List of things that make Mormonism a cult

[_Mister Scratch]

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).

Then please show how the "common vernacular" definition is in any substantial way different from the scholarly definition.

I am sorry, but your question contains a false presupposition (I.e. that there is a "the scholarly definition" rather than a multiple of "sholarly definitions") and thus cannot sensibly be answered as is. The same applies to your other comments and questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I didn't ask you a question. I told you, in effect, to put up or shut up. Instead, you are offering up bloviation. for what it's worth, is see that I *did* slightly misread your post. It seems that rather than arguing for one definition being more valid than the other, you are instead arguing for a kind of totalitarian (or meritocratic?) censorship: i.e., that only scholars are "allowed" to use the term "cult," where mere "colloquial" users, such as those on this messageboard, are not/should not be permitted to use it.

However, some of the people on this board are clearly either professional or amateur scholars (including yourself). So, doesn't that mean that the word has validity, provided that those who are scholars are the ones doing the using?

[_wenglund]

* Spying on other members is encouraged I don't see the LDS church doing much of this. Some people are busybodies, but it isn't encouraged.

Wrong. The LDS Home Teaching program is an institutionalized method of doing exactly this. The Home Teachers are supposed to report on the condition of the family to their priesthood leaders. The fact that most Home Teachers don't Home Teach well is a measure of the incompetence of the bureaucracy of intelligence gathering for large numbers of people, not a measure that it isn't done.

I have been a Home Teacher for nearly 40 years, served in numerous Elder's Quorum presidencies in both singles wards and family wards, in multiple states, and sat in on a host of PEC meetings, and throughout all that extensive experience I have yet to come across anything remotely resembling "spying". One would have to soar to Scratch-like hieghts of paranoic flights of fancy to see it as such. Rather, for the relatively few who are dilligent in this calling, their actions may better be described as "moving van services", "lawn care", "snow removal", and/or "short story tellers". I suspect that on average, the Home Teachers may be able to tell most of the names of the family members they visit, and perhaps even their birthdays. But, beyond that, they are relatively clueless.

Now, if you are really determined to find some semblence of covert operations within the Church, your best bet would be to focus on the Relief Society. They tend to know just about everything about everyone in the ward. ;-)

But, even that palls in comparison to the kind of "spying" of various participants here in regards to participants on another board. Some have rightly called it "obsessive". ;-)

Does this board qualify as a "cult" on that basis?

I certainly don't think so--though it may reasonably be thought to be a better fit than the Church in terms of certain qualifiers. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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).

Then please show how the "common vernacular" definition is in any substantial way different from the scholarly definition.

I am sorry, but your question contains a false presupposition (I.e. that there is a "the scholarly definition" rather than a multiple of "sholarly definitions") and thus cannot sensibly be answered as is. The same applies to your other comments and questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I didn't ask you a question. I told you, in effect, to put up or shut up. Instead, you are offering up bloviation. for what it's worth, is see that I *did* slightly misread your post. It seems that rather than arguing for one definition being more valid than the other, you are instead arguing for a kind of totalitarian (or meritocratic?) censorship: I.e., that only scholars are "allowed" to use the term "cult," where mere "colloquial" users, such as those on this messageboard, are not/should not be permitted to use it.

However, some of the people on this board are clearly either professional or amateur scholars (including yourself). So, doesn't that mean that the word has validity, provided that those who are scholars are the ones doing the using?

Forgive me. Instead of using the word "question", I should have used the word "request".

So, my response should actually read: "Your request contains a false presupposition (i.e. that there is a "the scholarly definition" rather than a multiple of "sholarly definitions") and thus cannot sensibly be complied with as is. The same applies to your other comments, requests, and questions.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

* Spying on other members is encouraged I don't see the LDS church doing much of this. Some people are busybodies, but it isn't encouraged.

Wrong. The LDS Home Teaching program is an institutionalized method of doing exactly this. The Home Teachers are supposed to report on the condition of the family to their priesthood leaders. The fact that most Home Teachers don't Home Teach well is a measure of the incompetence of the bureaucracy of intelligence gathering for large numbers of people, not a measure that it isn't done.

