Cult

[_bcspace]

It is interesting to me how quickly LDS will label other fringe religions as "a cult",

CFR

[_Scottie]

It is interesting to me how quickly LDS will label other fringe religions as "a cult",

CFR

Just what I've heard living in Utah.

But, to give you an example, I was sitting in an IHOP in southern Utah and a polygamist family was eating next to us. The LDS members there scoffed at how "weird" they were and one of them referred to them as a cult. I rolled my eyes and took a bite of my pancakes.

[_bcspace]

I rolled my eyes and took a bite of my pancakes.

Exactly what I'm doing now about your response to "CFR".

[_Ray A]

The LDS members there scoffed at how "weird" they were and one of them referred to them as a cult. I rolled my eyes and took a bite of my pancakes.

That is just choice. I suppose none of them ever read much about Mormon polygamy. For Joseph would say, if you have offended one of the least of those who practice polygamy in my name - you have offended me!

[_Some Schmo]

I don’t think Mormonism is any more a cult than the People’s Temple or the Branch Davidians.

[_antishock8]

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cult

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=traits+cult

I think Mormonism can accurately be described as a cult.

[_CaliforniaKid]

My take on the cult issue:

http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2 ... -cult.html

EDIT:

I should add that when I posted the above-linked essay to MADB, the response was quite positive, with a couple exceptions. Juliann complained,

There is a speciality area with scholars who do research on New Religious Movements. They are producing a growing body of scholarship and you quote a ..... novelist.

I replied,

I've looked at some of that material, of course, but the sociologists are using the term "cult" in a specialized way that doesn't reflect popular usage. What I like about Card is that I think he captures and distills the import of the word in the popular arena. Perhaps a novelist, whose art is the smithing of words for a general audience, is the best person to take on such a task.
[...]
The oldest methodological debate among linguists is whether, in writing grammars and dictionaries, usage should determine meaning or whether specialists should determine meaning and meaning usage. Ultimately I think we arrive at a sort of compromise between the two; the fact that the masses use the word "it's" (with an apostrophe) as a possessive doesn't mean that that's an acceptable way to use it. Grammar and lexicography are mostly descriptive disciplines, but for the sake of orderly communication (since too much variety in usage can actually impede meaningful interaction) there is a point at which the specialists have to draw certain boundary lines and say "this is an acceptable usage; anything outside this is not an acceptable usage." This is a sort of generally accepted compromise between the two extremes. I think that those who declare that the word "cult" is useless and should be dropped from the English language are well over on the prescriptive side of this debate. Those who would apply the word "cult" to Mormonism could perhaps be placed on the far descriptive end of the spectrum. What I am trying to do is work out a helpful middle ground. When we eliminate tendentious uses of the term "cult", and we eliminate as an option the dropping of the word from the language, what's left? Can we draw boundaries loosely enough that the term will retain its generally-accepted meaning, but tightly enough that we can establish a consensus on how it should be used? I believe we can, and that's what I've tried to do in my essay: identify a sort of broadly-accepted meaning while proscribing tendentious usages.

[_Ray A]

I should add that when I posted the above-linked essay to MADB, the response was quite positive, with a couple exceptions. Juliann complained,

Can you give a link to that thread, please Chris.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sure. It's here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=30816

[_Ray A]

Sure. It's here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=30816

Thanks Chris.