Cultishness...

[_maklelan]

This is probably where you and I differ. Where's your evidence re: "those whose knowledge of Mormonism is filtered through those groups"?

I don't know anyone who called Mormonism a "cult" who didn't have the reasons filtered to them through some conservative Christian perspective of some kind.

You'd probably count the South Park guys as being "anti-Mormon," no?

Not really, no. They obviously largely have Mormonism filtered through an antagonistic lens, though. For instance, the part in the song from The Book of Mormon that mentions Kolob as a planet obviously repeats a stale anti-Mormon misunderstanding, rather than an esoteric early Mormon reading of the Book of Abraham. At the same time, they try to be sympathetic where others do not. I don't see them as anti-Mormon, I see them as outsiders trying to entertain based on their perception.

And yet they claim in their interviews to have based their stuff on things that they were told by believing LDS.

I'm sure a lot of what they write is based on things believing Latter-day Saints have told them. You can't possibly be so dense as to think all of it is vetted through active Mormons, though.

I kind of suspect that you are wanting to create some kind of "counter-cult" bogeyman to account for negative opinion of LDS.

Not at all. I acknowledge that negative opinions can arise independent of any anti-Mormonism, but those kinds of opinions very rarely turn into sustained and vocal antagonism. Opponents of Prop 8, for instance, have a legitimate gripe. When that opposition grows into calling them a cult because they believe in X, Y, and Z non-Christian doctrine in addition to opposing gay marriage, it's obvious anti-cult socialization is supplementing their antagonism.

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.

I don't believe that at all, although I am not surprised that you would immediately defer to that stereotype. You've never paid attention to what I've said, or bothered to acknowledge that I'm an independent and thinking adult, rather than some drone. I myself have negative opinions about certain aspects of the church, and I've expressed them here. You're too busy pawning off these asinine "mopologetic" theories for which you disingenuously suggest skepticism to see beyond your confirmation bias, though.

Well, I don't buy it.

Of course you don't. How stupid do you think I am?

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."

Of course not. It's so obvious that they're subversive.

Heck, the guy who founded RfM says that he wound up leaving based solely on reading Church-approved material.

Really? In this video he explains that when they were "doubting" and "questioning" and "reading" they found ex-Mormons and ex-Jehovah's Witnesses who helped them understand that they were not alone, but were "normal people coming out of a cult." As has been pointed out many times, while people leave for many different reasons, they generally only become antagonistic and appeal to stereotypical anti-cult ideologies or characterizations when their exit is somehow guided or influenced by anti-cult socialization. This is what Bromley's research is about: the exit stories are constructed based on the social position of the group in relation to the leave-taker. What would have happened had they left the church without ever discovering an entire subculture where their perspective on the church served as social capital?

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)?

It matters in terms of how antagonistic and public you are about your experience. Did you really not read any of the Lewis article?

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.

I didn't say you did.

I never said they were "objectively subversive."

You tried to insist that Bromley was declaring these groups subversive, and declaring Mormonism at least partially subversive. He's doing no such thing.

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.

As the conceptual base, but the profile is a particular and discreet location within society.

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.

Well, you can do the research and share your results. Until then, you're just making an assertion that really has no basis in the scholarship you're citing in support.

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.

Cite away.

[_maklelan]

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.

By "that subset" do you mean the previously mentioned "early-twentieth century Mormon" subset? If so:

1 - Bigotry from people =/= subversive organization
2 - Your description of your heritage seems to indicate longstanding social discord of some kind with Mormonism. Is this true? If so, does this not support the research that shows antagonism is closely linked with social conditioning through opponent social groups?

This is not to say you have not legitimately experienced bigotry on the part of Mormons. Mormons can be just as bigoted as other groups. The point is that the assertion of institutional subversiveness seems to derive from the social standing of Mormonism within your worldview, not from bad experiences with individual Mormons.

[_Buffalo]

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?

Not spiritually damaging. Psychologically, socially, or physically damaging.

[_Yoda]

Is the Masonic Lodge, which much of the LDS temple service is patterned after, considered a cult?

[Guest]

Your description of your heritage seems to indicate longstanding social discord of some kind with Mormonism. Is this true? If so, does this not support the research that shows antagonism is closely linked with social conditioning through opponent social groups?

Any discord coming from within my culture was deeply hidden, secretive, never talked about, and manifested itself mainly in not discussing religion or any of the issues in public. And a very polite lack of interest in interaction with missionaries.

