Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

Are these really the movers and shakers of the anti-s now? Or has the baton been passed to others?

I think CARM and James White certainly reach quite a few people. Obviously Walter Martin isn't around, and his board is not very active, but his books are still quite influential. These are just the first names that popped into my head, though.

[_sock puppet]

snippet: Literal secret handshakes and code words (or figurative) within a group would seem to be markers of a cult or at least a secret combination.

snippets: I completely understand how you get there. Your viewpoint is a disaster of the LDS Church's own making. If you cultivate illiteracy and two-dimensional reading, then BINGO! This is what you get.

The LDS temple endowment is a metaphor of spiritual enlightenment... . The whole thing is about the purification of the spirit through increased levels of commitment to God, increased sacrifice, and increased union with Deity, until one can enter into the presence of Deity.

...those initiated into the endowment mysteries had no frame of reference beyond the literal. Like my ancestors who were initiated in Nauvoo, they were largely illiterate people. We can forgive them, and most everyone thereafter with getting the whole thing completely wrong on one level.

JSJr was spinning out of the control the last few years, the Nauvoo years of 1842-1844. This megalomania was evidenced in his growing polygamous harem, the endowment ceremony, the completion and publishing of the Book of Abraham, the secretive theocracy The Council of Fifty, and using the City power to squash dissenters rights of free press (the Expositor). (In my opinion, had JSJr not been murdered at Carthage Jail, he'd have destroyed the Mormon movement by 1846, but for a handful of wacko nutjobs that would have been his merry band of followers still.)

The temple endowment was then and continues to this day to be

• exclusive (those included in it that they are being made privy to some special privilege with god),
• secretive (with associated penalties if one lets the secret out),
• symbolic (in handshakes, words and items of clothing).

That screams cultishness.

It is not a gang. The cohesive purpose, particularly since they've removed the taking of the oath against the U.S. Government, is not aimed at anyone or group. Violence has been eschewed for the most part, since the end of the days of the Danites, Porter Rockwell, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the blood atonement practices of 19th Century Utah.

Rev. Kishkumen rightly points out that this cultish laden ceremony's purpose appears to be to teach the initiates and have them make increasingly greater commitments in exchange for closer proximity to and then the presence of god. I have many problems with the Mormon's temple ceremony, including that you are as an initiate put on the spot to agree to these commitments then and there, upon first learning of them without contemplation and a chance to decide if that is what you actually want to do. (This contrasts greatly with the requirements that the Catholic Church puts baptismal candidates through before allowing a candidate to make that commitment.)

Mormons were not persecuted because they have been god's chosen people. Mormons are persecuted because they have claimed to be god's chosen people. The temple secrecy and what public claims have been made about it have caused suspicions. If the LDS Church would open these proceedings up to the public view, much of what lingers in this regard would dissipate. But then tithes would drop off, no longer the dues one pays to be part of god's 'special club', no longer to be seen by others there that are important to business associations and so forth. Even to the initiates and other LDS members, the sanitization that the sunshine would provide would reveal the whole temple concept and what goes on there to be an antiquated absurdity.

The temple is, in my opinion, right there with the Book of Abraham, resistance from the ensured gerontocracy to any social developments, and the continuing reverberations of the LDS racist past as a big problem to public acceptance of Mormonism into mainstream Christianity.

[_zeezrom]

Zeez,

It is a fabulous wish that will not likely happen. You can always find an esoteric Masonic order to join, though.

Masonic rituals feel a little too confining to me. Do you think they allow for freedom of expression in there? I think I would rather stick with the local theater company.

[_Kishkumen]

Masonic rituals feel a little too confining to me. Do you think they allow for freedom of expression in there? I think I would rather stick with the local theater company.

LOL. Stick with whatever does it for you. I am not here to recruit you for anything.

I was speaking in terms of the influence that Freemasonry has had in occult circles. Many modern esoteric rites have been influenced by Freemasonry. Aleister Crowley's people included.

[_Buffalo]

But there are additional terms. There are numerous different adjectives one can use to designate an NRM as violent.

Right, like "cult."

Although rather than violent I'd say, "harmful."

[_Kishkumen]

Rev. Kishkumen rightly points out that this cultish laden ceremony's purpose appears to be to teach the initiates and have them make increasingly greater commitments in exchange for closer proximity to and then the presence of god. I have many problems with the Mormon's temple ceremony, including that you are as an initiate put on the spot to agree to these commitments then and there, upon first learning of them without contemplation and a chance to decide if that is what you actually want to do. (This contrasts greatly with the requirements that the Catholic Church puts baptismal candidates through before allowing a candidate to make that commitment.)

