Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

What terms would you use to describe a harmful NRM?

"Harmful" in what sense? Do you mean "violent," "spiritually damaging," "socially damaging," or something else?

[_maklelan]

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."

Which would be opponent social groups, not the broader society.

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.

Oh, did you just read this article? I don't know many atheists who view Mormonism as a suspect group over and against other mainstream religions, and I have dealt with atheists in the academy for quite some time. I'm not saying your position is patently untrue, I'm just saying it's not what the scholarship says and I don't think you're basing it on anything but hanging your own personal (and quite antagonistic) prejudices upon the conceptual structure he's described.

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.

I never said they were.

Just look in the mainstream media, or in the pages of the NY Times.

I see quite a few ex-Mormons and EVs in the mainstream media and in the pages of the NY Times, as well as leftist writers (who certainly count as an opponent social group), and voices pleading for understanding and tolerance.

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.

Well, when you do the research, you can show us the results. Until then, I don't think it particularly insightful to take discussion about an entirely different group and data set and just arbitrarily extrapolate assumptions about Mormonism from it.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't understand what's wrong with the word cult? The only objection I have seen so far is one not based on definition, but rather emotion. Meaning, the only reason not to use it is because it pisses off members of the cult who'd rather not believe they are part of a cult.

Maybe a good question at this point would be to ask, in what ways is the Church not a cult?

The Church monitors your expressed views, out of context statements, etc and keeps a file on you so they can use it against you at any future point, and they do so to punish you and your family by limiting your professional options. Just look at what happened to David Bokovoy recently, and he never saw it coming. Though his qualifications were superior to any other applicant, and he had twelve years experience already teaching as a Church employee, he was denied full time at BYU simply because those in power to judge, passed judgment on the strength of his loyalty to the tribe, and that seems awfully cultish to me.

I don't use the cult word really, mainly because it pisses off members of the cult. But by definition, that's precisely what we're dealing with here.

No matter how strong you think your testimony is, they're always watching you and judging you behind your back. In his case, he was punished for studying under a known apostate at Brandeis and for also getting into the field of Old Testament scholarship, which he was warned to be very risky because too many LDS scholars have gone down that path and lost their testimony over it. His interview involved a bombardment of questions relating to his relationship with his apostate teacher at Brandeis, and how his views differed from his.

That's why you don't have religious studies dept at BYU. You have a "religious education" (i.e indoctrination) dept. And you don't have professors of biblical scholarship who can operate on an equal playing field among other like-minded scholars in academia. No, at BYU you have professors of "Ancient Scripture" which provides a wide umbrella to include all the Mormon books, and even the Koran it seems. The reason the church puts so much time and money into the Dead Sea Scroll project is because, as I was informed, it is "safe." It is enough to give them recognition as a serious academic institution that contributes something meaningful to the area of biblical scholarship, but at the same time it doesn't provide avenues for potential apostasy. It is all about controlling a set of beliefs and assumptions among their tribesmen, like any cult would do, while cloaking it all in the garb of academia.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Mak:

What is it that you're arguing, exactly? How would *you* situate Mormonism within Bromley's paradigm? He says, on pg. 5 of the intro, that "The way that disputed exits are organized and the narratives that are constructed about the process...is a function of the social location of the organization."

What is Mormonism's "social location," in your view?

[_sock puppet]

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.

Duly noted you chafe at the word cult or any variation of it being applied to anything Mormon.

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?

Most definitely. But Judaism got on track with that without a precedence to have learned from. JSJr put Mormonism on that same track, despite the historical example then presented by 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.

Ahh, a pre-GBH Mormon like I too was. That's when you knew what it meant to be Mormon.

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?

I agree. The transformation of the communion to be the actual flesh and blood of Jesus--what a hoot!

But I do note that I like the Jewish Kosher practice and custom. I only grille Hebrew National hot dogs on my BBQ. Someone with that persnickety of a food issue helps me know I'm not getting undesirables in my dog. That's a religious custom with a practical payoff.

[_MCB]

I prefer my cult!!

[_zeezrom]

I'm sticking to my guns on this issue. It is not a "true cult" until the organization actually follows through with significantly destructive behavior. For example, the leader asks all its members to kill themselves or have sex with him. If you simply ask the members rhetorically to die for it someday, you don't quite have a cult. You just ask that they be willing to die for it, allowing them to believe it will never happen until the end of the world happens (never).

Note, my definition of cult is the organization the world hears about on the news while the National Guard is rushing in to save lives or knock out the leader and his weaponry.

[_Kevin Graham]

Zee, the word cult preexisted Waco and Jim Jones. I see no reason to limit it that way.

[_harmony]

You just ask that they be willing to die for it, allowing them to believe it will never happen until the end of the world happens (never).

I'm wondering if this applies to the military, being willing to die for their country?

[Guest]

Zee, the word cult preexisted Waco and Jim Jones. I see no reason to limit it that way.

Maybe we can limit it to my way to sort of poke fun at the fact that Mormons *really* do promise to kill themselves for the organization....