Cults

[Anonymous]

The church has had some authoritarian tendencies in the past, but is it far to describe it as a “cult” or “cultish”.

I know that “cult” has a broader sense than it generally does now, one into which all religion falls, but I’m talking of the more sinister definition.

This has to be one of the most frequent put-downs of the church, but is it appropriate?

[Anonymous]

Looking from the outside in you could say yes. There are esoteric and secret doctrines available only to the faithful, committment to central leadership with high demand for obediance, and a tendency to see everyone else as “them”.

From the inside out I’d say no as long as obediance doesn’t crowd out common sense and we don’t make ourselves into victims.

[Anonymous]

The last time I commented about the C word – I got moderated, so I will keep my mouth shut.

[Anonymous]

This is generally one of those topics that gets moderated at LDS sites — even over at NOM too. It isn’t such a sensitive topic that nobody should think about it, but it tends to degenerate into a bad conversation, at least in more open forums. Yes, there tends to be a knee-jerk reaction to this by site operators. The main problem tends to be the people on the extremes in the faith spectrum going at each others’ throats. The severely disaffected tend to go off on how stupid and mind-controlled members are. The “faithful” take offense at this and start accusing the disaffected of all manner of ill. It’s an emotionally charged label.

So …

If everyone wants to explore this topic, AND we can keep it within the framework of our site’s mission and rules of etiquette, then I am personally open to giving it a try. I think we tend to filter out people from the extremes in our community, so maybe we can talk about it without creating a bad atmosphere.

Ground rules:

1. Try not to get into the topic of defining, in absolutes, that the LDS Church is completely a “cult” or completely not a cult. Let’s just assume a sliding scale, and individuals tend to be the primary factor in that scale. Some people are prone to unhealthy engagement in religion, and most aren’t. This happens generally in all religions.

2. The site mission is to work on reconciliation strategies: How do we deal with this accusation? How do we ensure we are not being cult-like in our personal use of the religion? How do we deal with people in the Church, in a productive and healthy way, who might treat it more cult-like than others? etc…

How’s that sound?

[Anonymous]

In Jesus day, the Nazarenes were considered a cult because they were different from the mainstream Jewish religion. Jesus brought forth new scripture and teachings so I don’t necessarily see the lds church as a cult. But, I understand why others would, especially when they see the FDLS church communes on Tv and how the women and people dress alike and seem to follow their leader like sheep.

[Anonymous]

Out in the world far away from Utah .. and far away from a big population of LDS members lives most of my family in Boston, MA. In all honesty when some of my family and best friends were informed that I would be marrying a devoted Mormon they were worried for me. A few people called in cultish. A few people thought I was losing it, as in “Love is blind” kind of losing it. They thought it was a HUGE jump.

For a while I didn’t see it. I stood up for the church and told people it actually wasn’t “Too” weird. ( I think that here and there now) It seems cultish to some people .. looking in from the outside. It can be damaging in a cultish way to people involved as members. It all depends on the individual, what they know, how they practice, or what they have seen and heard. They were right about it being a HUGE jump for me. I realized that a few years later. I’m not sure if I would call the church a cult as a whole. Although I’m not sure I would stand up for it not being cultish. I just know it isn’t for me and I’m happy for people that are happy in it .. However if a loved one were to ask my opinion on becoming a member … I would give my story in an honest way and it isn’t exactly a fariytale.

I’m not sure if the LDS church is making a movement (at least to outsiders) towards not seeming like a “cult” or “cultish” at this time. It is 2010 and people are learning more and more to be tolerant and loving towards others that they don’t completely understand or agree with. But from my experience alone, yes honestly, people that don’t know much about the LDS church believe it to be cult-like. I don’t know what would have to happen to change their minds … but do their opinions really matter? Time will tell I guess.

[Anonymous]

Hello all,

I’ve been stalking this site for well over a year now, but just recently decided to come down from the rafters. I really appreciate Brian’s request that we

Quote:

1. Try not to get into the topic of defining, in absolutes, that the LDS Church is completely a “cult” or completely not a cult. Let’s just assume a sliding scale, and individuals tend to be the primary factor in that scale. Some people are prone to unhealthy engagement in religion, and most aren’t. This happens generally in all religions.

