m saying that the Xenu stuff is a little more similar to that. It’s esoteric knoweledge that should not be discussed in public. Members aren’t supposed to know about it until they are “ready” for it.
It’s a good point. While the South Park episode about Joseph Smith wasn’t really that offensive would we have thought the same if it dealt with Mormons wearing garments and had cartoon characters dressed in their temple robes enacting the endowment? Certainly not. I think we would be upset.
Given that, are we hypocritical in how we act towards a religious minority we find silly and disagree with?
» Filed Under Any
Comments
31 Responses to “South Park, Scientology and Mormonism”
Leave a Reply
Just for the record, I’ve watched both Godmakers and Temple of the Godmakers and thought they were ridiculous. It really doesn’t offend me. If South Park did it I might be disappointed and little pissed, but ultimately would blow it off. But I’d certainly expect many Mormons to take a much stronger perspective.
But ultimately, even if South Park did this, it would be pretty minor compared to what we experience every day in opposition from Evangelical anti-Mormons.
Honestly I’m suprised South Park hasn’t done an episode about the temple ceremony yet. I wouldn’t be that upset if they did because that is the sort of stuff I’d expect from them. It’s what they do. No one is off limits, and nothing is too extreme.
The thing that suprises me is Isaac Hayes quitting. It’s like that story about the snake that bit the guy carrying him, who says “you knew what I was when you picked me up.” I would have thought that he knew what they were from the years he’s worked with them.
I find myself wondering what Brian Boitano would do.
The story is that Isaac Hayes is unable to have quit due to a stroke in January. Some feel that Scientologist “watchers” are actually doing it for him.
Clark, thanks for illuminating the matter. I did not realize the place of Xenu in Scientology. As such, the comparison to LDS initiative and esoteric doctrine is valid. Initially, my reaction when I first heard of Hayes’ objection, was much the same as Starfoxy. “It’s what they do on South Park.” But there are certainly lines that really ought not be crossed in the name of comedy. I am inclined to consider this to be one of those.
BTW, ditto on the Evangelical anti-Mormons.
This is what South Park does, and they do it well. IF they made an episode about the temple, I imagine the Church would do what they did about the JS episode, nothing. The Scientology episode was pretty funny, it made fun of celebrities as much as the religion itself. Also, the JS-themed episode poked fun at our religion, but in the end seemed to say it was a pretty good way of doing things (in a roundabout way). I’d recommend watching both of them.
For what it’s worth, the creators of South Park have said that they respect Mormons and had many Mormon friends growing up. Their episode on Mormons was a little snarky, but all in good fun, and the Mormon characters were among the most sympathetic the show has ever seen.
Back to the OP’s topic: I’ve been frustrated at times because I can’t come up with a way to explain to casual outside observers just HOW Mormonism differs from Scientology–granted we don’t use e-meters like they do, but we both have much more in common than makes me comfortable.
My favorite South Park episode was when all the people were gathered in Hell and they asked who had made it into Heaven; their guide looked at his clipboard and announced “I’m afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons was the correct answer.”
I don’t have much tolerance for the people scraping for reasons to justify the Scientologists taking offense. A friend of mine put up this page in the mid-1990: The Church of Scientology vs. the Net. (Some of the links may not work, because the site is 12 years old and hasn’t been maintained for 10 years; it’s only there for historical reasons.) Any anti-Mormon or semi-Mormon who thinks that our church has a heavy-handed PR machine is taking way too much for granted. The site I link to above details the truly heavy-handed tactics used by the Church of Scientology to fight the free dissemination of information on the internet (and this had nothing to do with protecting copyrights, either).
After my friend put this site up, he started getting cease-and-desist letters from lawyers. Moreover, scientologists somehow got into his place of employment and into a business meeting that he was attending to distribute leaflets accusing him (by name) of religious bigotry.
The comparison with Xenu is not valid. Mormons can get into the temple after only a year in the church and without paying a dime (e.g., a stay-at-home mom who is married to an inactive or non-member). Moreover, the secret parts of the temple ceremony are a few isolated portions. The rest is not protected by any oath. The Xenu thing is altogether secret–lock, stock, and barrell. Plus, you’ve got to belong to scientology for years, pay 10s of thousands of dollars, and sign documents agreeing to keep the entire thing secret in order to get your hands on the Xenu story (or just be a celebrity). The Xenu thing is not sacred; it’s simply their cash cow.
I’m not saying scientologists are freaks. My first job out of high school was working for software company run by a bunch of scientologists. It seems weird to say that they were normal people, because that seems to draw an abnormal amount of attention to the fact that they simply were normal and decent people whom I liked and respected. Interestingly, they insisted that scientology wasn’t really a religion, but that it was going after the religious categorization for tax reasons.