The LDS church is negligent in not addressing those issues. After all, it is still in the D&C, as well as other LDS literature. See Abinadi's curses in th Book of Mormon.

The treatment I got from individual Mormons was reprehensible. The consistent pattern of behavior indicated a social structure that reinforced those behaviors. Particularly since I had mental blocks from even discussing LDS-related issues, and was not even conscious that there was a problem.

Yeah, Liz, I need to back off of this public conversation, before it attracts the attention of that subset.

[_maklelan]

Not spiritually damaging. Psychologically, socially, or physically damaging.

I would describe the NRM according to the specific kind of damage I considered they inflicted. The notion that "cult" encapsulates all of this is part of the pseudo-scientific perspective that was thoroughly debunked by psychiatrists back in the 90s. If you insist that the different "cults" represent different kinds of damaging influences, wouldn't more precise nomenclature be rather important? Again, you appear to be telling me that you really want a word that has that rhetorical sting, irrespective of its semantic accuracy. This is the kind of bigotry and bias that scholarship and other fair-minded people seek to avoid.

[_maklelan]

Any discord coming from within my culture was deeply hidden, secretive, never talked about, and manifested itself mainly in not discussing religion or any of the issues in public. And a very polite lack of interest in interaction with missionaries.

The LDS church is negligent in not addressing those issues.

What issues, specifically? I must have missed something.

[_Yoda]

Your description of your heritage seems to indicate longstanding social discord of some kind with Mormonism. Is this true? If so, does this not support the research that shows antagonism is closely linked with social conditioning through opponent social groups?

Any discord coming from within my culture was deeply hidden, secretive, never talked about, and manifested itself mainly in not discussing religion or any of the issues in public. And a very polite lack of interest in interaction with missionaries.

The LDS church is negligent in not addressing those issues. After all, it is still in the D&C, as well as other LDS literature. See Abinadi's curses in th Book of Mormon.

The treatment I got from individual Mormons was reprehensible. The consistent pattern of behavior indicated a social structure that reinforced those behaviors. Particularly since I had mental blocks from even discussing LDS-related issues, and was not even conscious that there was a problem.

Yeah, Liz, I need to back off of this public conversation, before it attracts the attention of that subset.

Unfortunately, I have seen the type of treatment you are referring to. It does exist. When my family and I lived in Utah, there was a lovely family who rented the house next door to us. I believe they later bought the home. They were the neatest couple. We did lots of things with them...had dinners together, watched movies. Our girls were the same age. The couple was Catholic, and they had received horrible treatment from the majority of LDS members in our area. I was sickened. Apparently, they had actually been denied an apartment to rent because the landlords didn't want non-members in their complex. So much for missionary work, and acceptance of others? The only reason I believe that they didn't pursue a lawsuit, since what happened was obviously illegal, is that they found the house, and were very happy with it.

I do not regret leaving Utah at all. The eight years I lived there almost completely destroyed my testimony. I am ashamed to be associated with that group.

[_MCB]

What issues, specifically? I must have missed something.

Doctrinal issues that place such great importance on a person's ancestry, perceived both positive and negative. If course, that would unravel the core of Mormon doctrine.

The LDS church is negligent in not addressing those issues. After all, it is still in the D&C (121), as well as other LDS literature. See Abinadi's curses in the Book of Mormon.

Yep, Liz, LDS culture is at fault. Being Catholic was certainly a factor, too.

[_maklelan]

Unfortunately, I have seen the type of treatment you are referring to. It does exist. When my family and I lived in Utah, there was a lovely family who rented the house next door to us. I believe they later bought the home. They were the neatest couple. We did lots of things with them...had dinners together, watched movies. Our girls were the same age. The couple was Catholic, and they had received horrible treatment from the majority of LDS members in our area. I was sickened. Apparently, they had actually been denied an apartment to rent because the landlords didn't want non-members in their complex. So much for missionary work, and acceptance of others? The only reason I believe that they didn't pursue a lawsuit, since what happened was obviously illegal, is that they found the house, and were very happy with it.

I do not regret leaving Utah at all. The eight years I lived there almost completely destroyed my testimony. I am ashamed to be associated with that group.

I have seen this kind of thing happen before, and I agree that it seems to be more prevalent in Utah, but I disagree that this says something about the subversiveness of the institution, especially when the institution itself consistently and vehemently condemns such behavior and the vast majority of the members would never dream of engaging in such rank bigotry. This isn't something that the institution secretly condones, or that is tucked between the lines of the doctrine, or that is the inevitable product of the Mormon worldview or its logic.