Cultishness...

[_lulu]

Nor are all established religions benign.

Agreed.

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.

Good, so we're back to "Is Mormonism a harmful religion?"

[_Buffalo]

No, I use it in the technical sense of someone characterized by obstinate, intolerant, and strongly partisan beliefs.

You don't seem to have been able to make that connection to me or to people who use the word cult. That hasn't stopped you from tossing it out several times in this thread, though.

Both comments are flatly false. I have provided you with both.

You flatly admitted that NRM does not specifically identify harmful young religious organizations, and when asked repeatedly, have been unable to come up with a suitable substitute for cult.

[_zeezrom]

I've decided that religion doesn't really influence much of anything for good or bad. It is just an excuse for the good and bad things that happen.

[_Yoda]

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.

I think it has more to do with the elitist types that practice Mormonism in Utah. It is a uniquely weird bunch, from what I saw. We had a fairly large LDS community in Northern California, and I never witnessed the kind of behavior I described that happened in Utah.

[_Buffalo]

I think it has more to do with the elitist types that practice Mormonism in Utah. It is a uniquely weird bunch, from what I saw. We had a fairly large LDS community in Northern California, and I never witnessed the kind of behavior I described that happened in Utah.

I think the problem with Utah is that it started with the poisonous culture of violence, dishonesty and distrust/fear/hatred of gentiles of the Brigham Young era. And they've always had all the power, which they're obviously not ethical enough to employ responsibly.

Mormons in the mission field, however, have to be more concerned with setting a good example. Because they're an extreme minority, they have to stick together more than the cliquish Utah Mormons, and they're also more concerned about making a good impression on the "gentile" majority.

Some cultures can be benign and ethical when they are the majority. Mormonism isn't mature enough for that yet, obviously.

[_Yoda]

I think it has more to do with the elitist types that practice Mormonism in Utah. It is a uniquely weird bunch, from what I saw. We had a fairly large LDS community in Northern California, and I never witnessed the kind of behavior I described that happened in Utah.

I think the problem with Utah is that it started with the poisonous culture of violence, dishonesty and distrust/fear/hatred of gentiles of the Brigham Young era. And they've always had all the power, which they're obviously not ethical enough to employ responsibly.

Mormons in the mission field, however, have to be more concerned with setting a good example. Because they're an extreme minority, they have to stick together more than the cliquish Utah Mormons, and they're also more concerned about making a good impression on the "gentile" majority.

Some cultures can be benign and ethical when they are the majority. Mormonism isn't mature enough for that yet, obviously.

Good points. I will comment more on this later.

[_zeezrom]

But should a red flag be raised? The plan is that God come to earth and be the king and everyone become Mormons. Doesn't that mean the whole world becomes one giant Utah?

Or are y'all suggesting that if say, 80% of the population in Mississippi converted to Mormonism tomorrow, it would be different than Utah? In other words, it's not a Mormon thing but rather a Utah thing? The religion has nothing to do with any bad behavior found in Utah? This may suggest that religion has very little impact whatever...

[_Buffalo]

But should a red flag be raised? The plan is that God come to earth and be the king and everyone become Mormons. Doesn't that mean the whole world becomes one giant Utah?

Or are y'all suggesting that if say, 80% of the population in Mississippi converted to Mormonism tomorrow, it would be different than Utah? In other words, it's not a Mormon thing but rather a Utah thing? The religion has nothing to do with any bad behavior found in Utah? This may suggest that religion has very little impact whatever...

I think it would be almost exactly the same as Utah. Mormon culture does not work well yet as a majority culture with political power. It's not mature enough, in my opinion.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Your point early on in this thread was that familiarity with or emersion in "counter-cult" ideologies was "strongly associated" with apostate hostility, was it not? When I tried to point out to you that the scholarship also says that apostate anger relates to the "position" of the NRM within the larger society, you accused me of 'misrepresenting' the scholarship! It's funny how you always claim that you're being "misrepresented" as you hit the Eject Button.

Oh, well. I enjoyed kicking your butt. (And I didn't even have to call you "Boy Apologist"!)

[_maklelan]

Your point early on in this thread was that familiarity with or emersion in "counter-cult" ideologies was "strongly associated" with apostate hostility, was it not?

Yeah, and "apostate hostility" is quite a different concept from "general antagonism."

When I tried to point out to you that the scholarship also says that apostate anger relates to the "position" of the NRM within the larger society, you accused me of 'misrepresenting' the scholarship!

That's because it doesn't relate to the "'position' of the NRM within the larger society," but to the apostate's perception of the NRM's location vis-à-vis their own location. You were misrepresenting the scholarship, and you continue to do so.

It's funny how you always claim that you're being "misrepresented" as you hit the Eject Button.

No, what I do is show that I'm misrepresented and then reach a point where I see no value in trying to reason with someone who flatly refuses to honestly engage what I'm saying.

Oh, well. I enjoyed kicking your butt. (And I didn't even have to call you "Boy Apologist"!)

You did have to entirely misrepresent my position, though. That still hasn't changed.