In any case I don’t begrudge them their beliefs, but I think that it’s a real stretch to try to compare the Xenu thing to the LDS temple liturgy.
This just in: Did Isaac Hayes really quit South Park?
I guess you could get into the temple without paying a penny, but anyone with a source of income has to pay to get in. I had a friend bring this up when we were talking about how Scientologists had to pay thousands of dollars to gain higher knowledge. I realized I haven’t paid to gain higher knowledge, but I wouldn’t have been able to enter the temple, and gain higher knowledge, without either being out of work or paying thousands of dollars. In my lifetime, to be able to go to the temple anytime I want, I’ll pay as much as Scientologists.
jjohnsen, I suppose you conceive of tithing as a napster-like, subscription model and scientology as a itunes-like, pay per item model. If that’s the case, then our model is better suited to the 3rd world.
But this is a ridiculous conception, jjohnsen. You just can’t lie about having paid for your auditing session with scientology’s pay-as-you-go model. Tithing is an honor-based system. You can lie about tithing and get into the temple. And if they’ve found out that you’ve done so (because you confess it), they don’t make you pay back-tithing to make up for the higher knowledge you gained “for free.” Tithing is a commandment, but then again so are fast offering and home teaching (It’s regrettable that the connection to temple access with tithing fools many mormons into thinking that tithing is more important than home teaching–it’s not). There’s simply no way to calculate a quid-pro-quo against the LDS tithing program vis-a-vis the services offered.
I think the bigger issue is that church members often act hypocritically toward other religious entities, major and minor. In my experience, it is not uncommon to hear members mocking the beliefs of others or downplaying their religious beliefs and convictions. IMO, there are at least two reasons for this. First, it makes Mormons, who admittedly hold some quirky beliefs and certainly have a unique culture, a little more comfortable to the extent they can point out weird or inconsistent beliefs and cultural aspects of another religion. The second reason is pride. Every member has heard on numerous occasions that ours is the only true church. In some ways, that is equivalent to being a member of the best team in a challenging sports league. That is, we can’t help but get a little bit cocky.
Surprisingly I don’t hear members mocking other faiths very often. Even in Utah, where there are fewer converts I don’t hear it as much as one might expect. I do here occasionally misunderstood points of theology. For instance I often mention how Mormons completely misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. And more “exotic” religions like Islam or Wicca often have silly things said about them.
None of that is to say there aren’t places where this sort of things happens. But considering my experience with many non-members - especially outside of Utah - I think we tend to do fairly well all things considered.
Could we do better? Of course.
I disagree with DKL when he says there is simply no valid way to look at tithing/temple attendance as a quid-pro-quo arrangement. While the church may not actively audit its members, I think that a bishop would be within his realm of his authority to question a member who has a job, not paying any tithing or some minimal amount, and saying that he is a full tithe payer in the temple recommend interview. So, while in a sense it’s on the honor system, it’s not like it’s some anonymous honor system that people can all that easily manipulate. Of course, all this is in the bishop’s discretion.
Also, I think there can be ‘back payments’ of some sorts when it comes to tithing. I know of a few couples who were engaged, otherwise worthy, but one of the pair hadn’t been paying their tithing. The only thing stopping them from temple marriage: paying tithing for a full year. Instead of putting off the marriage for a year, in both cases I know of, the couple merely paid a year’s worth of tithing and could immediately be married in the temple. I know a lot of people who would pay tithing regardless of whether it was directly asked about, but I know a lot who wouldn’t hesitate to stop paying if it was no longer a temple recommend requirement. I think that at least implies a possible quid-pro-quo.
So, while there are probably valid distinctions between this and how Scientologists practice (I say probably only because I am not familiar with the Scientologists operate), I think jjohnsen brings up a valid point. It’s not like he’s comparing apples and oranges. And his point is bolstered by the fact that many other commandments (DKL mentions fast offerings and home teaching) are NOT actually asked about in the temple recommend interview. So, undoubtedly the church is emphasizing a financial law like tithing for some reason, and while I don’t necessarily think that it’s simply to get their mitts on our filthy lucre, I wouldn’t think someone was crazy for thinking so.
To tie this back to the original post, I think it is a little hypocritical for any person of faith to point to the Isaac Hayes incident and, armed with only a few news stories and quotes from those involved, come to any conclusions about Scientology. I mean, if a Mormon kid worked for South Park and quit after the JS episode, wouldn’t we all feel a little proud that he’d stood up for what he believed in.