Your post is chock full of things one could address. I'll limit myself to this. In my opinion, the word "cultish" is a term of ignorance and prejudice. I agree that the temple ritual of Mormonism has its problems, and I agree that lack of preparation for it is high on the list of problems. But "cultish laden" is just a silly, prejudicial epithet.

Mormons were not persecuted because they have been god's chosen people. Mormons are persecuted because they have claimed to be god's chosen people.

Would you say the same of Judaism?

The temple secrecy and what public claims have been made about it have caused suspicions. If the LDS Church would open these proceedings up to the public view, much of what lingers in this regard would dissipate. But then tithes would drop off, no longer the dues one pays to be part of god's 'special club', no longer to be seen by others there that are important to business associations and so forth. Even to the initiates and other LDS members, the sanitization that the sunshine would provide would reveal the whole temple concept and what goes on there to be an antiquated absurdity.

The temple is, in my opinion, right there with the Book of Abraham, resistance from the ensured gerontocracy to any social developments, and the continuing reverberations of the LDS racist past as a big problem to public acceptance of Mormonism into mainstream Christianity.

First of all, I personally don't care whether so-called "mainstream Christianity" accepts Mormons into their fold. It actually seems to go against the claim of having a new and better gospel, which was what the LDS faith was founded upon. Second, if you think that the Mormon temple ritual is an "antiquated absurdity," then it certainly is no more so than eating the miraculously transformed communion wafer which becomes the flesh of a dead Hebrew carpenter of the first century CE because the priest pronounces a blessing upon it. Where exactly does one draw the line and why?

[_maklelan]

Right, like "cult."

Although rather than violent I'd say, "harmful."

Look, I can't talk you out of using the term "cult" if it's so important to you, but its dogmatic use just betrays your sectarianism and prejudice. If you're fine with that, then have at it.

[_Buffalo]

Right, like "cult."

Although rather than violent I'd say, "harmful."

Look, I can't talk you out of using the term "cult" if it's so important to you, but its dogmatic use just betrays your sectarianism and prejudice. If you're fine with that, then have at it.

What terms would you use to describe a harmful NRM?

[_zeezrom]

Masonic rituals feel a little too confining to me. Do you think they allow for freedom of expression in there? I think I would rather stick with the local theater company.

LOL. Stick with whatever does it for you. I am not here to recruit you for anything.

I was speaking in terms of the influence that Freemasonry has had in occult circles. Many modern esoteric rites have been influenced by Freemasonry. Aleister Crowley's people included.

You may not want to recruit me but wow, this is cool stuff! Let's keep going on this topic somehow. I will look up this Mr. Crowley.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The Politics of Religious ApostasyOn pg. 6: "The Mormon case is an unusually instructive one since Mormonism was deemed subversive in the last century and has moved toward an allegiant position in recent decades, but continues to occupy a contestant position in some social locations."

Do you really think that he's only talking about "apostates" in "the last century," and that the movement he's describing is applicable only in the eyes of apostates? It's pretty clear that he's not. These categories--contestant, allegiant--refer to the organization's status vis-à-vis the larger, hegemonic society.

If he were describing the status of the group within the larger, hegemonic society, he wouldn't be describing conflicting categorization by different "social locations." What do you think he means by "some social locations"? Do you not think he refers to specific ideological groups that can be labelled "opponents"?

With respect to Mormonism, I assume he means those "social locations" within the larger society that view Mormonism as a "cult" or as a "subversive organization." I don't think my position is really all that unreasonable: there are a lot of people and groups out there that think Mormonism is a cult--from EVs to atheists working in academia with no attachment to religion at all. But, as the above quote indicates, the situation today is a lot better than it was in the last century. E.g., the Church isn't seen as "contestant" by the federal government.

Mormonism's opponents today aren't just ex-Mormons or EVs. Just look in the mainstream media, or in the pages of the NY Times. Things are better, sure, but a lot of people still think that the Church is a cult, and I don't see why it's in any way controversial to say that this likely has an impact on the deconversion process, and on the way that ex-Mormons wind up reacting and feeling about their former affiliation. It probably has something to do with the reasons why so many ex-LDS become atheists/agnostics as well.