List of things that make Mormonism a cult

[_BishopRic]

Fine, Wade. Feel free to look up any scholarly guidebook on cults. Let's see how many parallels there are with Mormonism, and let's see whether or not this information sinks in with you. If we find enough parallels and definitional accuracies, will you therefore concede that "cult" is a fitting label? For my money, I am not really comfortable with the term "cult," but I'm curious if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. As I recall, in a discussion on whether or not the LDS Church "lies" about what "it claims to be," you insisted on setting aside one definition of the word "lie," stating that we should define the word in as charitable and LDS-positive way as possible. Are you willing to do the same with the word "cult"?

Unfortunately, you don't appear to understand the key points of my argument. So, let me be a little more clear.

First, I am not arguing against the scholarly usage of the term. I am arguing against its usage and interpretation in the common venacular (like what occurs on message boards such as this). That is why I was very careful, each time I posed my questions, to speak in terms of "colloquial" meaning and usage.

Secondly, I am arguing against its colloquial usage on the grounds that it doesn't serve any useful purpose, and in fact tends to be counterproduct (as some on both sides have agreed on this thread).

Now, if you can find a way to reasonably surmount those two reasonable causes for rejecting the colloquil usage of the term, then I would be pleased to hear it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay, my two cents...

First, I think the comparative argument was between two words that each side doesn't like -- "cult," and "anti-Mormon." I think each can make a good argument why we don't agree the term accurately fits us. If I focus on DCP's statement "Well, tough! If the label fits, we are going to use it!"...I think it would be fine for "us" to use the term "cult."

But if instead, I focus on his statement ""Perhaps the best approach would be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves.," then I think we should each not use the derogatory term when referring to the other.

That whole goose/gander thing, right?

[_Gadianton]

When I think of the word "cult", in the context of a manipulative organization, I think of two key factors:

-rigid rules and psychological control
-unrealistic expectations

Either of these two factors alone won't make a cult. For instance, the military, or a demanding job might count as a cult if rigidity is the only factor. To the extent controlling institutions are evil, they are so for different reasons than cults. Child sweatshop labor is evil but I wouldn't call a sweatshop a cult. And what about a basketball team or a band that requires focus, rigidly adhering to a schedule, and a huge sacrifices of time? In some contexts, some of these might seem cult-like but I'd argue no for the general case.

On its own, having unrealistic expectations probably doesn't constitute a cult. Most religions have unrealistic expectations. I think that's hard to measure. But certainly, beliefs about resurrection and living forever in heaven are unrealistic.

But now put the two together. Amway has a cult feel not just because it's pushy, makes you go to silly meetings where they "get pumped up" and so on, but because they work all this devotion to the end of unrealistic expectations where a very few people ever make any money. Or how about a basketball team where in addition to all the practice are lectures from coach striving for a ridiculously high level of success. If Amway kept all the mind games and high-pressure tactics, yet their reps on average were making huge sums of money, then it would seem less like a cult. Or if there was a lot of hype, but not much demands on time or money, then it also wouldn't seem like a cult.

Religions mostly vary in their demands as the beliefs are all equally unrealistic. But there is a difference between stated dogma and an operating psychological perspective, and that will usually go hand in hand with devotion and mind games. For instance, two people might claim to believe in heaven, but one just shrugs his shoulders without really following the logical consequences of that belief and the other takes it extremely serious in his daily activities. Heaven's gate seems to typify a cult. You've got unrealistic expectations about spiritual progress and devotion that included true Abrahamic faith. My ratings:

Heaven's gate 10
Active Amway 6
Army 4
Active TR LDS church membership 5
LDS mission 7
Catholic 4
Typical college student 3
College student in extremely liberal school 4
Calvary Chapel 6
Suicide bomber 8
Polygamist during Smith's time 9
High School band 2

[_Tidejwe]

If necessary to list how I understand why some people could call the LDS church a cult, I would say the following:

