List of things that make Mormonism a cult

[_wenglund]

Thinking back to the thread where GoodK is arguing that critics don't like to be labeled anti-Mormon, and DCP saying, "Well, tough! If the label fits, we are going to use it!", it made me think of the cult label that many assign to the Mormon church.

Of course the TBM's argue that they are NOT a cult, just as any good cult would do. I always wonder why they fight so hard against it? I mean, honestly, the Mormons do some VERY cult like things. The arguments that ANY religion will fit the standard definition is, in my opinion, hogwash. There are several things that the Mormons do that go above and beyond what traditional religions do.

I'll list a few that I believe push them over the edge from a religion into a cult. For you TBM's, try and imagine if another, smaller religious group were doing these things, and they were trying to recruit your daughter.

1. Secret temple rituals.
2. Forcing members to pay money to participate in the secret temple rituals.
3. Calling the leader "The Prophet"
4. Wealthy leaders, while the membership struggles to pay tithes.
5. Undisclosed financials.
6. Excessive time investment highly encourage. In fact, it is considered a sin to refuse a calling.
7. "Magic" underwear that will protect you from harm.
8. Since most of the world doesn't realize there is a difference in the Mormon sects, I'll throw polygamy in here.
9. The priesthood ban.

Any others you would like to add that make the church more cult-ish than a normal religion should be?

Could you please explain why you believe each of the items you listed above should qualify the Church (or any Church for that matter) as a cult--as the term is colloquially meant today?

Could you also explain your purpose in using the term in relation to the Church--particularly in light of how the term is colloquilly meant today?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_the road to hana]

1. Secret temple rituals.

Would you classify Masonry as a cult?

Yes.

2. Forcing members to pay money to participate in the secret temple rituals.

Forcing? No one has to pay tithing if they don't want to. If you belong to a club, and you don't pay your annual fees, do you want dinner at the club? People pay tithing because they believe, not because they are "forced to believe".

Are you aware of other religions that require a designated minimum amount of monetary payment in order for a member to have full worship and participation?

9. The priesthood ban.

Mormonism was the only religion to officially have a ban. Other Christian churches in America did not allow fellowship with blacks, or limited it.

Most Christian religions which acknowledge an ordained priesthood have restricted ordination to the priesthood in one form or another, but not all have limited it on the basis of color or ethnic origin.

[_Scottie]

2. Forcing members to pay money to participate in the secret temple rituals. I think "force" is an inaccurate word here. No one is "forced" to do anything. However, members cannot receive a temple recommend without paying a full tithe. And, I agree that there is immense cultural pressure to do so, particularly if you want to see your kids' marriages.

Yes, you're right that they are not "forced" to pay tithing, but as you said, there is such immense pressure to pay, that it is barely lower than forced.

3. Calling the leader "The Prophet" I don't really see a difference between calling a Church leader "The Prophet" or "The Pope". It's a religious leadership reference.

Oh, I see IMMENSE difference. Try and think of it as though we were talking about a religious movement with, say, 100 followers. All of them following the one who calls himself "The Prophet". Would that lend yourself to see that movement as more of a cult than not?

7. "Magic" underwear that will protect you from harm. The temple garment is referred to as symbolic of spiritual protection. It is a radical view that the garment physically protects you from harm.

I'm not sure it's too radical. I've heard PLENTY of sacrament meeting Faith-Promoting Rumor's where someone's garments saved them from harm. These stories are all too common.

8. Since most of the world doesn't realize there is a difference in the Mormon sects, I'll throw polygamy in here. Actually, most people do recognize that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints no longer practices polygamy. I agree, however, that practicing it at all was "cultish".

Are you sure about that? I don't think most people care enough about Mormonism to know there are multiple sects. They hear about "Thems Mormons on trial for polygamy", referring to Warren Jeffs. Most don't understand that it's a completely separate sect. All they know is that Mormons are polygamists. Which, technically, is true.

9. The priesthood ban. Are you referring to women not holding the priesthood, or the ban on black males which is no longer an issue? If you are referring to women, I don't really see how this is "cult-like". Many mainstream religions do not allow women to hold priesthood.

The black males. You're right that discriminating based on gender happens in all religions.


I know that LDS fight against this, but from an outsiders view, it has many cult-like properties. I really tried for a long time to distance myself from labeling it as a cult, but then I tested it myself. As I said, imagine that the LDS church had a following of 100 people instead of 13 million, and your daughter was being recruited.

It certainly helps that the LDS church has so many members. Size of a religion is one thing that can distance itself from being labeled a cult.

[_Scottie]

Ray and Wade,

I don't think that any item by itself makes a religion a cult. It is the combination of them that makes a religion a cult.

Again, lets use my example of a new religion, founded by a man that calls himself "The Prophet", who has secret meetings, requires payment to participate in those secret meetings, requires new clothing to be worn in order to participate in the secret meetings, tells the followers that revealing anything about the secret meetings to anyone at any time will bring swift punishment, all the while he is driving a new Lexus and living in a $1 million dollar condo. Oh, plus the fact that the new member must spend several hours a week doing unpaid work to "build up" the new religion.

Would you take this religion on it's face and give it the benefit of the doubt, or would you perhaps try and talk your daughter out of joining because it appears to be a cult?

Like I said, fortunately the LDS church has a very large population. People can see the other side, which is the members doing good works and, for the most part, acting like good Christians. For the most part, they are normal, everyday folks. This helps a lot.

[_the road to hana]

Any others you would like to add that make the church more cult-ish than a normal religion should be?

