Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

On the contrary, I think internet psychoanalysis is a sign of desperation.

You think that pointing out that your argument is getting desperate constitutes "internet psychoanalysis?

Can you be more specific? Are you saying the notion that religious groups can cause harm is a notion that has been debunked?

Obviously you're just going to fabricate arguments for me instead of engaging what I'm actually saying, so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

[_Buffalo]

IMHO, places like CARM have some characteristics of a cult, based on what I have seen. "Judge not lest you be judged."

There is a great difference between the idea of cult as a false version of Christianity and cult as a demonstrably harmful/dysfunctional group.

[_Buffalo]

On the contrary, I think internet psychoanalysis is a sign of desperation.

You think that pointing out that your argument is getting desperate constitutes "internet psychoanalysis?

Arguments aren't desperate - people are. So, yes. :)

Can you be more specific? Are you saying the notion that religious groups can cause harm is a notion that has been debunked?

Obviously you're just going to fabricate arguments for me instead of engaging what I'm actually saying, so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.

So, no?

Please note I was asking for clarification, not fabricating arguments for you.

[_maklelan]

Well, then, my point holds up: you have no evidence that the "antagonism" has its basis in counter-cult materials.

Not only do not see them as antagonizing, but I never claimed that antagonism in general has its basis in counter-cult movements. I have too much to do to keep going in these circles with you guys when you have made it abundantly clear that you're just going to intentionally or ignorantly misrepresent what I'm actually saying.

[_Kevin Graham]

The fact that many definitions of "cult" tend to create an unintentional category overlap with other groups, and especially the military, is one of the weaknesses with such Aristotelian attempts to define the boundaries of the term. I wouldn't ask how appropriate it is to compare religion to the military, but rather how appropriate is the definition when it brings the two together? Obviously it's not very appropriate. The problem is that the pejorative use of the term "cult" did not develop around some conceptual structure (very few natural categories do), but based on socio-religious rhetoric aimed at specific groups. The attempt to gather together all the groups that have been so labelled in order to extract a set of necessary and sufficient features for the category presupposes such a conceptual structure in the interest of broader application of the term. That's imposing a binary structuralism on the term that was never inherent to its pejorative use. None of this matters to the people who like the term, though. It has the rhetorical sting they want, and that's all they care about.

Mak, when people complain about the term anti-Mormon, we're told that by definition, it fits and so you're all going to use it and you don't really give a damn how we feel about it - in fact, it seems it gets used a lot just to offer that "rhetorical sting" as well as poisoning the well.

But on the flip side, we're supposed to be more charitable and sensitive when avoiding the word cult (and you have to admit that this word is rarely every used, even on this forum). How is that not a double-standard?

We don't disagree that it is technically correct to say "anti-Mormon," but we suggest preferred alternatives like "critic."

What alternative would you propose for the word "cult"? A word that conveys those same characteristics, without the same negative blowback?

[_maklelan]

Mak, when people complain about the term anti-Mormon, we're told that by definition, it fits and so you're all going to use it and you don't really give a damn how we feel about it - in fact, it seems it gets used a lot just to offer that "rhetorical sting" as well as poisoning the well.

And that's an etymological fallacy that I would never use.

But on the flip side, we're supposed to be more charitable and sensitive when avoiding the word cult (and you have to admit that this word is rarely every used, even on this forum). How is that not a double-standard?

It is a double-standard, although there are plenty of people who assert their identification as "anti-Mormon," so the situation's a bit different. Irrespective, I'm not making that argument, so it's not really relevant.

We don't disagree that it is technically correct to say "anti-Mormon," but we suggest preferred alternatives like "critic."

And I try to use "critic."

What alternative would you propose for the word "cult"? A word that conveys those same characteristics, without the same negative blowback?

New Religious Movement is the term that has become commonplace within the academy, and I think it works just fine.

[_Buffalo]

New Religious Movement is the term that has become commonplace within the academy, and I think it works just fine.

Does NRM convey the idea that the group is dysfunctional and harmful to some of its members?

[_zeezrom]

Unfortunately, I have seen the type of treatment you are referring to. It does exist. When my family and I lived in Utah, there was a lovely family who rented the house next door to us. I believe they later bought the home. They were the neatest couple. We did lots of things with them...had dinners together, watched movies. Our girls were the same age. The couple was Catholic, and they had received horrible treatment from the majority of LDS members in our area. I was sickened. Apparently, they had actually been denied an apartment to rent because the landlords didn't want non-members in their complex. So much for missionary work, and acceptance of others? The only reason I believe that they didn't pursue a lawsuit, since what happened was obviously illegal, is that they found the house, and were very happy with it.

I do not regret leaving Utah at all. The eight years I lived there almost completely destroyed my testimony. I am ashamed to be associated with that group.

Utterly baffling. Why in the hell would a higher concentration of a "good thing" make people's collective behavior worse?! Why? Why?

We hear people say that Mormonism provides some net good. What is this net good they speak of? If there truly was a net good to be had, then a higher concentration of these people would result in a greater collective good!

I'm totally confused about this.

[_maklelan]

Does NRM convey the idea that the group is dysfunctional and harmful to some of its members?

Not all New Religious Movements are dysfunctional and harmful, nor are those groups labeled "cults" by others. This is the whole point of the less stigmatic nomenclature. Most modern use of the word "cult" is intended to rhetorically associate groups that are not dysfunctional or harmful with those that are through nominal similarities that don't really have anything to do with the sources of those harmful and dysfunctional characteristics that do exist.

[_maklelan]

Utterly baffling. Why in the hell would a higher concentration of a "good thing" make people's collective behavior worse?! Why? Why?

We hear people say that Mormonism provides some net good. What is this net good they speak of? If there truly was a net good to be had, then a higher concentration of these people would result in a greater collective good!

I'm totally confused about this.

If human nature and socio-religious dynamics were reducible to simple mathematical addition, I suppose you'd have a point.