APJ, I appreciate your attempt to be broad minded about the LDS church vs. Scientology. But there is no provision in the CHI for back payments, there is no requirement of 1 year of full tithing for a temple recommend, and there is not even a criteria that determines what constitutes a “full tithe payer.” I know personally of people who have paid a full tithe for substantially less than a year and received a temple recommend. I know people who have paid less than a full tithe on their annual income whose bishop has checked the “Full Tithe Payer” box at tithing settlement because they were currently paying a full tithe. The CHI discourages bishops from accepting annual tithing payments (which is what apparently happened in the instance you point out), preferring instead tithing on income as it’s earned. Most bishops that I know won’t even accept back-tithing; to them it’s like requiring people to do make up on their missed home-teaching.
You seem to think that because you can point to a few exceptional cases where Bishops used their leeway to do things that can be made to appear some way, that you can conclude that at the bottom of it all is a quid-pro-quo.
This whole thing about having a temple recommend for tithing is a bunch of nonsense. Until recently that didn’t even matter because in most places people lived so far from a temple that they couldn’t go very often. Talk to people who converted prior to the 1990s. For example, one convert I know didn’t get endowed until he’d been a member for 7 years, because going to the temple constituted major travel. In the meantime, he’d been in the bishopric, in the high priest group leadership, and young men’s president. That’s not an uncommon type of story.
And no, I wouldn’t be proud of a Mormon who complained about South Park or quit their job over it. I’d be kind of embarrassed, and I’d explain it by saying, “I guess it takes all types.”
South Park
Here is the Episode in question, if anyone was wondering.
DKL, I agree with you that me pointing to a couple random examples that I know of doesn’t establish that ‘at the bottom of it all is a quid-pro-quo.’ The same way that you showing how a homemaker married to an inactive could get a temple recommend without paying a cent of tithing doesn’t show a complete absence of quid-pro-quo. And, as my first comment says, I know this is all within the discretion of the bishop; I didn’t try to paint ‘back payments’ as the norm, just to show that it does happen.
My point wasn’t to establish anything, merely point out how it is conceivable that someone could look at tithing that way. Obviously you don’t think so (I don’t really know either way myself). But I thought my comment pretty clearly showed that it was reasonable to view it that way.
In fact, I always thought, generally speaking, that one of the reasons we pay tithing is in the expectation of a quid-pro-quo. (a la JF Smith promising an end to the drought in St. George if the Saints would tithe, and the Lord opening the window’s of heaven and pouring out blessings to those who tithe).
So, DKL, why do you think that being a full tithe payer is one of the commandments specifically mentioned in the recommend interview, as opposed to home teaching and fast offerings? You never did point out any justification, just that it’s ‘regrettable’ that it fools so many mormons into thinking it’s more important than other commandments. Is it really inconcievable that there is a quid-pro-quo rationalization at work? (BTW, I really am not very familiar with Scientology beliefs, and don’t feel the need to ‘attempt to be broad-minded’ about this issue; it’s just what I thought after reading the post and comments).
APJ, I don’t think a bishop would be within the realm of his authority to question an employed member who paid little tithing and yet claimed to be a full tithe payer; in fact, I think that would be an abuse of his authority. Tithing really is an honor system and I think most bishops respect that.
My bishops have not even looked at tithing totals during tithing settlement, they keep the offering summary folded closed so that they cannot see the numbers. They simply ask, “Are you a full tithe payer?” and mark it down accordingly.
Actually I always hated that Church video about St. George because it did seem to imply a quid-pro-quo which I feel is false doctrine. (Despite the oft quoted scripture in Malachi)
Fair enough, APJ. It sounds like I misread your earlier comment. But I think that tithing is a temple recommend interview because it’s falls into the category of a leading indicator. The church used to actually require a lot more money of its members than it does now. There was the ward budget assignment and congregations had to chip in for their own meeting houses. There were fewer limits on fundraising for auxiliaries. In the really old days, before the last wave of correlation in the 60s, Relief Society had its own budget and therefore it’s own fundraising needs. At the time that Grant made tithing a requirement for a temple recommend in 1936, tithing was just one among many things that members were required to pay. Now it’s very nearly the only thing.
You’re right that tithing is often sold as something that you can’t afford not to do, and I think that overdoes it a bit. I’ve got a good enough testimony of tithing, but I’m not in a position where I fear not paying because of possible disaster. (Not that I’m trying to sound cocky–knock on wood.)
