liz3564 wrote: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.
Believe me, I was confused by it, too, Zee. It felt like I was involved in a completely different church from the LDS Church I grew up in.
Buffalo wrote: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.
In other words, NRM is insufficient to the task of correctly labeling dysfunctional groups. Thanks.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:In other words, NRM is insufficient to the task of correctly labeling dysfunctional groups. Thanks.
Again, you're completely ignoring what I'm saying and just totally fabricating these points that have already been addressed. Do you really believe that you're being sneaky with this rhetoric? Do you really think it's not completely and totally transparent?
Buffalo wrote:In other words, NRM is insufficient to the task of correctly labeling dysfunctional groups. Thanks.
Again, you're completely ignoring what I'm saying and just totally fabricating these points that have already been addressed. Do you really believe that you're being sneaky with this rhetoric? Do you really think it's not completely and totally transparent?
It's not sneaky at all. You admitted that NRM doesn't work to describe dysfunctional groups, and that its point is to more inclusive. I'm not sure what your issue is.
I'm taking this from your response:
"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"
In other words NRM does not fulfill the function I outlined, any more than the use of the term "organ" identifies "vestigial organs."
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
maklelan wrote:If human nature and socio-religious dynamics were reducible to simple mathematical addition, I suppose you'd have a point.
The only thing I can conclude from this is:
Mormonism delivers a net good to the world as long as there isn't too much of it in a small space. You need to sprinkle it around and keep it diluted. I wonder if this tells us something else... Does it say anything about the non-Mormon? Maybe the world is better off with a bunch of non-Mormons in the world...
Well, if that is the case, then why push Mormonism at all?
Okay, okay. It's because we need a good sprinkling of Mormonism.
Weird.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
Buffalo wrote:It's not sneaky at all. You admitted that NRM doesn't work to describe dysfunctional groups, and that its point is to more inclusive. I'm not sure what your issue is.
No, the point is not to be more inclusive. The point is to be less manipulative and bigoted. I explained that the term "cult" is equally as vague in its contemporary sectarian use. Don't you remember Jeffries going on about how Mormonism was a "theological cult" rather than a "sociological cult," as if that distinction means a damn thing to someone who hears him say "Mormonism is a cult!"
Buffalo wrote:I'm taking this from your response:
"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"
In other words NRM does not fulfill the function I outlined, any more than the use of the term "organ" identifies "vestigial organs."
In other words, "I'm just ignoring the part of your comments that undermines the conceptual contrast I'm trying to rhetorically paint between your nomenclature and mine." Again, do you really think this rhetorical slight of hand is fooling anyone at all? How old are you?
maklelan wrote:Not all New Religious Movements are dysfunctional and harmful
Nor are all established religions benign.
I've always had a problem with the term "New Religious Movements." How old does a religious movement have to be before it can't hurt anyone?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
lulu wrote:Nor are all established religions benign.
Agreed.
lulu wrote:I've always had a problem with the term "New Religious Movements." How old does a religious movement have to be before it can't hurt anyone?
The point is not to simply provide another term for harmful groups. The point is to provide another term for young religious movements that are unfairly grouped with violent and harmful ideological groups. The violence and harm is not unique to young groups, nor is it inherent in, or unique to, any of the other necessary and sufficient features anti-cult and counter-cult proponents conjure up. The whole point of the new vernacular is to avoid inaccurately suggesting that this harm and violence is a correlate of being a religious organization of a certain shape, size, and age.
Buffalo wrote:It's not sneaky at all. You admitted that NRM doesn't work to describe dysfunctional groups, and that its point is to more inclusive. I'm not sure what your issue is.
No, the point is not to be more inclusive. The point is to be less manipulative and bigoted. I explained that the term "cult" is equally as vague in its contemporary sectarian use. Don't you remember Jeffries going on about how Mormonism was a "theological cult" rather than a "sociological cult," as if that distinction means a damn thing to someone who hears him say "Mormonism is a cult!"
Buffalo wrote:I'm taking this from your response:
"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"
In other words NRM does not fulfill the function I outlined, any more than the use of the term "organ" identifies "vestigial organs."
In other words, "I'm just ignoring the part of your comments that undermines the conceptual contrast I'm trying to rhetorically paint between your nomenclature and mine." Again, do you really think this rhetorical slight of hand is fooling anyone at all? How old are you?
"Bigoted" is just as strong a word as cult, but I suspect you're using it in just the way you accuse others of using cult - as a catch all pejorative for people whose arguments you disagree with.
You still have not articulated why my characterization of your answer was wrong, nor have you provided an acceptable substitute for the word cult.
So, cult it is, Culty McCultist.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:"Bigoted" is just as strong a word as cult, but I suspect you're using it in just the way you accuse others of using cult - as a catch all pejorative for people whose arguments you disagree with.
No, I use it in the technical sense of someone characterized by obstinate, intolerant, and strongly partisan beliefs.
Buffalo wrote:You still have not articulated why my characterization of your answer was wrong, nor have you provided an acceptable substitute for the word cult.
Both comments are flatly false. I have provided you with both.
Buffalo wrote:So, cult it is, Culty McCultist.
Seriously, how old are you? Are you in high school?
