One of the biggest problems with any kind of fundamentalism (and truly, most “isms”) is there are those who take controversial beliefs and nudge them just an nth further. Often, to the very edge of common sense and reason, and sometimes over that.

For example, we have Francisco Nava.

Princeton student Nava, who is a former Roman-Catholic-turned-ardent-Mormon-returned-missionary, claimed to have been attacked by two mask-wearing men who were pissed off because he was a conservative.

An alleged physical attack on a Princeton University student who is leading a movement to instill conservative moral values among undergraduates is rattling the campus here.

A politics major from Texas who is a junior, Francisco Nava, said he was physically attacked Friday, beaten, and rendered unconscious by two black-clad men about two miles from campus, he told the student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian, in an interview.

Now, shortly after his claim, of course, it was revealed that he had made some false allegations, while in high school, about death threats.

But the disclosure today that Mr. Nava fabricated a death threat against himself and his roommate when he was a high school student at the Groton School, has some students questioning his account of the last week’s attack as well as the series of death threats he said he received this semester after airing his morally conservative views.

In high school, Mr. Nava wrote a death threat using an anti-homosexual slur, the Web site Firstthings.com reported this morning. Mr. Nava’s roommate at Groton was a founder of the Gay-Straight Alliance, according to the Web site.

The “attack” has now been proven a lie.

A student at Princeton University who said he was beaten unconscious by two black-clad assailants Friday has said that he fabricated the assault, and that he sent e-mail death threats to himself, three other Princeton students, and a prominent conservative professor at Princeton, Robert George, police said today.

No charges have been filed against the student, Francisco Nava, pending further investigation, a spokesman for the Princeton Township Police said.

In an interview, Mr. George earlier described Mr. Nava’s wounds as “severe,” doubting that they could have been self-inflicted.

Over the weekend, Mr. Nava’s jaw was badly swollen, his face was covered with cuts and abrasions, and the inside of his mouth was bleeding, Mr. George said after visiting Mr. Nava in the emergency room.

Mr. Nava is a returned missionary, and apparently a rather ARDENT defender of morality, truth and the Rightwing Way…. so ardent he would beat himself SENSELESS in order to make liberals look bad.

Of course, he only made HIMSELF, conservatives, and Mormons, look stupid, radical, and desperate.

I suspect Nava has some mental issues (duh!) and before you Mormons get your big girl panties in a wad, I am not saying that ALL Mormons act like this, are told to act like this, or even WANT to act like this.

What this is, rather, is an example of how the rather dangerous, dark, and extreme teachings of Mormonism (blood atonement, conservatism, “ONLY TRUE THINGism,” etc.) can lead to this type of behavior in a mind that is already slightly unhinged.

Take, for example, the Lafferty Brothers. Or Brian David Mitchell.

WE realize, of course, that YOU MORMONS do not want him. Sorry, he is yours. To answer the nasty emails and comments I sense coming, let me just say:

1. I realize there are whacko Catholics and Baptists and Scientologists, as well. THIS BLOG is Trapped by the Mormons. So we won’t talk about them today, okay?

2. I am not saying this is what the Mormon Church teaches. I believe I mentioned MIND and UNHINGED. Okay? Okay.

3. I was born a Mormon, raised a Mormon, live with Mormons, am friends with Mormons…. Did I cover all those? Okay.

Our new friend Nathan is a little peeved at me. So peeved he went back and pulled all sorts of quotes (from me) out of all sorts of posts and fired ‘em back at me. Well, good on ya, Nathan, for being so industrious. Did you lead your zone in baptisms?

His ending, however, is the only thing that really caught my eye.

And please accept my apology for any grammatical errors, as I know that you often use poor grammar as a tool to discredit your reader.

I do NOT use poor grammar. How rude of you! Oh wait… You meant I use someone ELSE’S poor grammar as a tool… Only when they are snotty and rude and arrogant, Nathan. Only then.

Get a funny bone, please, and wake up. Mormons believe they have the ONLY TRUTH THING, and they shout it from the rooftops. When that stops, they can expect this blog to stop. Sorry, but you don’t get to arrogantly claim you have the ONLY TRUTH, thereby discrediting the beliefs of millions of other people, and just walk.

I’m not selling any religion here, Nathan. Can you say the same? I have my opinion, and you have yours, and we are both entitled to proclaim said opinions.

Thanks for stopping by, and good luck selling those houses.

