Cultishness...
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm
Re: Cultishness...
...poke fun in a nice way. Is that possible?
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
The Holy Sacrament.
The Holy Sacrament.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 17063
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm
Re: Cultishness...
Well, JSJr was cut down in his prime, he was just getting started toward asking all Mormons to have sex with him.zeezrom wrote: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.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11938
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm
Re: Cultishness...
harmony wrote:I'm wondering if this applies to the military, being willing to die for their country?
Good point, harmony. I'm sure this point has been made several times.
My next question is: How appropriate is it to compare a religion to a military organization? and Is this the type of religion Jesus wants to have built on the earth? Maybe so!
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
The Holy Sacrament.
The Holy Sacrament.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Re: Cultishness...
zeezrom wrote:Good point, harmony. I'm sure this point has been made several times.
My next question is: How appropriate is it to compare a religion to a military organization? and Is this the type of religion Jesus wants to have built on the earth? Maybe so!
The fact that many definitions of "cult" tend to create an unintentional category overlap with other groups, and especially the military, is one of the weaknesses with such Aristotelian attempts to define the boundaries of the term. I wouldn't ask how appropriate it is to compare religion to the military, but rather how appropriate is the definition when it brings the two together? Obviously it's not very appropriate. The problem is that the pejorative use of the term "cult" did not develop around some conceptual structure (very few natural categories do), but based on socio-religious rhetoric aimed at specific groups. The attempt to gather together all the groups that have been so labelled in order to extract a set of necessary and sufficient features for the category presupposes such a conceptual structure in the interest of broader application of the term. That's imposing a binary structuralism on the term that was never inherent to its pejorative use. None of this matters to the people who like the term, though. It has the rhetorical sting they want, and that's all they care about.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Cultishness...
Kevin Graham wrote: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 think that says a lot more about the lame ass politics at BYU than anything else. BYU puts religious loyalty first. That is their priority, partly because angsty parents from BFE with their hardcore conservative backwoods attitudes put pressure on the school. Little Johnny better not come home doubting his testimony and so forth.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Re: Cultishness...
Doctor Scratch wrote:Mak:
What is it that you're arguing, exactly?
That you're accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting what the scholarship actually says.
Doctor Scratch wrote:How would *you* situate Mormonism within Bromley's paradigm?
That the group has moved away from its subversive status in the 19th and early 20th century as it has grown and integrated itself into a more global society, but that it maintains that status within opponent groups and those whose knowledge of the Mormonism is filtered through those groups. This seems to me to align quite closely with Bromley's own description.
Doctor Scratch wrote: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?
That depends on the perspective. For a CARMite, they are subversive; but for someone who isn't encumbered with that prejudice, they won't at all seem that way. They'll seem like any other major US religion. Like I said, they are subversive in the eyes of the opponent groups. They are not objectively subversive, or unilaterally subversive, as you are trying to suggest.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4078
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm
Re: Cultishness...
Yet there is a subset within Mormonism which is subversive, and maintains the early 20th century mentality. There are several posters on this board who still think like Joseph F. Smith, Reed Smoot, Cleon Skousen, etc. So long as the LDS church is run by the gerontocracy, that will be the way it is.Like I said, they are subversive in the eyes of the opponent groups. They are not objectively subversive, or unilaterally subversive, as you are trying to suggest.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Re: Cultishness...
MCB wrote:Yet there is a subset within Mormonism which is subversive, and maintains the early 20th century mentality. There are several posters on this board who still think like Joseph F. Smith, Reed Smoot, Cleon Skousen, etc. So long as the LDS church is run by the gerontocracy, that will be the way it is.Like I said, they are subversive in the eyes of the opponent groups. They are not objectively subversive, or unilaterally subversive, as you are trying to suggest.
As with Scratch, you are conflating the perception of the group with the nature of the group.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8025
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm
Re: Cultishness...
maklelan wrote:Doctor Scratch wrote:Mak:
What is it that you're arguing, exactly?
That you're accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting what the scholarship actually says.Doctor Scratch wrote:How would *you* situate Mormonism within Bromley's paradigm?
That the group has moved away from its subversive status in the 19th and early 20th century as it has grown and integrated itself into a more global society, but that it maintains that status within opponent groups and those whose knowledge of the Mormonism is filtered through those groups. This seems to me to align quite closely with Bromley's own description.
This is probably where you and I differ. Where's your evidence re: "those whose knowledge of Mormonism is filtered through those groups"? You'd probably count the South Park guys as being "anti-Mormon," no? And yet they claim in their interviews to have based their stuff on things that they were told by believing LDS. I kind of suspect that you are wanting to create some kind of "counter-cult" bogeyman to account for negative opinion of LDS. I.e., that if "normal folks" just knew the "real story" about Latter-day Saints from the Church itself, that there would never be any negative opinions.
Well, I don't buy it. I don't think that people need to read the Tanners or James White or RfM to form an opinion on whether or not Mormonism is "subversive." Heck, the guy who founded RfM says that he wound up leaving based solely on reading Church-approved material. Further, if you object to something like, say, Blood Atonement or polygamy, does it really matter whether you read it at a "counter-cult" Web site, or whether you learned about it from Rough Stone Rolling (or whatever)?
You seem to think that negative opinions on NRMs flow entirely from "anti-cult" groups, and I see no reason to accept that claim. I don't need a counter-cult ministry to convince me that "Radical Reliance" in Christian Science is problematic.
Doctor Scratch wrote: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?
That depends on the perspective. For a CARMite, they are subversive; but for someone who isn't encumbered with that prejudice, they won't at all seem that way. They'll seem like any other major US religion. Like I said, they are subversive in the eyes of the opponent groups. They are not objectively subversive, or unilaterally subversive, as you are trying to suggest.
I never said they were "objectively subversive." This obviously has to do with intersecting processes. But you kind of have to ask here, "On the whole, how quote-unquote 'subversive' is this NRM?" The very phrase "social location" suggests "society" on a wider scale. It doesn't suggest subcultures like CARM. And realistically, someone exiting an NRM is probably going to formulate their opinions in a "wider culture," unless they are living in a box that only happens to feature the CARM messageboard.
And that has pretty much been my point: all of this takes place in a much larger and more complex context. Your basic claim seems to be that "counter-cult" messages are the controlling factor in the anger and/or hostility of apostates, and I just don't think that's the case. And yes: I realize that you can cite scholarship to support your position. I would simply say in response that I can cite scholarship where "cult" is used as a legitimate diagnostic term.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4078
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm
Re: Cultishness...
No, I am criticizing a certain subset within the group. If you don't know already, I was raised in Hancock County Illinois, and my father's family has deep non-Mormon roots within that county. I have experienced Mormon bigotry from that subset.maklelan wrote:
As with Scratch, you are conflating the perception of the group with the nature of the group.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm