- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://beestonquakers.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/are-quakers-cult.html?m=1 Quote:
“I noticed a story in the news which about a 15-year-old who was arrested and may be prosecuted for holding up a placard which labelled Scientology a cult. I thought it was probably rather unpleasant for the Scientologists to face a demonstration, but I didn’t think a peaceful demonstration should be against the law. I wondered how we as Quakers would feel if there were a demonstration outside our Meeting. Surprised, perhaps – even pleased that anyone thought us worth the trouble….“I’m not quite sure how to define a cult. Looking on the web, I find that some people define any religious group as a cult if it doesn’t conform with certain beliefs of religious fundamentalism. I’m quite touched by the website of a guest-house in Minehead which describes Quakers as “A non-Christian cult, but nice people.” Other websites are very suspicious of silent worship and waiting on the Spirit. They reckon that all truth can be found in the Bible.”
See also an anti-piece:http://www.christiandoctrine.com/quakers-are-they-christian-or-are-they-members-of-a-cult
Quote:
“Thus, for a saved person to be a part of Quakerism (or any other cult) which, by definition, is predominantly evil, is to oppose God’s commands. There is no reason whatever for a Believer to be known by any other names than those found in scripture e.g. ‘Believer’ or ‘Christian’… for any other title is superfluous. Indeed, to be called by the title ‘Quaker’ is to indicate one’s real loyalty, a loyalty to a man-made organisation and not to the authentic relationship between a person and God which has been effected through the salvation given by Jesus Christ.”No, I suppose I define cults as those that isolate members from non-cult members (including family). LookingHard wrote:
First I don’t think being a cult is a binary. I see it as a scale.
Agreed. Technically, I’d say ALL religions begin as cults. The main differentiation, is how popular they are. There are, however, cult-like attributes, which I think are important to look at. These include:
Multiple levels of initiation
- Secrecy involving the inner layers of initiation
- Claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), inner circle, and members
- The excessive use of mind-altering practices (chanting, meditation, rituals, etc), which are both used to supress doubts and re-affirm commitment
- Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
- Unquestioning commitment to its leader(s), including their ideology, belief system and practices; Considering such to be the absoulte Truth and law
- Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished
- Leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel
- Preoccupation with bringing in new members
- Preoccupation with bringing in money
- Key indoctrination that there is no life outside of the context of the group; no happiness, no purpose, no other way.
The importance at looking at these cult-like attributes to to see, within ourselves, whether or not a group we belong to is actually good, praiseworthy, and holds a certain level of objective Truth… or whether we’ve been convinced of such through poor evidence and cunning psychology. I am in no way saying that the LDS Church is a cult, but the number of members who profess “the Church is True” based on the “feelings of the Spirit” raises a BIG red flag for me. The purposeful consealment and altering of Church History, in order to instill those “feelings of the Spirit” in investigators and general membership is another BIG red flag for me.
Are the Quakers a cult? “Cult” is a label with a wide range of definitions. Therefore, the question is meaningless.
- Does the Quaker belief system and practices cause people to act in a way contrary to how they would act if they had the entire truth? Possibly.
- Are the Quakers happier than they would be without their specific belief system? Also possibly.
- Does the Quaker Leadership abusing their power and authority for their own personal gain? Probably, but less than most religions, I believe.
- Is the Quaker membership, as a whole, a happy people? Absolutely.
Now, take the questions above, and replace “Quakers” with “LDS”. The answers largely stay the same. Personally, this is why I can give a level of acceptance to both the Quakers and the LDS faiths. However, replace “Quakers” with “Scientology”, and you’ve got some very different answers. Of course, I do greatly appreciate the existance of Scientology. It causes people to reflect greatly on their own religious beliefs, as well as their cult-like commitment to other cult-like groups (political, social-change, etc).
I hate the word “cult” because of the emotional meaning attached to it, and I think it has different definitions. I categorically reject the definition listed above “Thus, for a saved person to be a part of Quakerism (or any other cult) which, by definition, is predominantly evil, is to oppose God’s commands.” If that is a definition of a cult, then Quakers are certainly not evil, nor opposed to God’s commands. That is a false definition that I flatly reject.
When we apply the word “cult” to pretty much any organization that has strong, exclusionary, peculiar teachings, identifies by a unique name, indoctrinates its members into a right way to do things, etc, we have labeled almost all solid organizations that grow and last over time as cults – and we lose the meaning and power of the word itself to identify an extreme. There are cults today, but Quakers are not one of them – and neither are Mormons – and neither are Jehovah’s Witnesses – and neither are Catholics – and neither are most evangelical Christian denominations – and neither are most sects of all other large religions. Of course, we can use the word in different ways (like “the cult of personality” or “the cult of sports figure worship”), but, generally, it has come to mean nothing more than “a group of people whose beliefs are disgusting or abominable to me” or “any unorthodox group”.
Frankly, if there a good example of cult behavior in our modern society, I would point first to the users of intentionally fake news who blatantly, knowingly, and cynically manipulate people to gain money, fame, and power. American politics reeks of such cultism right now.
The original meaning of cult is far broader and all mainstream religions would belong to it. I’ve posted about the Quakers here because they are one of the least offensive churches out there… they have the barest of hierarchies (unlike the LDS), very little doctrine (unlike the LDS) and also a lot of wriggle room. It’s hard to say Quakers really have much of a belief system.
Their meetings come closest to our F&T meetings, except we do not have silence for long.
SamBee wrote:
The original meaning of cult is far broader and all mainstream religions would belong to it.I’ve posted about the Quakers here because they are one of the least offensive churches out there… they have the barest of hierarchies (unlike the LDS), very little doctrine (unlike the LDS) and also a lot of wriggle room. It’s hard to say Quakers really have much of a belief system.
Their meetings come closest to our F&T meetings, except we do not have silence for long.
It was an excellent thought exercise. Thanks for sharing, Sam.
I think it is much harder to throw the cult accusation at Quakers than the LDS. * Early Quakers included certain colorful and controversial characters quite different to today, but who got in trouble with the English authorities (hence the flight to America.)
* Quakers are slightly outside the Protestant mainstream , regarding stuff like baptism, salvation etc.
* The silences could be seen as a brainwashing tool by more hysterical types.
Interestingly I don’t think Joseph Smith really knew much about the Quakers, although their near namesakes the Shakers come up in D&C. Shakers were a very different breed in some respects although they did come out of the Protestant fringe and flourished in New England.
(Brigham Young is said to have made an odd statement about Quakers on the Moon.)
Do any groups self-identify as a cult, or is that only a term outsiders give to others? Heber13 wrote:
Do any groups self-identify as a cult, or is that only a term outsiders give to others?
Sort of. In the old sense it is very broad, you can talk of the cult of St Anthony or of Shiva and no disparagement is intended.
The pc term is “New Religious Movement”. Obviously many groups within this are much less harmful than they are sometimes painted to be. The main boundary though lies between those which are inward looking and those which are outward looking.
Heber13 wrote:
Do any groups self-identify as a cult, or is that only a term outsiders give to others?
It was a more popular in early religions (specifically polytheistic religions), where you would pick one specific God or Goddess to pay special attention to and worship. Then, Christiandom rose to power, and demonized the cults of the old Gods. The etymology has carried over and the definition has greatly expanded. No one, I believe, ever refers to themselves as a “cult” (outside of maybe blatant Satan worshipers); rather “religion”, “movement”, “way of life”, “commune”, etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.