Something I really appreciate about staylds, and what has kept me reading through these forums is that Mormonism is discussed in such moderate tones here. I don’t deal well with the extremes that are so often thrown about in LDS culture: Prophet or fraud, One true church or hoax, etc. I think the general label “cult” makes the same mistake of lumping 10+ million different souls into one massive extreme generalization. In my experience within the Mormon community, I have seen a lot of what could be termed “cult-like” behaviors as have the rest of you, I’m sure. I have also seen examples of extreme openness inside of the broad umbrella of Mormonism. The existence of this very forum is a prime example of that. Something tells me that people weren’t lining up to create the staybranchdavidian forum

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

This is generally one of those topics that gets moderated at LDS sites — even over at NOM too. It isn’t such a sensitive topic that nobody should think about it, but it tends to degenerate…The severely disaffected tend to go off on how stupid and mind-controlled members are. The “faithful” take offense at this…If everyone wants to explore this topic, AND we can keep it within the framework of our site’s mission and rules of etiquette, then I am personally open to giving it a try…Let’s just assume a sliding scale, and individuals tend to be the primary factor in that scale. Some people are prone to unhealthy engagement in religion, and most aren’t…The site mission is to work on reconciliation strategies: How do we deal with this accusation?…How’s that sound?

I don’t mind if I do take this opportunity to run my mouth about my all-time favorite Church-related topic. Personally I think these cult accusations will continue to undermine the Church’s credibility as long as they try to rigidly maintain the status quo at all costs. Having unique doctrines that are very different from the majority of “mainstream” Christians doesn’t really bother me in the least. To me the real question here is just how easy would it be for most active members to just walk away from the Church or openly admit that they don’t believe some of its major doctrines? What will happen to active members that suddenly lose faith in the Church and want to be honest about it? Will they be treated the same as before or will they be ostracized and disrespected by other members?

Basically, the general attitude toward “apostates” that I see just doesn’t look very Christian to me at all and any church where they don’t treat other followers that leave or don’t believe everything they do in such a judgmental way should definitely be considered less cult-like than us by comparison in my book. I’m not saying that what we have now is what Church leaders were really aiming for or that they have been intentionally malicious in any way; in fact, I don’t believe most Church leaders really meant any harm with what they have said and done so far in most cases. However, I just think some of the culture and traditions have taken on a life of their own and have really gotten out of hand.

Most of all, temple marriage, the WoW, and “one trueness” are a potent combination of doctrines that really tend to effectively separate practicing Mormons from the rest of the world and then make it generally unacceptable and very inconvenient for many members to openly change their mind about the Church after the fact. That’s one of the main reasons I think they should tone it down with some of their claims, eliminate some of the temple recommend questions, and try to morph into a kinder gentler church if they are really serious about calling themselves Christians because people are increasingly starting to take notice of what is really going on here. But since they refuse to do that all I can do in the meantime is not listen to them or try not to let it bother me too much if I don’t agree with their policies.

[Anonymous]

I think for me, personally it’s important to go through the arguments about it not being a cult. This whole issue comes up on a frequent basis, and I suspect if I get outed as a member, then I’m going to have to confront it. Personally I think cultishness can be an individual matter, and that a lot of religions contain people who are authoritarian and those who are more latitudinarian.

[Anonymous]

[Admin note: First, I changed the title of this post. There is a crude sexual connotation that is common for the original title, and, although I am certain Sam didn’t mean it to be read that way, I don’t want that connotation being the first thought any readers might have when they see the post title.

Second: We discussed this exact topic about a year-and-a-half ago, just fyi. The link is: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=208&start=0&hilit=cult I have no problem with us discussing it again here, but it might be good for everyone at least to read the comments on that thread, as well. There were some good points made.]

Tom made a comment that I thought was deeply profound in the previous thread. He said:

Quote:

While mainstream journalists and news sources don’t tend to refer to the Mormon Church as a cult, I am not comfortable that we try to close the discussion with a clear “no”. That disenfranchises some sincere people with real grievances.

I think “cult” is personal and local. Your LDS experience may be culty. Mine may not be. Or vice versa.

As with most things, I feel it’s best to leave the question open-ended, and perhaps unanswered. “What is culty about my religion?” “What can I do better?”

“Lord, is it I?”

[Anonymous]

Thanks for having a steel trap of a memory Ray. That really was an awesome point that Tom made back then. I really liked it — “Lord, is it I?”

As to how we respond — I usually catch people off guard by being frank and knowledgeable about problems. That tends to torpedo the label on me at least. I was riding in a car a couple weeks ago with someone originally from Jamaica. We got on the subject of religion, and that I was Mormon. They sort of poked around, mentioning they had seen missionaries in their country, but noticed not a lot of “colorful” faces when they watched videos of the MoTab choir.