Some other characteristics commonly attributed to organizations thought to be "cults" can include:

* not giving full disclosure in the initiation process--new members are not warned in advance what they can expect

* targeting particular subgroups of society, whether the lonely and vulnerable or those from higher incomes

* rushing prospective members into conversion

* considering itself as an organization to be above the law, or a law unto itself

* keeping records confidential from membership

* ostracizing those who leave the group, and telling members who have family and friends who leave the group that those people are "evil," "sinners" or "apostate"

* discouraging full investigation through outside sources (Internet, published materials, and so forth)

* considering the leader to be the ultimate and only authority

[_Scottie]

* targeting particular subgroups of society, whether the lonely and vulnerable or those from higher incomes

I don't agree with this one. I don't see the LDS church targeting any particular group. They seem pretty consistent in their missionary efforts, targeting both rich and poor.

* considering itself as an organization to be above the law, or a law unto itself

I can see this in the early church, but not so much anymore.

* keeping records confidential from membership

Does the LDS church do this?

* ostracizing those who leave the group, and telling members who have family and friends who leave the group that those people are "evil," "sinners" or "apostate"

Well, when they leave, they ARE apostate. And I'm not sure the church actually teaches this. It is, however, well bred in the culture of the church.

* considering the leader to be the ultimate and only authority

I'm sure you'll get arguments on this one about praying to the HG for confirmation, but we all know that the general memberships trusts the Prophet 100%.

[_wenglund]

Ray and Wade,

I don't think that any item by itself makes a religion a cult. It is the combination of them that makes a religion a cult.

Again, lets use my example of a new religion, founded by a man that calls himself "The Prophet", who has secret meetings, requires payment to participate in those secret meetings, requires new clothing to be worn in order to participate in the secret meetings, tells the followers that revealing anything about the secret meetings to anyone at any time will bring swift punishment, all the while he is driving a new Lexus and living in a $1 million dollar condo. Oh, plus the fact that the new member must spend several hours a week doing unpaid work to "build up" the new religion.

Would you take this religion on it's face and give it the benefit of the doubt, or would you perhaps try and talk your daughter out of joining because it appears to be a cult?

My concern would be in determining what harm or benefit may be served were my hypothetical daughter to join, rather than on what label to attach to the religion. Nevertheless, none of the things you just mentioned would, in and of themselves, or even collectively as you presented them, provide enough information for me to reasonably determine whether harm or benefit would come to my hypothetical daughter, let alone qualify the investigated religion as a "cult" (as colloqually meant today).

One of the intents behind my previous question is to determine whether you are formulating your own idiosyncratic definition, which arbitrarily and capreciously applies to the Church. In other words, I question whether you are selectively picking unique practices of the Church to create your own usage of the term, rather than determining general characteristics of a "cult" (as it is meant colloquially today) and seeing whether the Church then qualifies.

My other intent is to learn what value you hope to produce in labelling the Church as a "cult"--assuming you are able to craft a list of generalizable characteristics under which the Church qualifies as a "cult".

I am still interested in getting our answer to both.

Like I said, fortunately the LDS church has a very large population. People can see the other side, which is the members doing good works and, for the most part, acting like good Christians. For the most part, they are normal, everyday folks. This helps a lot.

I agree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult.

Is this relevant? Probably not.

[_bcspace]

Is Jesus a charismatic figure? If so, then all Christians fall under the antiMormon created negative defiintion of 'cult'.

On the other hand, all religions meet the rest of definitions of 'cult'.

[_Ray A]

Are you aware of other religions that require a designated minimum amount of monetary payment in order for a member to have full worship and participation?

I am aware of one - early Christianity. See the Book of Acts. In the Old Testament Judsaim not only required payment of tithes, but much, much more. The Catholic Church enforced Indulgences on its membership. PAYGS - pay as you go for salvation.

Most Christian religions which acknowledge an ordained priesthood have restricted ordination to the priesthood in one form or another, but not all have limited it on the basis of color or ethnic origin.

It still continues today:

The Reality of Today's Churches

Over 90% of churches nationally remain segregated. That equates to over 300,000 congregations that remain segregated. Multiracial churches comprise only 5-8% of America's congregations. Multiracial churches in this context mean no single racial group comprises more than 80% of the congregation. Racial divides started as a result of denominational splits over slavery, wounds that never healed between Northern and Southern Baptists. Most churches subscribe to the Homogeneous Unit Principle, which suggests that individuals join Christianity from their own cultural perspective. Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, authors of Divided by Faith, argue that some evangelical principles actually promote racism. They explain, "A racialized society is a society wherein race matters profoundly for differences and life experiences." Therefore, blacks found comfort in predominately black churches where they are shielded from prejudices and allowed to control their own religious experience.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Faith-and-Seg ... &id=896835

And:

Black theology emerged in 1966 in the African-American church in response to segregation in the white Christian community. Also called liberation theology, black theology is the belief that the core element of Christianity is liberating the people of the world from poverty and oppression, as opposed to the mainstream American Christian community which, in the 1960s, preached that the central tenet of Christianity was nonviolence. According to Hopkins, black theology is considered to be the first theology to surface outside of the walls of academia.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/0 ... ence.shtml

The irony is that the LDS Church is the only church in America, and perhaps the world, to officially open its doors to people of all races. If racism continues at an individual level, and no doubt it does to some degree, this is the result of individual prejudice. There is a much wider context for this issue of racism, and it's not limited to religion.

That's all I have time for this morning.