No, no, Mitt Romney’s not doing it personally. As far as I know, he’s never visited Trapped, and probably never will. But because of his candidacy, his recent “Christian” speech, and of course, his religion, angry Mormons are searching and finding Trapped by the Mormons. They are really UP IN ARMS about the whole Joseph Smith Nativity post from last year.

For example, essay Says:

“Joseph Smith Nativity”??? — Talk about grasping at straws, no where in the picture above is there anything that says “nativity”. What’s next, the Abraham Lincoln Nativity? The Mart Twain Nativity? And it’s nice to again see someone outside the LDS faith tell me what I believe.

Who the hell is Mart Twain? Mark’s evil twin?

Essay, essay, talk about grasping at straws…. I know, it’s so hard to explain Smith Worship, especially at Christmastime, when all the other “Christians” are worshiping Jesus….

But let’s cover this one by one.

1. It doesn’t have to SAY nativity to be a nativity. Christmastime is traditionally a time where we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, although my understanding is that he was not actually born at this time. Nonetheless, this is when the Christian world celebrates it. So, when the Zoobies put up a “birth scene” for Joseph Smith, well, the implications were obvious. At Christmastime, one can find re-creations of the Jesus birth scene all across the world. Only the Mormons chose to do one for Joseph Smith, as well. It is no different.

It IS a nativity scene. Nativity does not mean a manger, or straw, speaking of grasping at it….

Nativity means birth with reference to place or attendant circumstances. Thus, Joseph Smith Nativity!

2. Let’s just face it, it was another bad choice.

3. What does Abraham Lincoln have to do with Mormons OR Christmas?

4. Presuming you mean Mark Twain, and not his evil twin MART, I’m not sure it’s wise for Mormons to reference him, since he was quite vocal about his opinion on Mormonism. He thought the Book of Mormon was “chloroform in print.” He ain’t helping your case.

5. You should have done some research, and you would have discovered I am not someone “outside” of your church telling you what you believe. Been there, done that, got the CTR ring.

With Mitt Romney’s recent speech, more and more angry Mormons are visiting. Since we already had plenty, that’s not necessarily a good thing, but hey….

We’ll make room.

As for Mitt himself, I found some interesting information on his speech. A USA Today blog headline said: Romney’s cult of religious liberty.
It wasn’t a blog about cults, really, but it won’t make the Mormons happy. Little except rabid exclamations of how they HAVE TO BE right does, so we won’t worry too much about that.

This blog post noted that he left out the non-believers, or perhaps atheists, which could cause a problem for his candidacy.

In a big-tent speech clearly aimed at inclusiveness, Romney left himself open to criticism by leaving out non-believers. A single sentence recognizing that tolerance for all faiths also includes tolerance for the faithless seems an unwise oversight. As explained by someone close to Romney, however, there was never any planned tactic to exclude non-religious people. Implicit in the idea of religious liberty is that one freely chooses to be religious or not. Also assumed was that even non-believers would respect America’s tradition of religious pluralism.

The other weakness — just to get them both out of the way — was a single line that was unnecessarily confounding: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

It does? It will be interesting to see how people react to that.

We’re staying in Salt Lake, in a hotel, right now. The reason for this, you see, is I am working a job that is in crunch right now, and I have to be close to our graphic designer’s office, to do proofs and other things. And then there is Dancing Daughter, who is performing with Ballet West’s The Nutcracker. With the yucky weather, and all the above things combined, a hotel room seemed the best plan.

Plus the girls think it’s great fun.

So tonight, as DD was dozing off, she said, “I think I’ll take seminary next year.” Now, this child has informed me, MORE THAN ONCE, that she knows that even IF I had been a believing Mormon, and raised her to think it is the ONLY TRUE THING, like my parents did, she still wouldn’t believe. I know, I know, she’s obviously my daughter. But seminary?

“Uh, why?”

“Because it’s an easy credit.”

“It’s not a credit. You don’t get anything except bored.”

Well, fine, there goes that plan down the drain….

Our newest friend (until later tonight, or tomorrow) freesunsetbeach, says:

“I am confused??? Was jesus not laid in a Manger?? How does Joseph Smith and a cradle with a Christmas tree have to do with anything. You make no sense.”

You are right; you are confused.

I’m answering your question. That is a question mark. TWO, actually.

And as for making sense, did you even READ what you wrote? No? Can’t blame you.

Next.