I have been a Home Teacher for nearly 40 years, served in numerous Elder's Quorum presidencies in both singles wards and family wards, in multiple states, and sat in on a host of PEC meetings, and throughout all that extensive experience I have yet to come across anything remotely resembling "spying". One would have to soar to Scratch-like hieghts of paranoic flights of fancy to see it as such. Rather, for the relatively few who are dilligent in this calling, their actions may better be described as "moving van services", "lawn care", "snow removal", and/or "short story tellers". I suspect that on average, the Home Teachers may be able to tell most of the names of the family members they visit, and perhaps even their birthdays. But, beyond that, they are relatively clueless.

Now, if you are really determined to find some semblence of covert operations within the Church, your best bet would be to focus on the Relief Society. They tend to know just about everything about everyone in the ward. ;-)

But, even that palls in comparison to the kind of "spying" of various participants here in regards to participants on another board. Some have rightly called it "obsessive". ;-)

Does this board qualify as a "cult" on that basis?

I certainly don't think so--though it may reasonably be thought to be a better fit than the Church in terms of certain qualifiers. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have to agree with you here, Wade. Even if you are told to report on a family, it is in terms of ways the ward can help. I have never been asked to report on spirituality or inappropriate behaviors.

[_Coggins7]

Of course the TBM's argue that they are NOT a cult, just as any good cult would do.

I'm not going to argue any such thing. Indeed, I'm quite comfortable with the designation "cult" in its legitimate anthropological and sociological context. I will here parse the following claims in that spirit:

1. Secret temple rituals.

A cult has two primary meanings, the first of which is any system of religious belief whatever, and the second being a minority religion who's beliefs are considered outside the normative mainstream. The Church certainly fits each one of those bills. Now, how does a set of sacred rituals and forms of worship which are reserved, by the common consent and agreement of the membership, to be available only to worth members of that religious system cultic in any sense beyond the above senses? What makes this cultic, beyond the sense in which all religion is cultic?

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

Members are not required to pay money to participate in the rituals of the Temple. This is very close to the kind of intellectual slovenliness and bad faith I have little toleration for. Tithing is a biblical principle and a perennial one for the LDS. It is required as a matter of faithfulness and sacrifice required of a disciple of Christ. I'm afraid I don't understand either why someone who is not willing to support the Church temporally should be allowed entrance into its most sacred forms of worship, nor am I at all convinced that most people who resist the payment of tithing as a matter of principle would want anything to do with the Temple in any case. This is something, again, the faithful Saints agree to and sustain. The unfaithful have to walk, but that, of course, is their own decision.

3. Calling the leader "The Prophet"

Why is this cultic beyond the above senses mentioned?

4. Wealthy leaders, while the membership struggles to pay tithes.

This is meaningless class warfare verbiage. The leaders of the Church gave up all of their temporal affairs when they became Apostles, and they will never return to them. Their entire life's work is religious work. Can you give us some examples of "wealthy' leaders who are using their wealth in some manner irrelevant to the work of the Church, or, even better, using it at all?

And who, pray tell, are all these members who are "struggling" to pay tithes? Many do, many don't. You clearly have not the faintest idea of what the law of tithing is or how it is understood in the Church, and in that case, silence, rather than pontification, would be the best course to follow. Tithing is for the work of the Church, to build the kingdom temporally, to care for the poor and needy, to build houses of worship and Temples, and, in essence, build Zion. How is the Church supposed to grow Scottie, with Monopoly money?

5. Undisclosed financials.

Neener, neener, neener...

6. Excessive time investment highly encouraged. In fact, it is considered a sin to refuse a calling.

Yes, the Church actually asks us to do something as a condition of our salvation. We are to serve the Lord and others. Horrors. Less Survivor, Less American Idol, less Oprah, less video gaming, less NFL. Agony agony agony agony AGONYYYYYYYYYYYY!

And, again, what does a religion requiring time, service, and sacrifice of its adherants, have to do with being a "cult"?

7. "Magic" underwear that will protect you from harm.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, under normal circumstances Scottie, but in the case of this kind of mindless bigotry and intellectual hollowness, the question is moot.

Your knowledge of ancient Mediterranean religion and early Christianity is below absolute zero.