************
Secret temple rituals (do not let any outside the group know about them if possible and do not let those in the group know anything about what to expect until they are on the spot)

Forcing members to pay money in order to be considered "righteous" or in good standing, or to participate in rituals (if you want to be in bad standing or not participate you may choose not to, but you are not considered righteous or faithful if you so choose that option...thus you aren't forced to pay, but you are forced to pay if you want to be considered a good standing member or participate in secret rituals)

Calling the leader "The Prophet"

Blindly obeying and agree with the leader (even though past leaders have said you don't have to blindly obey, if you ever get a confirmation contradictory to the leader then that came from Satan and not God because if you're righteous then your answer will always correspond to the leader). One may argue this is a cultural thing...but regardless of culture or not, it is part of the group either way. Disagree with the leader(s) and you're obviously a faithless sinner who can't understand the promptings of the spirit.

Undisclosed Financials, while officially released finances show more money is spent on business adventures than on charity or helping the needy (ie the malls vs the last 20+ years of aid to the needy).

Sacrifice of EVERYTHING you have to the organization (as agreed to in the secret temple).

The organization comes before family unless said family is ALSO part of the organization, then Family comes first, but only because everyone is already loyal to the organization. If necessary, leave family and friends for the organization, and accept they are going to an eternal prison to be damned forever (no progression). Your new real family are other members of the organization who will be saved.

If you share an opinion or report historical truth that is not uplifting and positive, you are suddenly kicked out of the organization

Magical protective Underwear that must be worn at all times day and night with few exceptions

Organization (and leader) claims to be the SOLE source of truth and knowledge. "The only TRUE church" as it were. (awaits someone to try to argue semantics). The ultimate and only authority.

Lock up True History, books, documents, journals that are damning in "Archives" so nobody can ever find out the truth about previous leaders and history even if you are a member of the organization

Sending young people on "missions" while they're still not yet knowledgeable about the church history, etc. Restrict said youngsters from reading anything but authorized material and media (keep them in a controlled bubble) and severely restrict contact with family and friends. Keep them on a rigorous schedule.

Rushing prospective members into conversion

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". While you can argue this isn't an OFFICIAL part of the organization, this is just twisting things. It's still part of the actions of those within the organization and more common than not. So whether officially supported by the organization leaders or not, it is still something that undoubtedly happens to those who leave almost without exception.

Discouraging full investigation through outside sources (Internet, published materials, and so forth) and convincing members the only reliable sources are those published by the organization (which intentionally remove a lot of truth and history from it's account).

Tries to control your life in more than just spiritual ways.
************

I'd say the big one has to do with all the stupid blind obedience and leaders are never wrong thing, especially when it's obvious this is impossible...most the members of the organization have no way to know this...

[_Dr. Shades]

14. The leader can dictate the number of earrings a girl can wear, and the membership doesn't bat an eye.

[_Tidejwe]

14. The leader can dictate the number of earrings a girl can wear, and the membership doesn't bat an eye.

That's one I was thinking of when I said "Tries to control your life in more than just spiritual ways." :) Cuz there are other examples too. Tattoos, etc.

[_Ray A]

That's one I was thinking of when I said "Tries to control your life in more than just spiritual ways." :) Cuz there are other examples too. Tattoos, etc.

Oh my, Tattoos. Never thought of that! Controlling in "spiritual ways" and temporal ways! Yeah baby! (oops, did I sin?)

How flaming ridiculous do you people really get? Yeah, "cuz" there are other examples, too.

"A Mormon was today awarded the Medal of Honor, but Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said that because he had tatoos on his arm, this award should be rescinded. 'I don't care if he rescued every prisoner-of-war in Japan,' Hinckley said, 'he should be cast into outer darkness because he had tatoos'".

AAP report (with a little help from "'Recovery' From Mormonism")

[_Jersey Girl]

Some guy who wrote this ;-)

The C word is thrown around so much by the evangelicals it has lost a lot of meaning. To mainstream christianity, a cult is any new religion that doesn't follow their interpretation of the Bible

No, you are wrong. If you'd like a definition to work with let me know.

