Cultishness...

[_son of Ishmael]

I would say that the early church was certainly a cult. Todays church has many "cult like" attributes. Maybe today's church is "cult lite"

[_Darth J]

I would say that the early church was certainly a cult. Todays church has many "cult like" attributes. Maybe today's church is "cult lite"

+1

[_maklelan]

As for a list - I don't have one. I have no preconceived idea about wether The Church is a cult or not. I was just interested in hearing what attributes are associated with cults but which aren't associated with the Church, if any.

I've read quite a bit into this subject (hardcopy and the Internet), and I'll list and link some of them later. But for now:

What are the Characteristics of a Religious Cult?.

Hard copy: Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults. (I read this, and other books by Hassan, and he said next to nothing about Mormonism, if my memory serves me correctly. It simply doesn't come into the "equation" along with bodies like Scientology, but more later.)

It should be pointed out that these studies are based on research from the 80s and 90s that was part of a secular anti-cult movement (ACM, as opposed to the religious "Christian counter-cult, or CCM). The ACM was in large part combatting socially marginal movements from the 60s and 70s. Those movements needed to be construed as socially and physically harmful so the ACM could have legal clout to swing around. Although psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists invested in the movement tried hard to provide a scientific basis for aversion to these "cults," they failed repeatedly, and in the late-nineties, when the courts stopped listening to "cult experts," a series of civil and legal cases decimated the movement. Nobody in the academy studies "cults" anymore, and the study of NRMs, or New Religious Movements, is non-polemical. The notions of "mind control," "exit counseling," etc., were abandoned by scholars long ago.

Modern attempts to prop up the academic study of "cults" will cite scholarly publications that stop in the late-nineties. Anything more recent will be independently published and won't have any currency in the academy. For instance, Hassan's book is from 1990. John Hochman's page is from 1990. Rick Ross doesn't even have a bachelor's, and he's had to pawn off his work in other countries because it's simply not recognized as legitimate by scholars here. You'll notice the articles provided by the UK's Cult Information Centre end in 1998. The IJCS is the only journal I know of that operates today and manages to at all resemble real scholarship (it had to completely reinvent itself), but if you peruse the bibliographies from the articles from their 2010 issue, you'll see very, very few articles from this century. The few articles that are there are either not antagonistic (i.e., don't use the word "cult," are much more academic) or are from eastern Europe or Asia.

[_Hades]

Hard copy: Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults. (I read this, and other books by Hassan, and he said next to nothing about Mormonism, if my memory serves me correctly. It simply doesn't come into the "equation" along with bodies like Scientology, but more later.)

Hassan on Mormonism

[_RayAgostini]

Hassan on Mormonism

Thanks for the link. I was not aware of that, and I'll view it later.

[_Chap]

... Nobody in the academy studies "cults" anymore, and the study of NRMs, or New Religious Movements, is non-polemical. The notions of "mind control," "exit counseling," etc., were abandoned by scholars long ago.

Modern attempts to prop up the academic study of "cults" will cite scholarly publications that stop in the late-nineties. Anything more recent will be independently published and won't have any currency in the academy. For instance, Hassan's book is from 1990. John Hochman's page is from 1990. Rick Ross doesn't even have a bachelor's, and he's had to pawn off his work in other countries because it's simply not recognized as legitimate by scholars here. You'll notice the articles provided by the UK's Cult Information Centre end in 1998. The IJCS is the only journal I know of that operates today and manages to at all resemble real scholarship (it had to completely reinvent itself), but if you peruse the bibliographies from the articles from their 2010 issue, you'll see very, very few articles from this century. The few articles that are there are either not antagonistic (i.e., don't use the word "cult," are much more academic) or are from eastern Europe or Asia.

I have to say this rings true for me. I don't care about what 'the academy' does very much, but I certainly don't see that 'cult' as a category helps us get extra insight into the social aspects of religion. Arguing about whether religion X is or is not a cult has never seemed to me to be a discussion that leads anywhere interesting.

Of course that does not mean that some religions do not seem to have quite unpleasant and coercive consequences for people who get involved with them.

[_lulu]

under reconstruction

[_RayAgostini]

Modern attempts to prop up the academic study of "cults" will cite scholarly publications that stop in the late-nineties. Anything more recent will be independently published and won't have any currency in the academy. For instance, Hassan's book is from 1990. John Hochman's page is from 1990. Rick Ross doesn't even have a bachelor's, and he's had to pawn off his work in other countries because it's simply not recognized as legitimate by scholars here. You'll notice the articles provided by the UK's Cult Information Centre end in 1998. The IJCS is the only journal I know of that operates today and manages to at all resemble real scholarship (it had to completely reinvent itself), but if you peruse the bibliographies from the articles from their 2010 issue, you'll see very, very few articles from this century. The few articles that are there are either not antagonistic (i.e., don't use the word "cult," are much more academic) or are from eastern Europe or Asia.

I don't know what the age of any studies has to do with this, in this case. 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. As to the merit or demerit of his work, I guess the debate will go on.

An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy re: Mormonism - 12/12/2011.

Response:

Steve Hassan Applies his Model to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“Mormons”): Based on “Scientific Research” as he claims or Pseudoscience?.

As I said, a lot of this is personal (but I'm not implying that the content of the article has a false basis because of that):

In my personal experience with the LDS religion, which couldn’t have been more different from my later experience in Scientology, no one was ever anything less than kind, loving and respectful to me and no one has ever pressured me to come back to church or tried to frighten me about what would happen. Hardly “cult” behavior. On the contrary, very likely, I have my Mormon roots to thank for my resilience in the face of adversity, my perseverance in standing on principle and my ability to keep my focus on gratitude for what I do have (a practice which in recent times in the resilience literature, has even come to have scientific support) as opposed to what I have lost or don’t have.

It is also worth noting that although Steve Hassan invokes her name, there was never any indication that Margaret Singer considered the Mormon religion a cult. On the contrary, she was a adviser and mentor to someone who is a highly active LDS bishop who is also a bona fide expert in scientific mental health practice and never once, did she ever express concerns that this person was involved in a cult.

One of the biggest problems with the BITE model is that although it may accurately identify groups of concern, it may also, as I discussed in an earlier article, produce false positives. That is, groups that are not cults might be identified as such.

[_TrashcanMan79]

under reconstruction

lulu, who is that dashing young lad in your avatar?

[_lulu]

under reconstruction

lulu, who is that dashing young lad in your avatar?

I wish I knew, the weekend is upon us and I have no date, again.