Cult is a four letter word...

[_maklelan]

Silent dissent is ignored, largely.
Vocal dissent is dealt with by the Church's disciplinary procedure for members - the Church Court system. Outcomes, depending on the severity of the dissent and number of people influenced, range from just a quiet word through to full excommunication for apostasy.

Have you seen Evangelicals shun someone they consider particularly heretical or apostate? That process is often far more public than the apostasy or heresy ever could be.

[_maklelan]

Speak your mind to defend the REAL gospel of Jesus Christ in an LDS ward and fill the chill.
Discover how impossible it then becomes to make even the most casual of friends. The shunning is robotic. That is cult-think. That is LDS.

The same is true of many more mainstream churches. Fall in among some dispensationalists and one day announce that you've decided covenant theology is the right one. Wonder aloud if works don't really actually play a role in having faith. Look at the way Rob Bell and other emergent church members are being crucified in the public by other Evangelical leaders.

Do they calmly seek to reclaim your misconceptions? No! This is a rarity, certainly, I mean, who knows enough to pull the trigger on the robots? But it reveals itself when threatened.

If you happen to be in need they will come over and say the obligatory [FU]...."just let us know if there is anything we can do to help." You just finished telling them that you could use help...."okay, then [FU] just let us know if there is anything we can do to help." You just reiterated that you do need help..."okay [FU] just let us know if there is anything we can do to help."

And you really think that this is behavior that is unique to Mormonism?

Bishop's wife gets cancer........Bishop comes over and begs us to allow him to help....okay. Wife survives. There ya go.

There ya go.

[_sock puppet]

I think that is precisely one of the points of mainstream Christians that refer to Mormonism as a cult. Jesus is supposedly diety, that devotion by mainstream Christians is worshipping diety. Mormons do not claim that JSJr is diety--at least not officially, they do not.

I don't know what kind of diets Joseph Smith liked to promote, but if you mean deity, the definition of "cult" doesn't distinguish, which was a fact that was necessary to the point of my comment. If someone wants to argue that Mormonism is a cult because it views Joseph Smith in the same terms that Evangelicals view Jesus then they are simply and completely mistaken. If you insist on introducing that qualification where it doesn't exist (and ignoring the fact that I have already shown that definition is not the one in play here), then I would just point to the devotion shown to Peter or Paul in the early church, or to the Pope by the billions and billions of Catholics who have lived since the fourth century CE. Jeffress has already muttered that he doesn't believe Catholicism is a cult.

Apart from the typo catch, I think that Christianity in the time that Peter and Paul lived was considered a cult. The ardor for the pope does not match the utter reverence that TBMs exhibit towards JSJr. TBMs have not even shown that degree of high regard for successor, current 'prophets'. It's a cult of personality around JSJr. In this regard, let's not forget JSJr's boast, when he compared himself to Jesus:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Mormons point to the addition of Jesus Christ to the name of their church (before, it was The Church of Latter-Day Saints). However, mainstream Christianity does not lionize those who boast they've done more than Jesus.

[_maklelan]

Apart from the typo catch,

A typo you repeated three times? That's not a typo.

I think that Christianity in the time that Peter and Paul lived was considered a cult.

Who considered them a cult? The word didn't exist back then, and the cognate word simply referred to any system or religious belief and behavior. All religions were cults, and the Greco-Roman world had numerous mystery cults of their own that were both loved and hated. The meaning of the word as used by mainstream Christians today developed in the late twentieth century. What exactly is your comment above supposed to mean?

The ardor for the pope does not match the utter reverence that TBMs exhibit towards JSJr.

If you believe this is true then you don't know much about Catholicism.

TBMs have not even shown that degree of high regard for successor, current 'prophets'. It's a cult of personality around JSJr. In this regard, let's not forget JSJr's boast, when he compared himself to Jesus:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

So Smith's 19th century rhetoric means that modern Mormons revere him so much that reverence shown him is in an entirely different class than that of the Pope, and specifically a class that qualifies Mormonism as a cult over and against the class of reverence shown for the Pope, which does not?

Mormons point to the addition of Jesus Christ to the name of their church (before, it was The Church of Latter-Day Saints). However, mainstream Christianity does not lionize those who boast they've done more than Jesus.

Joseph Smith didn't boast that he did more than Jesus. His rhetoric was clearly aimed at boasting that the church he established would not apostatize as did the church originally established by Christ. I still don't see how this bears on the question of how a cult is defined as an organization that has a specific type and degree of reverence for a specifically human leader. This sounds far too much like begging the question. You're trying to craft a definition of "cult" with the inclusion of Mormonism and exclusion of other Christian faiths specifically and exclusively in mind. You're also ignoring the rest of my original argument.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I'm personally against labeling the LDS Church a "cult." Maklelan is right: sociologists of religion would characterize it as a "New Religious Movement." That said, I think Sock Puppet is onto something interesting when he wonders aloud what it is that causes TBMs to "bristle" as having the Church called a "cult." On the one hand, as Mak points out, there is this association with dangerous organizations like the Branch Davidians, or the Manson Family, etc. On the other hand, as Sock showed, there is an element in the definition of "cult" that cuts to the heart of an aspect of cultural Mormonism, which is the belief that loyal LDS are "different," more special, "elect," etc. This, of course, leads back into the way that sociologists define and categorize "New Religious Movements." I believe it was David Bromley--the scholar that juliann famously mis-used--who said that a New Religious Movement (NRM) was more likely to be seen as "cult-like" the further apart it was from the mainstream.

So, really, Mormonism is in a bind here: the more distinctive and "special" it is, the more likely it will be viewed as a "cult." The more in blends in with White Bread America, the less distinct and "elect" it will be. When you get right down to it, then, the pain at getting called a "cult" is really just the pain of being forced to compromise.

[_maklelan]

I'm personally against labeling the LDS Church a "cult." Maklelan is right: sociologists of religion would characterize it as a "New Religious Movement." That said, I think Sock Puppet is onto something interesting when he wonders aloud what it is that causes TBMs to "bristle" as having the Church called a "cult." On the one hand, as Mak points out, there is this association with dangerous organizations like the Branch Davidians, or the Manson Family, etc. On the other hand, as Sock showed, there is an element in the definition of "cult" that cuts to the heart of an aspect of cultural Mormonism, which is the belief that loyal LDS are "different," more special, "elect," etc.

Which is found in virtually all Evangelical traditions, and especially in Calvinism, which holds that you have no choice and are either elect or not. Are all Calvinists cultists?

This, of course, leads back into the way that sociologists define and categorize "New Religious Movements." I believe it was David Bromley--the scholar that juliann famously mis-used--who said that a New Religious Movement (NRM) was more likely to be seen as "cult-like" the further apart it was from the mainstream.

But the mainstream of the Evangelical movement is more elitist than Mormonism. This criterion undermines your point.

So, really, Mormonism is in a bind here: the more distinctive and "special" it is, the more likely it will be viewed as a "cult."

And hypocritically so. Thus the annoyance.

The more in blends in with White Bread America, the less distinct and "elect" it will be. When you get right down to it, then, the pain at getting called a "cult" is really just the pain of being forced to compromise.

No, the problem in this instance does not lie with a Latter-day Saint desire to be "peculiar."

[_sock puppet]

I think that Christianity in the time that Peter and Paul lived was considered a cult.

Who considered them a cult? The word didn't exist back then, and the cognate word simply referred to any system or religious belief and behavior. All religions were cults, and the Greco-Roman world had numerous mystery cults of their own that were both loved and hated. The meaning of the word as used by mainstream Christians today developed in the late twentieth century. What exactly is your comment above supposed to mean?

* * * * *

TBMs have not even shown that degree of high regard for successor, current 'prophets'. It's a cult of personality around JSJr. In this regard, let's not forget JSJr's boast, when he compared himself to Jesus:

JSJr, 5/26/1844: "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."

