Are all religions cults? OP actually started by Liz

[_Jersey Girl]

It's not. Except for marg, who isn't a believer by any stripe, and has no clue what it means to be a believer.

I think marg does have a point regarding the "fear factor" and manipulation. Are we motivated by fear? When all is said and done, I'd have to say "yes" to that. For example, we say we do things for the glory of God and what have you. Do we? Or do we do it to attempt to ensure our eternal destination and not end up in some place either outside of the presence of God or in flames? (Not wanting to derail here, but it's already derailed so why not?)

And you're a good woman, Jersey... even if you are height-challenged.

I'm trying to translate what LDS "tolerate" or "endure" into an EV reference. I've always thought that more intellectual ground can be covered when the ground is "common".

Height challenged, eh? Though my stature be small, my power be great.

Mwah ha ha ha ha!


Allow me to continue blowing you away with my intellectual prowess...

Non-believers also do things in a non-religious context that they believe will ensure their survival. Even though they might not see the outcome as eternal, we all tolerate things for example, in our professional lives that ensure our financial well being, allow us to put a roof over our heads, partake of health care (such as it is) and education.

What if we don't tow the party line at work? We risk losing our income and all the things our income supplies.

Do you think I LIKE the playdough stuck to the bottom of my shoes?

[_harmony]

It's not. Except for marg, who isn't a believer by any stripe, and has no clue what it means to be a believer.

I think marg does have a point regarding the "fear factor" and manipulation. Are we motivated by fear? When all is said and done, I'd have to say "yes" to that. For example, we say we do things for the glory of God and what have you. Do we? Or do we do it to attempt to ensure our eternal destination and not end up in some place either outside of the presence of God or in flames? (Not wanting to derail here, but it's already derailed so why not?)

Everyone lives in fear of something... germs, hellfire, snakes, dust mites, getting deported, being homeless... How we all handle our fears is our own business, and marg has no business in passing judgment on anyone else's handling of their business. Such chutzpah can only be ridiculed for the foolishness it is.

Discuss broad themes; taking it to a personal level is, for want of a better descriptor, unrighteous dominion.

I'm trying to translate what LDS "tolerate" or "endure" into an EV reference. I've always thought that more intellectual ground can be covered when the ground is "common".

Non-believers also do things in a non-religious context that they believe will ensure their survival. Even though they might not see the outcome as eternal, we all tolerate things for example, in our professional lives that ensure our financial well being, allow us to put a roof over our heads, partake of health care (such as it is) and education.

The more we study each other, the more we see how alike we are, at the core.

What if we don't tow the party line at work? We risk losing our income and all the things our income supplies.

Do you think I LIKE the playdough stuck to the bottom of my shoes?

I'm goaled out at $1.6 million this year. Can anyone spell: pressure? But it pays the bills, and gives me a little extra to spend on my grandkids.

[_marg]

How is the wearing of garments different?

That's a good question. I think it's the cult like behavior involved. I've read that people even after they leave the Church feel guilty when they stop wearing them. It appears to be a big event to stop wearing them. Even Harmony on here said she didn't want to wear them, but felt she had to in bed because her husband will fuss. Well he'll fuss not because he likes them but because he knows it's a a requirement by the church to wear them.

It's a combination of being odd behavior, (and it's very odd) in the culture surrounding them, as well as the obedience and then fear in not obeying that makes the issue of wearing them different to lots of other obligations people perform. And it's not an individual manipulating others, such as a loved one, like a mother, it's an organization, one which exhibits other cultish behaviors.

(Just so you know I'm going out for the evening.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think it's the cult like behavior involved.

I think the behavior is tribyerquo-like. And no, I don't think it's important to define tribyerquo. It's just obvious to any objective observer that this is the very essence of tribyerquoid behavior.

[_Jersey Girl]

How is the wearing of garments different?

That's a good question. I think it's the cult like behavior involved. I've read that people even after they leave the Church feel guilty when they stop wearing them. It appears to be a big event to stop wearing them.

I think "cult like" is a convenient description and doesn't quite convey the depth of what emotions and thoughts are associated with a members decision to cease wearing garments. (Keep in mind, I'm a "never" so I'm trying to identify with the common ground that I find.)

Part of it is certainly an indoctrination process.

Now, let me try to relate to that piece. All my life I was told that the Bible was a holy book. I was to physically treat it with respect, not let it be on the floor, get dirty, turn the pages carefully because it is a sacred book. If I were to somehow lose my faith in the teachings of Christianity, decided there is no God and all of that, the very last thing on my list of things to discard in a tangible way, would be my Bible. It would be a concrete symbol of my discarded faith. Considering the hundreds of lessons I've been taught from childhood forward about and from the Bible, that'd be heck...nearly impossible for me to do and the truth is that I probably wouldn't do it even under those circumstances.

I don't see it as much as "cult like" as I do simple human nature.

Children are indoctrinated in all sorts of ways by their parents, not just religiously. Throughout childhood, they're given messages about what is important, what's significant, what's appropriate (sometimes the messages aren't healthy) and what people should "never do". When a child (even as an adult) chooses to go against what they've been taught to do (or not to do) by their parents, it's a huge deal.

