List of things that make Mormonism a cult

[_Moniker]

There's a reason I normally lurk rather than participate. People take this stuff entirely too seriously.

I participate because people take this stuff entirely too seriously. ;)

[_Jersey Girl]

You guys are throwing around the word "cult" so sloppily that I'm not going to bother reading all of your blather. (Code for I don't feel like reading it all ;-)

For starters, Ev's do NOT use the same criteria that I noticed posted earlier in the thread to judge Mormonsim as a cult. Infact, Ev's who do use the term "cult" specify that Mormonism is a Christian cult and therein lies the difference. It is not meant to offend, it is meant to identify.

Jersey Girl

(Boy did I put my foot in it or what?)

EVs who are in the know, apply the word cult to the LDS church to mean a pseudo Christian movement, one that attempts to be or appear Christian, but is not. Most EVs when they hear cult used towards the LDS Church think of the Jones or Koresh type cult.

I agree that most EV's (or other groups) who hear the word "cult" used in reference to the LDS Church think of Jones/Koresh types. I think I disagree with your first statement. On what do you think Ev's who are in the know, base their assertions? Any specifics to offer in that regard?

[_KimberlyAnn]

And someone on this forum in another thread claimed that religion did not use fear as persuasion.

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." --Terry Goodkind, Wizard's First Rule

Welcome, Church Mouse!

I'm almost certain I remember you from exmo conference. Did you run sound?

If you did, thanks! I appreciate it.

KA

[_Coggins7]

For starters, Ev's do NOT use the same criteria that I noticed posted earlier in the thread to judge Mormonsim as a cult. Infact, Ev's who do use the term "cult" specify that Mormonism is a Christian cult and therein lies the difference. It is not meant to offend, it is meant to identify.

Holy High Horsenuggets, and that's the best that can be said for this assertion. Never, in probably 30 years have I ever seen a EV tract, pamphlet, or book claiming to be an Christian apologetic criticism of "the cults" that did not clearly denote the Church as a non-Christian cult. Go check Decker, Martin, Ankerberg, Larson, and dozens of others. There may be some EV's who have designated the Church as a Christian cult, but the counter-cult, for the most part, has staked its traditional criticism of the Church on the claim that it is wholly outside Christendom as a class of religious believers.

The term "cult", has been used by evangelicals, almost exclusively, as a term denoting any religious system or church that does not accept traditional, historical, biblical Christianity. In other words, any group that does not hold, in essence, to ideas common within post WWII evangelical "born again" Protestantism.

This is what's known as a "precising definition", and its unique and idiosyncratic to those who use it. "Cult" has been an attack word and emotion laded well poisoning term of the evangelical counter cult since Martin.

[_Jersey Girl]

For starters, Ev's do NOT use the same criteria that I noticed posted earlier in the thread to judge Mormonsim as a cult. Infact, Ev's who do use the term "cult" specify that Mormonism is a Christian cult and therein lies the difference. It is not meant to offend, it is meant to identify.

Holy High Horsenuggets, and that's the best that can be said for this assertion. Never, in probably 30 years have I ever seen a EV tract, pamphlet, or book claiming to be an Christian apologetic criticism of "the cults" that did not clearly denote the Church as a non-Christian cult. Go check Decker, Martin, Ankerberg, Larson, and dozens of others. There may be some EV's who have designated the Church as a Christian cult, but the counter-cult, for the most part, has staked its traditional criticism of the Church on the claim that it is wholly outside Christendom as a class of religious believers.

The term "cult", has been used by evangelicals, almost exclusively, as a term denoting any religious system or church that does not accept traditional, historical, biblical Christianity. In other words, any group that does not hold, in essence, to ideas common within post WWII evangelical "born again" Protestantism.

This is what's known as a "precising definition", and its unique and idiosyncratic to those who use it. "Cult" has been an attack word and emotion laded well poisoning term of the evangelical counter cult since Martin.

