Informing non-members about Mormonism- suggestions

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, or some other Mormon, please take the time to explain to me how my point of view is unbalanced. I maintain that it's a very balanced point of view. I'd like to know what was so off about what I said that it's "unbalanced".

I think I did that above. But briefly, the LDS Church is not a cult. No more than any other religion. Second, it generally does not destroy families though some families may be in the process of some losing beliefs or parents acting poorly to wayward kids. In spite of what you call propaganda I think most active LDS families are generally happy and well off and I think the Church helps them be this way.

I conceded that LDS families may gossip about family members who leave or are otherwise disaffected.

[_Roger Morrison]

Definitions Please: RSR? S/R theory? I might have known what these initials stood for at one time???

Trevor, from your post:

Roger Morrison wrote:
IF you were, I didn't expressed distain for the LDS Church. Nor did I intend they, "...lose interest in joining..." As you, in your way considered your list objective, so do I consider the elements of a cult that I listed objective. They are found in most definitions of a "cult" that can be researched.


(Trevor) I trust you didn't intend to. The word "cult" is controversial. So, whether one intends to show disdain or not, it is likely that people in the group being called a cult will not agree that they are in one, because it is considered a negative thing...

...As for the objectivity of your list, I would recommend you run it by members of the LDS Church to see whether they agree or not. They probably wouldn't. I can't imagine anyone who isn't disillusioned with Mormonism to some extent describing the LDS Church with phrases like "closed-minded leaders," "Bible literalists," "unduly honoring deceased founder," "demanding obedience," "non-democratic," "sexist," etc. I would wager that a great number of LDS folk would take exception to quite a number of these things. You are probably correct again. However that does not nullify those elements being consistant in cults. Very few members IN any collective see what is seen by others who are not indoctrinated. IF/WHEN they perceive the negatives to out-weigh the positives, of their collective what ever it might be, they will probably exit. But maybe that is just me. I think you are being quite reasonable :-) But I don't think what you suggest as normalicy--& I agree that it is--validates denial. Although it has all through history. Germany being a fairly recent example.

Suggestion re your "tag": A person would have to know You to understand it as You intend. One of the parochial/provincial trends in small groups--speak assuming everyone is an insider. Not good, in my seriously considered opinion. Breaks down communication. My opening sentence alludes to this very thing. (IMSCO :-)

Be patient Anti-8. I wish I could help You. Bro... Maybe a bit of profanity needed eh?

Roger :-)

[_antishock8]

Jason, or some other Mormon, please take the time to explain to me how my point of view is unbalanced. I maintain that it's a very balanced point of view. I'd like to know what was so off about what I said that it's "unbalanced".

I think I did that above. But briefly, the LDS Church is not a cult. No more than any other religion. Second, it generally does not destroy families though some families may be in the process of some losing beliefs or parents acting poorly to wayward kids. In spite of what you call propaganda I think most active LDS families are generally happy and well off and I think the Church helps them be this way.

I conceded that LDS families may gossip about family members who leave or are otherwise disaffected.

Jason, this is what I wrote:

1) It's a f*** up cult.

You wrote:

But briefly, the LDS Church is not a cult. No more than any other religion.

Jason. Is it or is it not a cult? And if not, how is my use of the word not correct?

2) It destroys peoples' lives because it demands that it is placed before anyone and everything else (remember the promise we made?).

You wrote:

it generally does not destroy families

This doesn't address my assertion.

3) If you leave your family, in-laws, and "friends" will talk endlessly about you, and it's not good. More than a few marriages end up in divorce, and it's your fault for "breaking your promises"... Not for wanting to get out of the cult.

You wrote:

I conceded that LDS families may gossip about family members who leave or are otherwise disaffected.

Thank you for the concession.

That being said, how is what I wrote "unbalanced"? You're not actually explaining HOW my assertions are unbalanced.

[_Jason Bourne]

But briefly, the LDS Church is not a cult. No more than any other religion.

Jason. Is it or is it not a cult? And if not, how is my use of the word not correct?

It is not a cult. Cult conjures up Wacko and Jones and other such fringe groups. Thus your use is incorrect. It creates in the listeners mind a picture that is not accurate and thus not balanced.

it generally does not destroy families

This doesn't address my assertion.

Most members that are active are quite happy to give their time to serve in the Church and create an LDS culture for their families. How does this destroy lives? These people are quite happy and fulfilled and may be less happy in another life style. Their lives are not destroyed. Mine has not been destroyed. Even as less an TBM than I used to be it is not destroyed. I have gained many positive things from the LDS Church, from my mission, serving, lifestyle choices and so on even if it is all false.

When you say it destroys lives by putting the Church above all else it creates another inaccurate characterization of most active LDS who are quite happy with their lives as LDS.