I think when a member decides to stop wearing their garments, they're conscious of the fact that they're breaking away not only from their parents but also away from the culture(or tribe as Craig calls it) that raised them. That has GOT to be difficult.

Even Harmony on here said she didn't want to wear them, but felt she had to in bed because her husband will fuss. Well he'll fuss not because he likes them but because he knows it's a a requirement by the church to wear them.

That seems true enough. Likely scenario: He wants his family to follow the doctrines of the church because he wants his family to be together in the afterlife. Harmony wants to be with her husband in THIS life at least and sometimes she bends to accomodate him (or the church) and other times not. Harmony, I think after reading her for so long, places more emphasis on spiritual things and less importance on "outward" things. She'd rather focus on the condition of her heart and how her heart manifests itself in relation to others than on what she's wearing. They disagree sometimes. They wouldn't be individuals if they didn't disagree sometimes.

It's a combination of being odd behavior, (and it's very odd) in the culture surrounding them, as well as the obedience and then fear in not obeying that makes the issue of wearing them different to lots of other obligations people perform. And it's not an individual manipulating others, such as a loved one, like a mother, it's an organization, one which exhibits other cultish behaviors.

I agree with the above to the extent that the belief system is "coming down" from the church however it is facilitated by the members. Parents teaching their children the doctrines, modeling them, transmitting what is felt to be important generationally.

Letting down the church is letting down the family and the culture. It IS a big deal.

Oops. I think I just went full circle!

(Just so you know I'm going out for the evening.)

Why can't I go too?

[_Jersey Girl]

I think it's the cult like behavior involved.

I think the behavior is tribyerquo-like. And no, I don't think it's important to define tribyerquo. It's just obvious to any objective observer that this is the very essence of tribyerquoid behavior.

Stop making up words just to show off, Peterson.

[_Yoda]

That's a good question. I think it's the cult like behavior involved. I've read that people even after they leave the Church feel guilty when they stop wearing them. It appears to be a big event to stop wearing them. Even Harmony on here said she didn't want to wear them, but felt she had to in bed because her husband will fuss. Well he'll fuss not because he likes them but because he knows it's a a requirement by the church to wear them.

It's a combination of being odd behavior, (and it's very odd) in the culture surrounding them, as well as the obedience and then fear in not obeying that makes the issue of wearing them different to lots of other obligations people perform. And it's not an individual manipulating others, such as a loved one, like a mother, it's an organization, one which exhibits other cultish behaviors.

I don't think wearing garments is really that odd. I guess it's because I actually like how they feel on. I think if I left the Church, I would probably wear a camisole or something similar. I have Fibromyalgia, and the garments tend to keep me a little warmer, which is helpful.

I really don't find it any more odd than a Catholic wearing a cross or a rosary. All of these types of things are symbolic of faith. Now, I suppose you could make the leap that all religions are cults, or that, at the very least, Catholicism is also a cult.

But really, all religions have ceremonies, and various types of symbols.

Wearing garments is symbolic of the temple covenant Church members have chosen to make.

I think the reason it is difficult for former members of the Church to get used to not wearing garments is because of the symbolism involved.

The garments are symbolic of a pledge to live a certain way. If you choose to leave the Church, you are leaving a way of life. I have always stated that Mormonism is a culture. I'm not sure, however, that Mormonism being a culture necessarily makes it a cult.

Is Judaism considered a cult? It is certainly a culture. In strict forms of Jewish culture, arranged marriages are still common. Now, most of us would find this practice archaic. Does this make Judaism a cult? I'm not sure...but I think it is interesting that I have never heard or read it referred to as such.

[_Daniel Peterson]

-1-

Devout temple-attending Mormons wear garments.

Clergymen wear clerical collars.

Buddhist monks wear saffron robes.

Nuns often wear habits.

Jewish men wear yarmulkes.

Marg wears a superior smirk.

Many types of religion have their peculiar dress.

-2-

I find it hilarious that we're being solemnly informed that x is "cult-like" while we're simultaneously assured that it's unimportant to have a clear, coherent notion of what the word cult even means.

I wouldn't give so confused a student paper any grade higher than a C-.

[_Yoda]

I find it hilarious that we're being solemnly informed that x is "cult-like" while we're simultaneously assured that it's unimportant to have a clear, coherent notion of what the word cult even means.

I think that's probably the first problem.....everyone agreeing on what the definition of a cult actually is.

Merriam Webster's definition is as follows:

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book) ; especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

According to the broad definition here, all religions would fall under the category of "cult".

I suppose that if this is the definition that Marg is referring to, then, yes, Mormonism would be considered a cult, but so would ALL other religions.

[_harmony]

I suppose that if this is the definition that Marg is referring to, then, yes, Mormonism would be considered a cult, but so would ALL other religions.

marg has a very narrow definition of any word she uses: it is as she says it is. Anything else is not acceptable. Cult... prick... marg's definition is the only acceptable definition. It's just the way it is.