If you think Decker, Martin and company define the Evangelical use of the term "Christian cult" then you have more problems than can be dealt with on the screen. Persons of your ilk think that all Evangelical preachers are Jimmy Swaggert. You are, in a word, wrong. The term "cult" is NOT used by all EV Christian to denote a church that "does not accept traditional, historical, biblical Christianty" and for you to attempt to stuff it into a sophomoric frame such as that is evidence enough to me that you should inquire of Evangelicals just what their criteria is before shooting off your addle-brained keyboard.

LSD

[_Scottie]

The term "cult", has been used by evangelicals, almost exclusively, as a term denoting any religious system or church that does not accept traditional, historical, biblical Christianity. In other words, any group that does not hold, in essence, to ideas common within post WWII evangelical "born again" Protestantism.

This is what's known as a "precising definition", and its unique and idiosyncratic to those who use it. "Cult" has been an attack word and emotion laded well poisoning term of the evangelical counter cult since Martin.

This is exactly the kind of mindset I'm talking about.

"Any group that does not hold, in essence, to ideas common within post WWII evangelical "born again" Protestantism" is NOT necessarily a cult. In fact, most other religions are seen as just that...another religion. There is a reason that the LDS church is branded with the cult label. There are some very specific properties that the LDS church has that makes it cultish. Most other religions do NOT have these properties, or at least not enough of them to be classified as a cult.

I'm sorry, cogs, but the LDS church has a checkmark by too many of the cult property items. However, I think that it's sheer size is the one thing that saves it from being in the Jones/Koresh group.

[_Coggins7]

One could argue that there is some duress at least. You must pay it to enter the place where you get the most important things that religion has to offer.

This is very simple: if you won't obey the principle, or any other that is required for Temple worship, then you really are not all that interested in Temple worship. If one will not do what is required, or make the necessary sacrifices, one clearly has other, more pressing priorities. End of story.

One final point. "Toleration" has become a general,overarching cardinal principle of the last several generations that is understood to Trump both intellectual substance, common sense, and even, on occasion, self preservation, both in a personal and cultural sense.

It is understood as the general and primary moral, social, and intellectual solvent that makes all moral or philosophical problems go away and smooths over the rough edges of cultural war and ethical difference. The problem is that tolerance, when pushed to the point of a mediating cultural principle, is virtually impossible to disentangle from acceptance (which, for that matter, is indeed how it is many times deployed in the ongoing culture wars).

Toleration, to even be a valid concept, must have distinct limits, as there are any number of things we should tolerate that, at the same time, must not be thought to imply acceptance. There are other things that we should neither accept or tolerate.

this is also true in the arena of ideas.

[_Jason Bourne]

One could argue that there is some duress at least. You must pay it to enter the place where you get the most important things that religion has to offer.

This is very simple: if you won't obey the principle, or any other that is required for Temple worship, then you really are not all that interested in Temple worship. If one will not do what is required, or make the necessary sacrifices, one clearly has other, more pressing priorities. End of story.

So yes there is a mandate, duress, and even subtle force. "If I fail to tithe I will be denied the ordinances I need to be exalted...so I better tithe...."


One may be very interested but struggle with issues and problems. Oh and let us here note that tithing was not always a requirement for temple participation, and it has not always been consistently applied in the Church. Same for WoW.

[_Jason Bourne]

You guys are throwing around the word "cult" so sloppily that I'm not going to bother reading all of your blather. (Code for I don't feel like reading it all ;-)

For starters, Ev's do NOT use the same criteria that I noticed posted earlier in the thread to judge Mormonsim as a cult. Infact, Ev's who do use the term "cult" specify that Mormonism is a Christian cult and therein lies the difference. It is not meant to offend, it is meant to identify.

Jersey Girl

(Boy did I put my foot in it or what?)

EVs who are in the know, apply the word cult to the LDS church to mean a pseudo Christian movement, one that attempts to be or appear Christian, but is not. Most EVs when they hear cult used towards the LDS Church think of the Jones or Koresh type cult.

I agree that most EV's (or other groups) who hear the word "cult" used in reference to the LDS Church think of Jones/Koresh types. I think I disagree with your first statement. On what do you think Ev's who are in the know, base their assertions? Any specifics to offer in that regard?