8. Since most of the world doesn't realize there is a difference in the Mormon sects, I'll throw polygamy in here.

Nice try scottie. There are no "Mormon sects"; there is only one "Mormon" church. There are, indeed, offshoots or sects that have sprung from it, with their own names and beliefs, but these are not related to the original church as Protestant sects are related to each other. There is no "Momondom" within which a body of denominations resides. The sects you mentioned are considered to be utterly apostate, and of no relation to the LDS Church in any but a historical sense. The members of those sects are non-members of the Church, not a member of a "body of Christ" comprised of disparate yet still legitimate denominations within the larger body. They are not considered "Mormons" or "Latter Day Saints". They are not considered a part of the the restored Kingdom.

Further, how, again, does polygamy make the Church a "cult" in a manner it doesn't make ancient Judaism a cult, a religion in which, the Bible makes quite clear, polygamy was accepted under certain conditions.

9. The priesthood ban.

What does this have to do with the term "cult"? Jesus himself refused to take his message outside the House of Israel while he was alive. This makes Jesus a "cultist", does it not?

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

Yes. Anyone who disagrees with the doctrines and practices of the Church is a cultist. How's that (well, its a objective and rational a reason to call someone a cultist as you've given regarding the Church)?

[_Who Knows]

Neener, neener, neener...

Juliann has taught you well. Or is it the other way around?

[_Coggins7]

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?

End of thread.

This kind of substantive questioning, asking for intellectually substantive analysis and explication will now put this entire thread into a power dive to the jagged rocks below.

This is just too much to ask here.

[_Scottie]

1. Secret temple rituals.

A cult has two primary meanings, the first of which is any system of religious belief whatever, and the second being a minority religion who's beliefs are considered outside the normative mainstream. The Church certainly fits each one of those bills. Now, how does a set of sacred rituals and forms of worship which are reserved, by the common consent and agreement of the membership, to be available only to worth members of that religious system cultic in any sense beyond the above senses? What makes this cultic, beyond the sense in which all religion is cultic?

Well, because most cults have secret rituals. The members are threatened with some kind of punishment if they disclose what happens in these secret rituals. Do you know of any other mainstream religions where secret rituals are required for salvation?

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

Members are not required to pay money to participate in the rituals of the Temple. This is very close to the kind of intellectual slovenliness and bad faith I have little toleration for. Tithing is a biblical principle and a perennial one for the LDS. It is required as a matter of faithfulness and sacrifice required of a disciple of Christ. I'm afraid I don't understand either why someone who is not willing to support the Church temporally should be allowed entrance into its most sacred forms of worship, nor am I at all convinced that most people who resist the payment of tithing as a matter of principle would want anything to do with the Temple in any case. This is something, again, the faithful Saints agree to and sustain. The unfaithful have to walk, but that, of course, is their own decision.

Holy twisting, Batman!! You most certainly ARE required to pay tithing for temple entrance. Trying to convolute it somehow into obeying a commandment, and that commandment just happens to be pay your tithing is ridiculous. There is no middle step here. It is pay your tithing or don't go to the temple. Simple as that.

3. Calling the leader "The Prophet"

Why is this cultic beyond the above senses mentioned?

I've explained this. Please read the whole thread.

4. Wealthy leaders, while the membership struggles to pay tithes.


This is meaningless class warfare verbiage. The leaders of the Church gave up all of their temporal affairs when they became Apostles, and they will never return to them. Their entire life's work is religious work. Can you give us some examples of "wealthy' leaders who are using their wealth in some manner irrelevant to the work of the Church, or, even better, using it at all?

And who, pray tell, are all these members who are "struggling" to pay tithes? Many do, many don't. You clearly have not the faintest idea of what the law of tithing is or how it is understood in the Church, and in that case, silence, rather than pontification, would be the best course to follow. Tithing is for the work of the Church, to build the kingdom temporally, to care for the poor and needy, to build houses of worship and Temples, and, in essence, build Zion. How is the Church supposed to grow Scottie, with Monopoly money?

I'm not sure I said anything about growing the church. A priest gives up his whole life to the service of God as well. In fact, most bishops and stake presidents could EASILY work a 2nd job with the amount of un-paid hours they put in. But, I'm just supposed to agree that because these men are higher up in the ranking that they somehow deserve a lavish lifestyle? As far as I know, Jesus was about as high up as you can go, and he was pretty poor.