I just flat out responded with the truth — the Church was founded in the U.S. in the 1800’s by European immigrants (mostly). They stayed pretty isolated in the Utah / Arizona mountains up until the 1940’s, and we really had some issues with racism for a while. The Church has actively tried to move away from those problems and correct them. The MoTab Choir people are generally from Utah, and there just isn’t as much diversity still in that part of the country. But we now have more members outside the U.S. than inside. We have missionaries in all countries stable enough and willing to let us in (Africa, South America, Asia, etc.).

So being comfortable and open … that’s what works for me. Being able to admit there were /are problems at times, that works against an accusation of personally being “brain-washed” by a cult.

[Anonymous]

To me the term cult has an official meaning, and an implied meaning.

Officially, dictionaries define a cult as a group of people who follow the teachings of a charismatic leader, or similar. So, all Christians are a cult. All Mormons are part of a cult because we have some of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Christ. People who practice Islam are a cult by this definition. So, to me, the official meaning of the term applied to Mormonism has no offence to me.

But when people try to liken the LDS Church to organizations where people kill themselves at the command of some sick leader, or join a cult and are not allowed to leave, etcetera, then I get disturbed.

Even against this definition, we are not a cult, because as a former priesthood leader, I found how EASY it is to get your named removed from the Church if you want, and to disassociate yourself from it. All you have to do is write a letter and tell the Bishop you want your name removed immedatiately. And then it should be done. The only fall-down on this is when you have a Bishop who doesn’t get to it, so your name stays on the records of the Church even though you wrote a letter to have it taken off. But this is not out of a desire to control, it’s sheer laziness in my view.

So, really the term cult really doesnt’ describe us, even by its extreme definition, in my view.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

I think for me, personally it’s important to go through the arguments about it not being a cult. This whole issue comes up on a frequent basis, and I suspect if I get outed as a member, then I’m going to have to confront it. Personally I think cultishness can be an individual matter, and that a lot of religions contain people who are authoritarian and those who are more latitudinarian.

I guess the best apologetic-type argument I can think of against the idea of the Church being a cult is simply that I think the leaders and members are typically just trying to do what they honestly think is right and I doubt they really mean any harm in most cases. With unpaid volunteer clergy at the local level there really isn’t much obvious motivation for them to deliberately lie or really take advantage of people in a shameless way whereas you can’t really say the same thing about David Koresh, Jim Jones, or even many popular evangelical ministers. Sure selfish interests could have have been a major factor in the case of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young but that was so long ago that I don’t think you can blame the current members too much for whatever mistakes they made.

Personally, I think some of the claims about “mind-control” are greatly exaggerated too and my guess is that many Church members don’t really doubt or question the Church too much simply because they are mostly content with it and really want to believe these doctrines so they just don’t worry about the possibility that it might not be everything that it claims to be. I liked the idea of always having living prophets you can trust for so long that I can’t really blame TBMs too much for continuing to believe this.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin note: First, I changed the title of this post. There is a crude sexual connotation that is common for the original title, and, although I am certain Sam didn’t mean it to be read that way, I don’t want that connotation being the first thought any readers might have when they see the post title.

Too late.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Officially, dictionaries define a cult as a group of people who follow the teachings of a charismatic leader, or similar. So, all Christians are a cult. All Mormons are part of a cult because we have some of the teachings of Joseph Smith and Christ. People who practice Islam are a cult by this definition. So, to me, the official meaning of the term applied to Mormonism has no offence to me.

I think if one truly understood the Webster definition of the word, the LDS church, as well as MOST christian religions would qualify. My point, which I made last discussion which got me moderated is, “So what?” If people understood the word they wouldn’t have such a negative reaction every time they hear it. Here is the definition.

Quote:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

To me the word is pretty benign, but I get why some folks get riled up about it because society focuses on cults like the Koresh and Jim Jones as the norm for cults. The LDS church certainly, IMO, does not come close to any semblance of those type of extreme cults. But, in general, do others consider the LDS church to be “extreme” and “false”, “unconventional” and “under the guidance of an authoritarian charismatic leader”? Well, of course they do. Some of us in this forum do too. And I would say that is how most people view Catholics, Baptist congregations and probably every other religion on the planet.

[Author]

Posts