Most EVs that are knowledgeable that I have run into use the word exactly as I have described. How would you use it applying it to the LDS Church?

[_Coggins7]

The term "cult", has been used by evangelicals, almost exclusively, as a term denoting any religious system or church that does not accept traditional, historical, biblical Christianity. In other words, any group that does not hold, in essence, to ideas common within post WWII evangelical "born again" Protestantism.

This is what's known as a "precising definition", and its unique and idiosyncratic to those who use it. "Cult" has been an attack word and emotion laded well poisoning term of the evangelical counter cult since Martin.

This is exactly the kind of mindset I'm talking about.

"Any group that does not hold, in essence, to ideas common within post WWII evangelical "born again" Protestantism" is NOT necessarily a cult. In fact, most other religions are seen as just that...another religion. There is a reason that the LDS church is branded with the cult label. There are some very specific properties that the LDS church has that makes it cultish. Most other religions do NOT have these properties, or at least not enough of them to be classified as a cult.

I'm sorry, cogs, but the LDS church has a checkmark by too many of the cult property items. However, I think that it's sheer size is the one thing that saves it from being in the Jones/Koresh group.

Your primary problem here scottie, is that you have no substantial understanding of LDS doctrine of culture whatsoever, and until that is remedied, you are going to be urinating in the wind as you are at present. Let's look at your checklist of monikers checklist:





Behavior Control

* Regulation of individual's physical reality - Check

Care to explicate this in an intellectually coherent manner?

* Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals Between church meetings, church callings and temple work, Check

This is true of all religions of any substance, as well as work, family, fraternal organizations, or serious hobbies. And you may as well stop using emotion laden terms like "indoctrination sessions" to mean classes, talks, and worship.

* Need to ask permission for major decisions Not sure about this one. If you want to count asking the Mormon concept of the spirit, then yes, but the leaders don't have any say in what members do.

Intellectual vacuity number 1. Onward we go...

* Need to report thoughts, feelings, and activities to superiors Check

Care to elucidate on this, as, as it stands, its meaningless.

* Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques—positive and negative) Well, there are eternal rewards, but I don't see many church related rewards. Punishments include disfellowship, excommunication

If you see no Church related rewards than you are utterly in the dark regarding the Church and why people find so much meaning and happiness within it. I won't check this as an intellectual vacuity, just as a the subjective bigoted ignorance that it is.

* Individualism discouraged; "group think" prevails check

Not in the Church I've been in all of my life. You really need to get out more scottie, and start, well, thinking for yourself.

* Rigid rules and regulations check. Mormons pride themselves on being a pecular people with higher than normal standards. WoW comes into play here too.

This is another complete semantic rape of the term "cult" that moves the entire debate here beyond irrelevance and into self parody. Pointless responding.

* Need for obedience and dependency Not sure exactly what this one means...

I don't either. Move on, nothing to see here.

* Information Control

Obviously irrelevant

* Use of deception check. Only positive church history is taught.

Flat footed falsehood, for which I will let you off as being only ignorant, and not a liar. Church book stores are chock full of books detailing the plethora of arguments and difficulties of Church history. Sunday worship, Seminary, and Institute, indeed, are not places for that kind of study, nor should they be (and anyway, much, very much of the Signature Books type history is just as manufactured as they claim ours is, its just wrapped in much more sophiticated cloth).

* Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged check

No it isn't or there wouldn't be any Church bookstores containing books that engage criticism of the Church, nor would there be a Neal A. Maxwell Institute. Some things, yes, are discouraged, and I would discourage it as well for the spiritually immature or for those not intellectually sophisticated enough to work through and digest the arguments and information. The lying and deception that characterize so much of the historic criticism of the Church, especially from the EV side, is reason enough to warn the general membership.

* Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda check. Book of Mormon, D&C and PoGP. Ensign, Friend.

Oh my goodness scottie, you forgot the Bible did you not? How could you have missed that? Brownie point for you scottie.

* Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth" check

This is true of all religions and belief systems whatever. You see, what we have here is a term (cult) that means everything, and therefore, means nothing. and that's the bottom line to this entire contrived issue.

Ergo, end of pointless debate.


*