List of things that make Mormonism a cult

[_Scottie]

Hint hana, you just made a utter and unutterable fool of yourself in public. Regroup.

Uh, Cogs, Hana wasn't saying the LDS church has these attributes.

Do you actually read the posts before you fire away??

[_Coggins7]

No they don't.

Yes, they do, and if you don't understand that you are either still in third grade, or you simply don't care what you say in a debate such as this as long as you can hold your ground, even if it makes you look rather silly.

[_Who Knows]

If coggins' responses weren't funny enough on their own before, try reading them while picturing the dude in his avatar speaking in chinese but voiced over in english (like those old kung-fu movies). Twice as funny.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hint hana, you just made a utter and unutterable fool of yourself in public. Regroup.

Uh, Cogs, Hana wasn't saying the LDS church has these attributes.

Do you actually read the posts before you fire away??

No, he doesn't. The only texts he appears to actually read with any care are "thefrontpage.com," or whatever it's called, and other such right-wing material.

In any case, I'm curious to hear what he thinks about Wade's argument, which is that only credentialed scholars ought to be able to comment on certain things, such as what a "cult" actually is.

[Guest]

If the Mormon church isn't a cult, then there is no such thing as a cult.

I agree with Schmo. There is no such thing as a cult.

Nehor,

In the interest of your edification and that of Some Schmo, see:


See

Religious Cults
Read the definitions, evolution, elements, and attraction.


All About Cults
Here you will find Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science and an extended discussion of Religious Cults


JAK

[_Coggins7]

Fine, Wade. Feel free to look up any scholarly guidebook on cults. Let's see how many parallels there are with Mormonism, and let's see whether or not this information sinks in with you.

Let's do it Scratch. Name your sources.

If we find enough parallels and definitional accuracies, will you therefore concede that "cult" is a fitting label? For my money, I am not really comfortable with the term "cult," but I'm curious if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Bow out now Scratch, you're in so far over your head your ears are going to pop. You are in the deep end of the pool without a clue. Or, as is much more likely, you know very well you are blowing smoke out every orifice you've got available but don't care. Anything for the cause.

I've said before, and will say again: I don't think it's really very good to label the LDS Church a "cult." But, if you are a-okay with simply relying upon strict definitional accuracy, well, then: let's see it.

No, it isn't a good idea when by the term "cult", one means "different than late 20th century Evangelical Protestantism" If one uses it in its accepted sociological context, its fine.

Here is what appears to be a pretty good source:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... oke_1.html

Here is Kathleen Flake, an LDS scholar, commenting upon the way that modern sociologists of religion (remember Bromley?) define "cult":

Prof. Flake wrote:
In its more scholarly usage the term tries to measure socio-cultural distance. The greater the mismatch of the customs between believers and their host culture, the more likely the believers are deemed somewhere on the spectrum between sectarian to cultish.

A good source for what? This does nothing to prove your case as stated in the opening assertion in this post. I have no problem with this definition.

So, what do you say, Wade? How much difference is there between mainstream U.S. culture and the LDS Church,

Mucho.


You are, Scratch, the best case I've ever run across for Social Darwinism

_________________

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is what appears to be a pretty good source:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... oke_1.html

Here is Kathleen Flake, an LDS scholar, commenting upon the way that modern sociologists of religion (remember Bromley?) define "cult":

Prof. Flake wrote:
In its more scholarly usage the term tries to measure socio-cultural distance. The greater the mismatch of the customs between believers and their host culture, the more likely the believers are deemed somewhere on the spectrum between sectarian to cultish.

A good source for what? This does nothing to prove your case as stated in the opening assertion in this post. I have no problem with this definition.

So, what do you say, Wade? How much difference is there between mainstream U.S. culture and the LDS Church,

Mucho.

(bold and underlined emphases added)

Let's recap:

---Prof. Flake defines a cult thusly, "The greater the mismatch of the customs between believers and their host culture, the more likely the believers are deemed somewhere on the spectrum between sectarian to cultish."
---Coggins says he has "no problem with this definition."
---When asked, "How much difference is there between mainstream U.S. culture and the LDS Church?", Coggins replies, "Mucho."

In summary: Coggins believes that the LDS Church is "mucho sectarian" or is "mucho a cult." QED!

[_Coggins7]

Well, because most cults have secret rituals. The members are threatened with some kind of punishment if they disclose what happens in these secret rituals. Do you know of any other mainstream religions where secret rituals are required for salvation?

Yes, all of early Christianity, in both its original form and its gnostic modifications. Oh, and I forgot ancient Judaism, especially its pre-captivity apocalyptic tradition. Have you ever read the Scrolls, scottie?

Holy twisting, Batman!! You most certainly ARE required to pay tithing for temple entrance. Trying to convolute it somehow into obeying a commandment, and that commandment just happens to be pay your tithing is ridiculous. There is no middle step here. It is pay your tithing or don't go to the temple. Simple as that.