KLC: Yeah, I think the way you describe is probably most common and would be best; ideally it would be completely an honor system (since ideally most people wouldn’t lie). I think the context would be important; I don’t think a bishop should call a member to repentance from the pulpit just because he suspected that the member had paid less than an honest tithe. But, the bishop, being the spiritual leader of his congregation, could get an impression from the spirit to ask about it in an interview and tactfully inquire about it. In fact, I would think it almost a failure of his duties to not follow up on what appeared to be someone manipulating the system. I think abuse of discretion would come in where he was actively going out of his way to poke and pry into others’ affairs.
DKL: Yeah, tithing does seem pretty tame compared to the sacrifices required earlier, from the examples you list. And I agree with you (and Clark in #19) that tithing is unfortunately sold as a way to make God give blessings to you.
I just wish I could pay more tithing…a lot more (say, 14-15,000 a year).
If you go to wikipedia.com, you can contrast Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.
That was Lorenzo Snow, not Joseph F. Smith. Go watch the movie again.
And, the old tithing leads to wealth canard has a long and vigorous past–anybody who was around BYU during the Wilkinson years had to have heard his “tithing made me a wealthy lawyer” speech at least once.
Thanks to Ian Cook for giving me an excuse to waste a half hour.
There is most certainly a quid-pro-quo about tithing and the temple. You can live an exemplary life, be the model Mormon citizen, and do everything that is expected of you. Then comes the TR interview where every question is answered in the “right” way, except “do you pay a full tithe”?
If you answer “no”, you aren’t getting that TR. Period.
The Temple recommend interview is like a crucible, burning away all the ancillary stuff until the final product remains. It really does come down to money.
Couldn’t you say exactly the same thing Phouchg about any of the other questions.
You’ve really missed it. You can live an exemplary life, be a model Mormon citizen and do everything that’s expected of you. Then comes the TR interview where every question is answered in the “right” way, except, “do you have any sympathy for groups which are in rebellion against the prophet.” If you answer “no” you aren’t getting that TR. Period. The Temple recommend interview is like a crucible, burning away all the ancillary stuff until the final product remains. It really does come down to polygamy.
Or maybe it was the chastity thingy…or the being honest thingy…or the conduct toward the members of your family thingy…or the financial responsibilities toward divorced spouses thingy…
So many questions…so many chances to fail.
Actually, in the specific question I asked above, the right answer is NO. The wrong answer is YES. (lol).
Re: “Stealth” Tithing
Paying your tithes via check in a grey envelope to the Bishopric is not the only way. I have known a few members that donate in-kind (stocks, works of art, etc.) and that does not show up on the local computer. At tithing settlement, they declare “full” and the Bishop doesn’t raise an eyebrow. I have been told that they never had to explain to the Bishop how they are a full tithe-payer without money going into the ward’s pass-through account.
It really is on the honor system. We don’t get a bill for our tithing. This is a common misconception outside of our faith, and I’m a little disconcerted that it exists within as well.
Well said, Polly.
I’d just like to add that the Bishops are not to question the dollar amount paid in tithing settlement, no matter how big or small. If I pay an enormous amount, equal to say 1/10th the total of the last Powerball jackpot, the Bishop isn’t entitled to question that either.
I have never had a bishop question the amount paid in tithing. Even when we paid $330 one year, although we did receive anonymous gift of a $50 card to the grocery store a few days later.
This year I had a question for my bishop about the correct way to figure my tithe, he read the scripture in D&C about it being 10% of my increase and told me it was entirely up to me about what that meant. I suppose if I could convince myself that it meant 10% of my raise this year, I could save myself some money.
I can’t deny the possibility that a bishop has questioned someone, somewhere, at sometime about the level of their tithe, but it should not happen.
Another point. How many other questions are there in the Scientology worthiness interview? Is it solely a money thing, or are there other worthiness issues involved?
I know personally people who pay tithing at church headquarters. Infact the very best way to pay tithing is with appreciated assets that you will be taxed on. I’m not giving legal advice here, but essentially how it works is if you bough stock in Dell for $10,000 and after 10 years you sell it for $60,000. You have a $50,000 gain which will receive captial gains tax treatment. Imagine that you also made $100,000 that year and so you give the church $15,000 in Dell stock to pay the tithing on your income and the stock you sold. You won’t be taxed on the gains you made on the portion of stock you contributed and you can still take a deduction. Essentially if you just sold the stock you would be taxed on the entire $50,000 gain, but if you contribute $15,000 stock to the church you will only be taxed on the approximately $35,000 of the stock (I won’t use exact numbers because it might get to complex). This will save you around $2,250.
The point is the bishop only asks whether you are a full tithe payer, it really is the honor system. You can call it the honor quid-pro-quo, but then you probably aren’t paying for the right reasons and limiting the blessings you can receive.
I believe with Scientology you just have to pay and be at a certain level, oh and not have used any drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist.