Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

I don't know what the age of any studies has to do with this, in this case.

The point is to show that once scholarship began taking the movement seriously, its artificial foundation crumbled. The anti-cult movement made what headway it could before enough informed people started paying attention, but in the nineties social scientists and psychiatrists shined the light of critical scholarship on the movement and it withered in the heat.

While it's obviously important that new research supersedes old research (and cult studies are on-going), that doesn't mean that "old research" is null and void in every aspect. In any case, Hassan is still active.

Yes, he still operates independently, but the academic validity of his work hasn't been recognized for over a decade.

As to the merit or demerit of his work, I guess the debate will go on.

Yes, there will always be dogmatists who feel too strongly about the "danger" of "cults" and their magical "mind control" to let informed and critical opinions sway them.

[Guest]

...
Yes, there will always be dogmatists who feel too strongly about the "danger" of "cults" and their magical "mind control" to let informed and critical opinions sway them.

Hold on thar young Maklekan ...

I hold that "cult" is not a well-defined enough category to be any use in talking about religions. Slapping on the label "cult" proves nothing.

But that does not mean that there are no religious movements that can (without scare quotes) be dangerous to the people who join them, or which exercise a worryingly high degree of control over the minds of their members.
.
It's just that each case has to be judged on its merits.

[Edited to fix typo]

[_RayAgostini]

Yes, he still operates independently, but the academic validity of his work hasn't been recognized for over a decade.

Regardless, I'm unable to find anywhere in his An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy re: Mormonism - 12/12/2011 where he specifically defines Mormonism as a "cult".

From the article:

It should be noted that fundamentalist Mormonism deviates in some ways from the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. A few years ago, I was invited to appear on a Dr. Phil program that featured two teenage girls who had run away from Warren Jeffs’ fundamentalist LDS group to escape being forced to marry elderly men. Clearly, there are human-rights issues with that scenario: Jeffs is now serving a prison term.

Modern Mormonism should be judged on its own current practices-- not its past or some deviant disciple. (Note: Mormon doctrine now teaches that polygamy will prevail in the next life for worthy members.)

As American citizens, we are free to decide for ourselves who will best govern us. Similarly, it is our responsibility to decide which organizations have benign motives, and which could be harmful to our freedom and individuality. With cults, as with democracy, you have to make up your own mind. There is no substitute for the hard work of democracy-- or for thinking for oneself.

He leaves interpretation of how the BITE model applies to Mormonism by linking to a discussion on RFM.

I haven't listened to the "Releasing the Bonds" videos on You Tube because the sound quality is poor, but maybe someone who has, or who was there can give me a synopsis. My guess would be that it's a general guide to people who feel they are or were in "bondage" to a "cult", but that's not to say that those who feel this way are wrong. From a personal perspective they feel they were "entangled in a cult". I don't agree with that assessment, personally, but then we all come out of our Mormon experience with different feelings and interpretations.

[_Stormy Waters]

I believe the church has many of the elements of a cult.

Any criticism of leaders is not allowed (even if the criticism is true)

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true."
Dallin H. Oaks

"Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)...

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. ...

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. ...A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause....

Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord."
Dallin H. Oaks. Feb. 1987 Ensign.

"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself]. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."
Dallin H. Oaks. Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985

Information is withheld from the lay membership.

"There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."
Packer, Boyd K. (1981), "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect"

"He [Stanley Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti- Mormon version of the same story. ...On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments....
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved."
Daniel C. Peterson

Emphasis on obedience to the leadership.

"Tell the children that we have a special leader to follow, our prophet. Explain that a prophet is a man who speaks with God—God tells the prophet what we should do. Tell the children that if we follow the prophet, we will be happy and Heavenly Father will bless us. Explain that to follow the prophet means to do the things he tells us to do."
Nursery Manual: I will follow the Prophet

"Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; he knows the way."
Children's songbook

"She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should wear only one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.”

Wearing two pairs of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake."
Russel M. Ballard. Liahona Dec. 2002

“My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it."
Heber J. Grant

Negatively portraying everyone who leaves.

"In later years, I saw a few leave the Church who could then never leave it alone. They used often their intellectual reservations to cover their behavioral lapses"
Neal A. Maxwell April 2004 General conference

"If the people would live their religion, there would be no apostasy"
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 78–84

"Why do men apostatize? Why do they lose the faith? Why do their minds become darkened? Because they wander from the right path; they neglect their duties and forget to pray, and to acknowledge the Lord and He withdraws His Spirit from them and they are left in the dark."
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, (1998)

“The moment you permit yourselves to lay aside any duty that God calls you to perform, to gratify your own desires; the moment you permit yourselves to become careless, you lay a foundation for apostasy. Be careful; understand you are called to a work, and when God requires you to do that work do it.” Another thing he said: “In all your trials, tribulations and sickness, in all your sufferings, even unto death, be careful you don’t betray God, be careful you don’t betray the priesthood, be careful you don’t apostatize; because if you do, you will be sorry for it.”
Joseph Smith Ensign Sept 1971

"It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."
Glenn L. Pace General Conference April 1989

"Those who leave the Church are like a feather blown to and fro in the air. They know not whither they are going; they do not understand anything about their own existence; their faith, judgment and the operation of their minds are as unstable as the movements of the feather floating in the air. We have not anything to cling to, only faith in the Gospel" (DBY, 84).
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 78–84

"What is that which turns people away from this Church? Very trifling affairs are generally the commencement of their divergence from the right path."
Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, (1997), 78–84

"Why did some of the early Church members apostatize from the Church? How could a forgiving attitude have helped them? What does the Lord say we should do when others offend us?"
Lesson 21: Joseph Smith Is Tarred and Feathered," Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants: Church History, (1997)

"What can we do to keep ourselves from being deceived and led into apostasy?"
"Lesson 24: “Be Not Deceived, but Continue in Steadfastness”," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, (1999)

You can argue whether or not the church meets the definition of a cult, but a church that withholds information from it's own membership, instructs them to follow a leader even if he is wrong, and vilifies those who leave is a morally reprehensible organization regardless of whether or not the label cult is applicable.

[_DarkHelmet]

"if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake."
- The Family's guide to following Charles Manson

[_moksha]

What attributes do cults have that the Church doesn't have?


Anyone?

Cults do have a tendency to instill a slavish obedience within the followership. In these cults, obedience is praised and seen as a prime virture. Most military groups have this same mindset. While this idea is pushed by some in the Church, not every member buys into it, especially to the point of elevating obedience as the prime virtue.

[_RayAgostini]

You can argue whether or not the church meets the definition of a cult, but a church that withholds information from it's own membership, instructs them to follow a leader even if he is wrong, and vilifies those who leave is a morally reprehensible organization regardless of whether or not the label cult is applicable.

At face value, I don't disagree with your list, but many Mormons become "liberals", Liahonas", Internet Mormons","NOMs". They don't take a lot of it seriously, or they devise "alternative explanations". The ones who do are most likely to eventually opt out (for the record, I took it seriously as a "TBM").

As for withholding information, they did, but I believe far less so now, at least for anyone who has an Internet connection. Journals like BYU Studies have been publishing "controversial information" (along the lines of Dialogue) for a very long time. Articles like Young Heber J. Grant’s Years of Passage, revealing Grant's drinking and struggles with alcoholism, was published in the Spring of 1984. Not the sort of thing you'd hear in a Sunday School class, but information that was available to anyone with a subscription to BYU Studies, from "The Lord's University".

At the online Church History Library you can read or download articles in every journal ever published by the Church going back to the beginning. Before the Internet, I bought my own seven volume History of the Church, and "did my own thinking". It was there, not from the Tanners, that I learned that Joseph imbibed. The Joseph Smith Papers will eventually have more information about him than any other resource in the world.

In my first exit letter I did say that I felt the Church was with holding information, but that was in the context of "Sunday School", and "official publications" like The Ensign. There's no doubt they only wanted "faith-promoting" literature at the ward level, and because of that far too many members still remain ignorant of the truth, and many more will leave when they do find the truth. I believe the Church is improving, though, in regard to the distribution and access to its history, even if it's mainly online these days.

The bottom line is, would I have remained a member if the Church was honest and forthright in the early 1980s, or even the 1970s? I'd say no. Would I have even joined, knowing what I know now? No. As they say, "activity is a bitch, and then you apostatize" (I made that up). I really do believe that the "information glow" is better today, but one must "seek and ye shall find". If you haven't read the fine print, then don't sign any documents. I didn't join the Church for "intellectual reasons", and no one can read everything in a few months. It's one of those things you either grow up with, or join as an adult, and eventually come to question, and possibly leave.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Maklelan is right that the word "cult" has pretty much been banished from the contemporary scholarly discourse on New Religious Movements. That doesn't mean, however, that scholars don't use the word "cult" in casual conversation, or that they don't view some NRMs as harmful or oppressive.

[_RayAgostini]

Maklelan is right that the word "cult" has pretty much been banished from the contemporary scholarly discourse on New Religious Movements. That doesn't mean, however, that scholars don't use the word "cult" in casual conversation, or that they don't view some NRMs as harmful or oppressive.

NRM is just a PC term for "cult". Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word cult.. It's probably "neutral" in the sense that they're trying to understand them better, and avoid labeling them all in one basket.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Maklelan is right that the word "cult" has pretty much been banished from the contemporary scholarly discourse on New Religious Movements. That doesn't mean, however, that scholars don't use the word "cult" in casual conversation, or that they don't view some NRMs as harmful or oppressive.

NRM is just a PC term for "cult". Scholars studying the sociology of religion have almost unanimously adopted this term as a neutral alternative to the word cult.. It's probably "neutral" in the sense that they're trying to understand them better, and avoid labeling them all in one basket.

Yes, that's true. But, on the other hand, it's problematic for apologists to totally dismiss the term "cult," because that's basically what scholars are saying when they use terminology like "harmful NRM," or "authoritarian NRM." I remember that Juliann used to be constantly touting this book on apostasy from NRMs--it was a book edited by a guy named Bromley, If I recall correctly. Juliann was using it to forward her theory about how all LDS apostate "exit narratives" are the same, how they all follow a cookie-cutter pattern and whatnot. My sense was that she was seriously misrepresenting the scholarship. So you can imagine her chagrin when somebody--I think it was Kevin Graham--emailed this guy (or one of the other authors from the book) and asked him about what Juliann was up to. The guy was 100% sympathetic with the apostates! His email, which Kevin posted, said something like, "These people are in pain and deserve our sympathy." In any case, the point of the book--or the portion of it that I read, anyhow--was that apostates from especially problematic NRMs ("cults," if you will) tend to be way more hostile, angry, and proactive in voicing their discontent. Juliann wanted to use this scholarship to show that Mormon apostates are rage-fueled mental basketcases, but what she neglected to say is that the scholarly framework attributes this to the degree to which the NRM is authoritarian and/or "cultish." (And the text didn't use the word "cult," btw--they framed it instead in terms of how "outsider-ish" the NRM is. I.e., if it's way outside of mainstream norms, it is more likely to produce these especially hostile apostates.)