- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hello all, Something that’s come to my attention is how we define the word ‘cult’. On dictionary.com, the definition is as follows:
cult-
1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
Now, if you say to any person that they belong to a cult, they would take that as an insult to their church. Don’t these definitions apply to all religions? What is wrong about belonging to a cult if the above connotations are what it means?
Obviosly, in modern society, the word means much more. I always thought it had to do with members being brainwashed.
What do you think is the real definition of the word cult?
alaskaboy19 wrote:What do you think is the real definition of the word cult?
In common usage, it’s a negative term referring to all the things you listed above PLUS an organization which refuses to let its members leave the organization when it no longer works for them.
The LDS Church fails on this criterion as all you have to do is write a note to be out of the church and have your named removed. No one forces you to stay although there can be inadvertent social consequences of leaving. But these are cultural and not church-enforced, although one might argue they are church-inspired due to policy and to some extent doctrine.
The most historically-based definition of “cult” is a movement where a charismatic leader draws followers away from “the established religion(s)” of the time. Iow, those who lose members define what is a cult, based often on the amount of success of the charismatic founder.Thus, Jesus was seen as a cultist who was drawing away followers from the synagogues – and, even worse, gaining the attention of the Romans who didn’t appreciate rabble-rousing, apocalyptic, Messianic preachers who might lead a political revolt. The more modern definition revolves around mind-control, brainwashing and coercion.
Mormonism absolutely started as a cult by the first, traditional, broad definition; it isn’t a cult by the second definition, but it certainly had elements during its first century of existence – just as early Christianity did, as well. The similarities are quite striking in that regard.
Pretty much every successful religion and denomination started as a cult, based on the first definition – and they all also had elements of the second when they started and at some point in their maturation.
Frankly, we collectively overuse the term so much in our modern society that many people have lost the ability to distinguish between the definitions above – and to see when the second definition fades as a movement matures.
My favorite response ever to the question of “culty-ness” was:
Quote:“Lord, is it I?”
It was Tom Haws here at this forum who asked that question in another thread about this exact topic. I highly recommend reading the entire comment:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=208&p=1762&hilit=+lord%2C+is+it+i%3F+#p1762 ” don’t these definitions apply to all religions?…” Yes. Yes they do.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Old-Timer wrote:The more modern definition revolves around mind-control, brainwashing and coercion.
I wonder what would be an example of brainwashing?
The term gets thrown around too much. I think Mormon Expressions had a podcast asking if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult or not. They gave some other definitions of what the word “cult” means. It could either be a Christian church that isn’t a part of historical Christianity. That’s one of the reasons why many Christians don’t consider our church, the Mormon church, a Christian church. It could be any religion that isn’t considered legit. The term could mean any religion that doesn’t allow you to leave the religion; it will force you to stay. I think it’s time the rest of the Christian world got more creative….they are famous for usign this logic. 1. We have certain groups we don’t like for various reasons.
2. We therefore need to marginalize them by calling them non-Christian or a cult.
3. Group X has this distinct characteristic in their theology or culture.
4. Therefore, we narrow the definition of “Christian” or expand the definition of “cult” to exclude or include this unique characteristic, respectively.
5. Therefore, we can conclude that Group X is non-Christian and a cult.
If, in some fantasy world we renounced those things which exclude us from Christianity, or lopped off those things that make us qualify as a cult, they would find something else I’m sure such as “Non-Christians believe in the pagan tradition of wearing a white shirt and tie when officiating in ordinances”. “Cults believe in non-public ceremonies” or some other definition that speaks to our uniqueness.
In my internal dictionary, I think a major point of cultism is the out-of-reality veneration of a particular person. It’s the “out-of-reality” part that separates opinion. By that definition, all Christian religions would be cults to anyone that doesn’t believe Jesus is the Messiah… though flipping the coin, Christians wouldn’t consider it a cult because they accept that Jesus is the Christ, so, it’s not out-of-reality for them. The canonical example to me in modern times is that in Nazi Germany, when solders pledged themselves to obedience to the person of Adolf Hitler, rather than to the nation or its constitution.
That’s where I think the LDS church needs to be careful… not so much in JS, because he lived and died so long ago that it’s more correct to lump him in with Peter and Paul… but rather, in the present General Authorities. The 14 Fs is a cultist manifesto, in my opinion. I don’t believe that most in the church blindly accept the 14 Fs. I don’t think that we are presently overly committed to individuals… but it’s borderline… and really close.