5. Undisclosed financials.

Neener, neener, neener...

Well, I can't argue that point. Agreed.

6. Excessive time investment highly encouraged. In fact, it is considered a sin to refuse a calling.

Yes, the Church actually asks us to do something as a condition of our salvation. We are to serve the Lord and others. Horrors. Less Survivor, Less American Idol, less Oprah, less video gaming, less NFL. Agony agony agony agony AGONYYYYYYYYYYYY!

I'm almost thinking of rescinding this one. Really, only Bishops and above have callings which require so much time as to make it seem cultish.

7. "Magic" underwear that will protect you from harm.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, under normal circumstances Scottie, but in the case of this kind of mindless bigotry and intellectual hollowness, the question is moot.

What?!?

8. Since most of the world doesn't realize there is a difference in the Mormon sects, I'll throw polygamy in here.

Nice try scottie. There are no "Mormon sects"; there is only one "Mormon" church. There are, indeed, offshoots or sects that have sprung from it, with their own names and beliefs, but these are not related to the original church as Protestant sects are related to each other. There is no "Momondom" within which a body of denominations resides. The sects you mentioned are considered to be utterly apostate, and of no relation to the LDS Church in any but a historical sense. The members of those sects are non-members of the Church, not a member of a "body of Christ" comprised of disparate yet still legitimate denominations within the larger body. They are not considered "Mormons" or "Latter Day Saints". They are not considered a part of the the restored Kingdom.

Uh, nice try yourself there, coggie. The current, most popular LDS church was nothing but an offshoot in itself. BY just relocated it to an environment where it could flourish.

And, yes, FLDS are Mormons just as much as LDS are. If you're going to try and argue that point, well, then other Christian religions can say Mormons aren't Christians. Just cause you say you are doesn't make it so.

9. The priesthood ban.

What does this have to do with the term "cult"? Jesus himself refused to take his message outside the House of Israel while he was alive. This makes Jesus a "cultist", does it not?

Because cults have exclusivity bans on certain groups.

[_Coggins7]

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

According to whom?

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

This is old Walter Martin/Ed Decker word gaming intended to prejudiced the ignorant (welcome to Mormondiscussion.com).
Nobody has ever been initiated into any religion--ever, anywhere--knowing, ultimately, "what to expect" over time in any detailed, ultimate sense. What kind of hokey pokey thinking is this?

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

Please excuse this French language, but what on God's green earth are you talking about?

* rushing prospective members into conversion

Against church counsel, where it happens.

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

More populist slander for the Decker/Scratch pitchfork brigades. If you ever turn this stuff into a book hana, there is a word for the genre under which is is subsumed. We call it a "screed".

* keeping records confidential from membership

What records?

* 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"

As they say, all fiction is really autobiography.

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

The Church does no such thing. Source?

* considering the leader to be the ultimate and only authority

Oh, the Lord Jesus Christ? Yes, we do so consider him.

Hint hana, you just made a utter and unutterable fool of yourself in public. Regroup.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade, I didn't ask you a question. I told you, in effect, to put up or shut up. Instead, you are offering up bloviation. for what it's worth, is see that I *did* slightly misread your post. It seems that rather than arguing for one definition being more valid than the other, you are instead arguing for a kind of totalitarian (or meritocratic?) censorship: I.e., that only scholars are "allowed" to use the term "cult," where mere "colloquial" users, such as those on this messageboard, are not/should not be permitted to use it.

However, some of the people on this board are clearly either professional or amateur scholars (including yourself). So, doesn't that mean that the word has validity, provided that those who are scholars are the ones doing the using?

Forgive me. Instead of using the word "question", I should have used the word "request".

So, my response should actually read: "Your request contains a false presupposition (I.e. that there is a "the scholarly definition" rather than a multiple of "sholarly definitions") and thus cannot sensibly be complied with as is. The same applies to your other comments, requests, and questions.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your revision doesn't make any sense, Wade, mainly since I am not "presupposing" that there is only one "sholarly definitions." Instead, I'm acknowledgint your argument, which is, apparently, that no one but scholars should be able to employ the term "cult." Is that or is that not your argument? Y/N?