Don't try to play word games with me scottie. That is an exercise in futility. The term you used was force, not require. Ray also expleaned this to your clearly. But, there's your agenda...

Quote:
3. Calling the leader "The Prophet"

Why is this cultic beyond the above senses mentioned?


I've explained this. Please read the whole thread.

The very fact that you think you've given a rationally substantive explanation here is a good argument, in itself, to drop this whole exercise.

Quote:

I'm not sure I said anything about growing the church. A priest gives up his whole life to the service of God as well. In fact, most bishops and stake presidents could EASILY work a 2nd job with the amount of un-paid hours they put in. But, I'm just supposed to agree that because these men are higher up in the ranking that they somehow deserve a lavish lifestyle? As far as I know, Jesus was about as high up as you can go, and he was pretty poor.

What, what, WHAT on earth are you talking about?

I'm almost thinking of rescinding this one. Really, only Bishops and above have callings which require so much time as to make it seem cultish.

Utter, total, and unexpurgated intellectual vacuity. The "cult" argument is over. You have lost it on intellectual, logical, philosophical, and lexical grounds.

Uh, nice try yourself there, coggie. The current, most popular LDS church was nothing but an offshoot in itself. BY just relocated it to an environment where it could flourish.

And, yes, FLDS are Mormons just as much as LDS are. If you're going to try and argue that point, well, then other Christian religions can say Mormons aren't Christians. Just cause you say you are doesn't make it so.

No, the FLDS are utterly separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are not Mormons in any sense of the term. The only connection is the fact that they trace their origins to some people who apostatized and created a schism within the Church. They are no more Mormons than Buddhists are Mormons, but without the historical connection. You are just playing word games here scottie, because you have nowhere else to go. The current Church is the original Church from which the FLDS , the Strangites, etc, sprang. These, however, are not considered by the membership of the Church, or its leadership, as "Mormons". They are what they are but they're nothing more than that in relation to the Church.

Quote:
9. The priesthood ban.

What does this have to do with the term "cult"? Jesus himself refused to take his message outside the House of Israel while he was alive. This makes Jesus a "cultist", does it not?

Because cults have exclusivity bans on certain groups.

So do all religions. You can't join the Catholic Church without becoming--a Catholic. A Zoroastrian is not going to be allowed to become a Priest. Further, you have just again placed Jesus himself in the cult category, as he would have nothing to do, as to preaching the gospel or Priesthood, if he could avoid it, with non Jews during his lifetime. Perhaps you could also explain the multi-thousand year Priesthood ban, that, according to LDS doctrine, has existed among Caucasians for much of their history?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Fine, Wade. Feel free to look up any scholarly guidebook on cults. Let's see how many parallels there are with Mormonism, and let's see whether or not this information sinks in with you. If we find enough parallels and definitional accuracies, will you therefore concede that "cult" is a fitting label? For my money, I am not really comfortable with the term "cult," but I'm curious if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. As I recall, in a discussion on whether or not the LDS Church "lies" about what "it claims to be," you insisted on setting aside one definition of the word "lie," stating that we should define the word in as charitable and LDS-positive way as possible. Are you willing to do the same with the word "cult"?

Unfortunately, you don't appear to understand the key points of my argument. So, let me be a little more clear.

First, I am not arguing against the scholarly usage of the term. I am arguing against its usage and interpretation in the common venacular (like what occurs on message boards such as this).

Then please show how the "common vernacular" definition is in any substantial way different from the scholarly definition.

That is why I was very careful, each time I posed my questions, to speak in terms of "colloquial" meaning and usage.

Again, what's the real difference? Is it simply the fact that people you don't like are using the term?

Secondly, I am arguing against its colloquial usage on the grounds that it doesn't serve any useful purpose, and in fact tends to be counterproduct (as some on both sides have agreed on this thread).

Oh, okay. Well, it seems perfectly clear to me that the folks in this thread are relying principally on the scholarly definition. If you'd like to prove how they're not, then by all means, go ahead.

Now, if you can find a way to reasonably surmount those two reasonable causes for rejecting the colloquil usage of the term, then I would be pleased to hear it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes: it seems perfectly reasonable to state that there are no real, substantive differences in meaning between the "colloquil" and scholarly definitions of the term "cult". If you can demonstrate what the differences are, I'm all ears.

Scratch, give it up. We all know what you are up to, and we all know it has nothing to do with a serious or intellectually honest discussion.

We know what, even if we do not know who, you are.

Keep up the pose.

[_Coggins7]

Hint hana, you just made a utter and unutterable fool of yourself in public. Regroup.

Uh, Cogs, Hana wasn't saying the LDS church has these attributes.

Do you actually read the posts before you fire away??

Here is how that thread opened:

Some other characteristics commonly attributed to organizations thought to be "cults" can include:

Cults have these characteristics
Mormonism is a cult
Ergo...

Who was hana talking about scottie, the Rotery Club?