wenglund wrote:Scottie wrote: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-
Well Wade, like I said in the OP, DCP's refusal to label his definition of an anti-Mormon as anything other than an anti-Mormon is what prompted this thread. If a label SHOULD be affixed to something, whether that something likes it or not, then it should be affixed, right? If, by DCP's interpretation, someone should be labeled an anti-Mormon, then by damn, that's what they are label. Whether that person likes it or not.
So, I just figured that turn about is fair play here, right? The LDS Church has many cult-like properties. More so than most other mainstream religious movements.
I've heard LDS refer to Scientology as a cult numerous times. Do you think they appreciate that label? If we were to list the properties that make Scientology a cult, do you think a Scientologist could justify every single one of them?
Aside from this, you seem to be trying to pull some kind of final expected result from all of these threads. I'm not expecting to change the world, or even LDS doctrine. I'm a simple poster on a message board that thought this might make an interesting subject to talk about. That's the extent of my interest in this subject, as well as the "No expense spared" thread. I'm not sure why we need justification to discuss these things. I don't know why I have to be a full tithe payer to bring up that I believe tithing funds are misappropriated. We are on message boards, which, if I'm not mistaken, exist solely for discussing things like this as entertainment only. Nobody is going to change anybodies mind, and we're certainly not going to change church policy.