To further Silent Dawning’s well-put expose… I will add that it’s not just religions that use ad hominem attacks… We live in a time and place where it is common to the point of being the norm. In the US, we’ve heard both sides of the political aisle accuse the other of being “un-american”… often over the same topic. Of course, by doing so, in a way they are both right. These StayLDS forums are an exception, but most forums on the internet, from religion to politics to sports are frequented by people whose ace-in-the-hole argument for any subject is “you are a moron”. Cult has morphed into too much of a pejorative over the last century. It’s way too loaded full of baggage. It doesn’t really matter how you want to draw the lines and boxes around what is or isn’t a cult. It’s used as, and perceived as, an insult. Academics in the field of religious studies don’t use the word “cult” anymore. It’s considered highly inappropriate and biased in scholarly settings. They call groups that break off from the cultural mainstream “New Religious Movements.”
alaskaboy19 wrote:Now, if you say to any person that they belong to a cult, they would take that as an insult to their church. Don’t these definitions apply to all religions?
What is wrong about belonging to a cultif the above connotations are what it means?… Obviosly, in modern society, the word means much more. I always thought it had to do with members being brainwashed…What do you think is the real definition of the word cult? I don’t believe there is any clear and consistent definition of cult so that we can draw a dividing line and specifically say that some religious groups are definitely cults but others are definitely not. People often associate the word cult with groups like the People’s Temple, Branch Davidians, and Heaven’s Gate where if cult leaders tell their followers to drink poison kool-aid then they will. So the problem with accusing the LDS Church of being a cult is that Church members are likely to be offended by this label and dismiss the idea as being nothing more than unfair name-calling without really paying much attention to it (I.E. it is not very constructive criticism).
However, I think the Church is definitely more cult-like than average and has developed some very questionable characteristics compared to other churches that are about the same size or larger such as the amount of emphasis on and general acceptance of the idea that we are supposedly the only ones that are completely right and everyone else is wrong in one way or another. I definitely don’t believe most Church leaders are knowingly malicious and trying to control people in an abusive way; it looks like they are mostly just reacting to perceived problems and repeating the same traditions they have inherited from previous generations.
For example, trying to enforce the WoW “revelation” by making it a temple recommend requirement probably sounded like a good idea to Church leaders mostly to try to prevent unhealthy and/or costly habits and problems related to alcohol abuse but now whether intended or not it also currently serves the purpose of separating obedient Mormons from disobedient Mormons and non-Mormons in a visible way and it basically ends up adding to the general us-versus-them mentality. Personally I think the goal of being “in the world but not of the world” will be increasingly difficult to maintain nowadays because of increased access to outside information and contact with non-Mormons and inactive members (even in Utah) so many active members will eventually see through the hype and realize that this exaggerated level of separation from “the world” and general mistrust and/or disrespect of outside opinions and information is not really justified or necessary.
Alaskaboy, this is the second thread you’ve started here recently that I’m scratching my head upon, asking myself, “How does this relate to staying LDS?”. Most of us have experienced all the anti-mormon literature and seen the whole ‘cult’ debate see it for what it is: an attempt to label mormonism and dismiss it. there is no question in my mind that the original church was by any definition, even a pejorative one, a cult. That, perhaps, is part of the joys of being LDS, is realizing that the origins were a little suspect.
But in the process of coming to mature faith, William James points out that the phenomenology of a religion — and the value that it brings, needs to be detached from what invariably is a pretty fantastic set of origination stories. I have a testimony of the book of mormon: it uplifts. It testifies of Christ. It teaches basic gospel princples with clarity and power. But I also realize that there is no DNA evidence of any lamanites, and that all the origination stories, including the witnesses, do not bear up under scrutiny. That is a reality that we deal with in disaffection. Yet, because I separate the history of the LDS church from the phenomenology of it, I can accept and have faith that the church and gospel are ‘true’, in that they are relevant and normative for me.
So what is the point with the cult discussion, again? What is the point with a racist video? I’m not trying to be critical, I just don’t see how exploring these issues helps me StayLDS. perhaps you have another view and I’m open to considering it.
I think you’ve covered this, but it isn’t necessarily negative. You can have cult films/bands etc, and there’s also “the cult of the Virgin Mary” etc wayfarer wrote:
this is the second thread you’ve started here recently that I’m scratching my head upon, asking myself, “How does this relate to staying LDS?”.Better understanding the definition of cult will enable us to defend the church by discussing how it does not fit the definition. Yes we have all seen the anti-mormon sentiment, so lets discuss ways to combat it. If someone calls my church a cult, I will defend it by reiterating the true definition of a cult. For me at least, staying with the church requires being able to defend it.
As for the racist video discussion, something I feel is important. If you don’t care, you don’t have to read it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.