[_Yoda]

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?

But, that's just it. The Church isn't a grassroot movement with 100 followers. You're comparing apples to oranges here. You have still failed to prove the difference between utilizing the term, "Pope", as opposed to "Prophet". Within the Catholic religion, the Pope is revered just as the Prophet is revered in the Mormon religion. The Pope receives inspiration for his congregation, and addresses people in televised masses throughout the world. Sound familiar? ;)

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.

Just because some members are more radical than others and say things they shouldn't from the pulpit does not mean that this is official LDS doctrine. It is not.

[_Some Schmo]

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.

A prophet is not specifically or necessarily a religious leader (although I understand why you think that given the way Mormons use the term). The more common meaning of the word 'prophet' is one who is in direct communication with god.

It seems to me that if a religious leader would have you believe that he talks to god, he's trying to control you in an unhealthful way, and indicates that he leads a cult, especially when you have so many of his minions supporting that outrageous and bogus claim.

But you know, it's not really important that Mormons acknowledge they're in a cult. In fact, because so many deny it when so many others that leave come to acknowledge this fact, it actually strengthens the case that the church is a cult (despite it being somewhat mainstream). If Mormons are happy in their oppression and subservience, what difference does it make to me? If a fat guy denies he's fat when 90% of the rest of the world would call him that, well... good for him. Clearly, he doesn't want to believe it, doesn't care if he's fat, and if/when he does start to care, he'll admit it and do something about it. The only thing sad about this scenario is how his denial affects his loved ones.

I guess that's life.

[_Scottie]

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?

But, that's just it. The Church isn't a grassroot movement with 100 followers. You're comparing apples to oranges here. You have still failed to prove the difference between utilizing the term, "Pope", as opposed to "Prophet". Within the Catholic religion, the Pope is revered just as the Prophet is revered in the Mormon religion. The Pope receives inspiration for his congregation, and addresses people in televised masses throughout the world. Sound familiar? ;)

That is a good point. Having grown up in the church, and having had to defend it from being called a cult my whole life, I am now trying to view it as an outsider might view it.

About a year ago, I was discussing Mormonism with a work associate from Indianapolis. He knew next to nothing about Mormons, and was asking all kinds of questions. Without even thinking, I said something about how "The Prophet" leads our church. He stopped me there and said, "Wait...you call your leader The Prophet?!?!" That hit me pretty hard, and I started thinking about how he must be viewing this crazy religion that I was describing. And calling the leader "The Prophet" was up there in the crazy.

In modern day terms, labeling yourself as a prophet is looked upon as a cult-type label. Sure, Christians use the word "prophet" to speak of the ones in the Bible, but they don't believe any new ones will come until the 2 that die in the streets in Jerusalem. So, any new prophets are false prophets, and probably have something to do with a cult.

And, as far as the difference between The Pope and The Prophet, yes, they are very similar in title and function. I'm not sure, does The Pope claim to have direct contact with God as His only mouthpiece on the Earth?

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.

Just because some members are more radical than others and say things they shouldn't from the pulpit does not mean that this is official LDS doctrine. It is not.

Hmm...this is a tough one. Because, you are right, it isn't doctrine, but it is so widely observed and believed by the members, that it almost has a life of it's own. I don't see the brethren discouraging this thinking either. There are some member myths that are VERY strong, but the brethren try to dissuade the membership from believing it, because it isn't based in any kind of doctrine. The protective garments isn't one of these.

Again, I would just like to make it clear that I'm trying to view this as an outsider would. I have a hard time seeing what they might see, having been BIC and all. Some of the teachings that seem second nature to me are outlandish to outsiders.

Also, as I said, I don't believe that any single thing makes the LDS church a cult. If you were to look at Heavens Gate and listed the cult-like properties one by one, I'm sure you could find a religion somewhere that does each one of these things. But the sum of these properties makes Heaven's Gate a cult.