My wife is a covert. She thinks her life is a thousand times better then it was pre LDS days. She would find your portrayal strange.

That being said, how is what I wrote "unbalanced"? You're not actually explaining HOW my assertions are unbalanced.

Hope that helps.

[_Roger Morrison]

WHOOPS! Looks like Jason is surfing on his lunch-break. Great guy! From his post is pasted below, into which are my insertions:

... briefly, the LDS Church is not a cult... In your respected opinion No more than any other religion...Jason, in most protestant churches, Officers are nominated, and elected, by members. Clergy may be selected from beyond the narrow--and sometimes very-limited limited choice--geographical dictates of Head-office. There are no off-limits areas to any of their members. There is no bar of family members to weddings under any pretense (did you mention that in your disclosure list?) in spite of what you call propaganda I think most active LDS families are generally happy and well off As they are in most Assembly of God churches. And as I see in Joel Osteen's congregation, and the number of various churches I frequent as an "Investigator"
and I think the Church helps them be this way. As do those just mentioned above.

I unhesitatingly agree--as usual--with Harmony: You, Jason Bourne, whoever You are, should be attending a Mormon Seminary--too bad there isn't such an open-door--to be educated, in real terms, in preparation to Ordination as a Mormon Pastor, paid for your full-time, Professional employment in service to "God" and Congregation. With a possible career path to a General Authority, and what might lie beyond. Arriving there by other than obedience to out-dated traditions and unquestionable policies!

Maybe, after enough funerals? When All church leaders will have been born in the post 50's?

Warm regards, Roger :-)

[_Trevor]

You are probably correct again. However that does not nullify those elements being consistant in cults. Very few members IN any collective see what is seen by others who are not indoctrinated. IF/WHEN they perceive the negatives to out-weigh the positives, of their collective what ever it might be, they will probably exit.

My unsophisticated definition of "cult" is a group that isolates, coerces, dominates, and destroys its members. I do not perceive the LDS Church as operating in this extreme fashion. I was never held against my will and forced to chant the doctrines of the church in week-long vigils in which I was denied food and sleep. I was never told to turn over all of my money to Gordon Hinckley so that the god-king GBH could drive a Rolls. I view Mormonism as a very inconvenient religion, and I can imagine that most people don't want that inconvenience. I do not see it as a cult. That's my opinion, and I think it is a fair and reasonable one.

Germany being a fairly recent example.

I don't believe that WWII-era Germany was a cult. I believe it was a nation in the grips of a destructive ideology that played on preexisting desires and fears.

Suggestion re your "tag": A person would have to know You to understand it as You intend. One of the parochial/provincial trends in small groups--speak assuming everyone is an insider. Not good, in my seriously considered opinion. Breaks down communication. My opening sentence alludes to this very thing. (IMSCO :-)

Duly noted. It is just so much less funny to me if I have to explain it to everyone.

[_marg]

My unsophisticated definition of "cult" is a group that isolates, coerces, dominates, and destroys its members. I do not perceive the LDS Church as operating in this extreme fashion.

But isn't that how it started out? What would the LDS church be like if its leaders over the years were able to do whatever they wished with no constraints and outside pressures?

[_Trevor]

But isn't that how it started out? What would the LDS church be like if its leaders over the years were able to do whatever they wished with no constraints and outside pressures?

I don't really get the point of discussing such a hypothetical situation.

What if Richard Dawkins is a pedophile?

[_Jersey Girl]

Are they aware of the issue surrounding Old Testament text?

Jersey Girl: What issue?

That should have been issues. But it is off topic for this thread. I made the points about Christianity in general because most converts to a Christian religions are not give any more information about controversial issues then are LDS potential converts. In the alter call situations I have seen it is even less. In fact it is little if anything other than we are sinners, going to Hell and Jesus is the way to be saved so come up and confess He is Lord.

So when I gave my list of things I would tell people about Mormonism, at least those looking to join, and you added some things, I noted my list was not all inclusive and then simply noted that no religions gives up all controversial issues.

If you witnessed folks as they were received at an altar call invitation, you didn't see the whole process, for as I stated, new members in an SB church or other Protestant churches then speak with a pastor or deacon, they discuss a decision for Christ, issues related to baptism and attend new member classes and so on. The altar call is simply an invitation. It's not the main process. I base that on my experiences in Protestant and SB churches.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm having a hard time understanding how I presented an "unbalanced" point of view.

Jason, or some other Mormon, please take the time to explain to me how my point of view is unbalanced. I maintain that it's a very balanced point of view. I'd like to know what was so off about what I said that it's "unbalanced".

Ignoring your request for "Jason or some other Mormon", I'm going to comment anyway.

I think that when you begin a series of criticism with an emotionally loaded or inflammatory phrase, such as "It's a screwed up cult", the remainder of the criticisms are not well received.