So Smith's 19th century rhetoric means that modern Mormons revere him so much that reverence shown him is in an entirely different class than that of the Pope, and specifically a class that qualifies Mormonism as a cult over and against the class of reverence shown for the Pope, which does not?

Mormons point to the addition of Jesus Christ to the name of their church (before, it was The Church of Latter-Day Saints). However, mainstream Christianity does not lionize those who boast they've done more than Jesus.

Joseph Smith didn't boast that he did more than Jesus. His rhetoric was clearly aimed at boasting that the church he established would not apostatize as did the church originally established by Christ. I still don't see how this bears on the question of how a cult is defined as an organization that has a specific type and degree of reverence for a specifically human leader. This sounds far too much like begging the question. You're trying to craft a definition of "cult" with the inclusion of Mormonism and exclusion of other Christian faiths specifically and exclusively in mind. You're also ignoring the rest of my original argument.

Can you quote any other religious leader that claimed he did anthing better than their claimed deity? Any quotes of a pope? Martin Luther? Calvin? Or is it just the egomaniacal JSJr? Maybe L Ron Hubbard?

I am not crafting any definition of cult. I am pointing out the hypersensitivity of Mormons to a fair and reasonable use of the term 'cult' being applied to them.

[_Nightlion]

And you really think that this is behavior that is unique to Mormonism?

When I was 18 in 1969 living on my own in LA (not homeless I was a bass guitar studio musician) I was cast out of the Tony Alamo alter call service by non other than the notorious Tony Alamo himself after I happened to mention to my assigned guide that the event was an abomination. He ran up and told Tony, who raced back and witnessed that they have saved lots of Mormon priests. I was shunned by his Jesus Freaks from then on.

[_Nightlion]

Can you quote any other religious leader that claimed he did anthing better than their claimed deity? Any quotes of a pope? Martin Luther? Calvin? Or is it just the egomaniacal JSJr? Maybe L Ron Hubbard?

That oft used put down is bogus. Joseph was comparing his work keeping the saints from abandoning him with how Christ was forsaken and left alone. And beside Christ said of his followers that greater things than he has done shall they do. Give Joseph a break, he was just being dramatic for his audience. If you were his friend you would wink at it and just say, Oh Man!

We cannot expect that Sandra Tanner ever had a kind feeling towards Joseph Smith. She can only speak evil of him. I can only speak good of him. Helping to fulfill the prophecy of Moroni.

[Guest]

Stepping back for a moment, one of the most remarkable changes Mormonism has made since I left in 1985 is how it now longs so much for mainstream acceptance. When I was Mormon, pre-85, there were common expressions of pride that we were a 'peculiar people'. We were fortunate to be among the lucky few with 'the truth', and it was a heavy burden and obligation to take this message of truth to the rest of mankind. It distinguished us, it bound us together.

I was more surprised by the explanation for the Hinckley shuffle on Larry King Live in 1997 than by the Hinckley shuffle itself. I initially thought the Hinckley shuffle was just a deer in the headlights moment, but was astonished to hear Mormon defenders explain it as part of the PR effort to mainstream Mormonism. I don't mind the quixotic efforts to intellectualize faith, but the mopologists (and with the GAs since at least 1990) have been filing off the 'stickier points'--what we once regarded as being sacred truths, albeit making us a peculiar people, are now just shavings on the floor. My only regret is that I cannot again leave the church, this time in protest to its neutering of doctrine by a leadership that seems most interested in obtaining the esteem of the gentiles.

You let me know when you're done with pet gripes and are ready to get back to the topic of the thread.

The topic of this thread is the application of the word 'cult' to the Mormon Church. I remained on topic, giving context that shows that the Mormon Church has become more sensitive about such appellations, part and parcel to its longing to become mainstream and jettisoning some of its pecular teachings in order to gain acceptance.

Do you think giving context to the topic at hand is "off-topic"?