definition of a cult

[Anonymous]

alaskaboy19 wrote:

Better understanding the definition of cult will enable us to defend the church by discussing how it does not fit the definition.

This is an interesting area. What to do when the definition used for a word by most people is not the dictionary definition?

1) I don’t want to spend my time trying to correct others false assumptions about certain words. The case is similar for the words “molest” and “intercourse”. If I do not want to spend an inordinant amount of time explaining my use of the word, then I avoid it.

2) Dictionary definitions are interesting because they set the standard but they also change over time to accommodate commonly accepted usage. I remember certain rules that my english teacher used to nit-pick about that are no longer rules at all. Society has moved on and collectively voted that, “We didn’t like that rule.” (to my english teacher’s horror) She fought bravely to uphold the old standard but in the end she was a dying breed. There is nothing wrong with that approach, I just don’t want to use my time doing that. I want to learn the commonly accepted definition and move forward. (I also see a metaphor here about the perpetuation of old school church standards and policies vs the evolution of new church standards.)

[Anonymous]

alaskaboy19 wrote:

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.

I appreciate your clarification and accept it. thank you.

as for me, I take a different approach. I do not believe defense of mormonism, the province of Apologetics, is the correct approach for handling faith issues. No-one is convinced through argument, really, and faith requires no convincing. Instead, I recommend method, rather than defense.

Things in the church are either true, false, or questions of faith. Many words we use tend to pull us away from method, because they are loaded with pejorative meaning: cult, racist, ‘lying for lord’, etc. These serve to end discussion and investigation. instead, we need a method: embrace truth fully, reject false things fully, and suspend belief/judgment on that which we do not know. “Faith” is the realm where we do not know, and it’s entirely acceptable to have faith in some model of the unknown, as long as we don’t confuse that model with ‘knowledge’. Faith always recognizes the not-knowing aspect of thigns, and therefore, any debate around faith is fruitless.

Let’s take the proposition, as you state, “The LDS Church is a Cult”. and you fairly ask the question’ what is a ‘cult’. Rule 1 of method is to avoid ambiguous, loaded words, so we need to unpack the word from is baggage. Once we do, we find out, quickly, that the statement is tautologically true: since a ‘church’ is by definition, a cult, then LDS church is a church is a pure tautology. And by going there, we have taken away the argument — it has no validity in our discussion.

Let’s take the proposition that the “Book of Mormon testifies of Christ”. A simple reading of the book of mormon will quickly see that it testifies of christ from beginning to end. Its testimony is uplifting and clear. The statement is TRUE, and I cannot deny it.

Let’s take the proposition that the native americans are remnants of the lamanites, as was taught extensively when I was a child. Now with DNA testing, as well as numerous genetic markers and characteristics, we find that virtually all native americans are mongoloid relatives evidenced from a land-bridge migration. The book of Mormon cannot be the history of all native americans, as once was thought. Apologists are somehow claiming that some narrow geography model works, but it doesn’t have to.

So what is the ‘truth’ of the book of mormon? It doesn’t exist in its claims, but it does exist in its phenomenology: it testifies of christ, and that which testifies of christ is a type of ‘truth’ we accept by faith to be relevant to us.

Let’s take this statement:

Joseph Smith wrote:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

As much as anyone would like to say that the book of abraham is a divine record, the facts of the matter are that the above quote is entirely, 100% false. By referring to the records that fell into Joseph Smith’s hands, which were two papyrus scrolls, and in finding the translation notes, none of the translation is the writing of Abraham, it isn’t the book of abraham, and it wasn’t written by his own hand. There is no defense possible here.

If something is true, then we need to accept it. If something is false, we must reject it. but we are specific about what is ‘true’ and ‘false’ here. I personally do not get any uplifting messages from the book of abraham, and find some things stated therein to be quite wrong. I cannot testify of any ‘truth’ of the book of abraham.

In the case of the book of mormon, I can appreciate the testimony of christ, and the use of the stories to tell how faith operates on us. The Book of Mormon has a very inspired view derived from nineteenth century christianity, and it has sections extremely well thought out. It’s useful as a teaching tool, and it testifies of christ. It does not contain any historical value whatsoever.

The truth of the church is this concept that we should absolutely embrace: if something is ‘true’, it should be part of the gospel. if false, it should be rejected. In other words, staying LDS when we know how many of the claims are ‘not true’ requires us to put the church up to its own standard: truth. Any church based on required dogma is failing to live up to that standard. But within the two poles of that which is proven true and that which is proven false, there is a middle ground.

I call that middle ground, “Faith”. Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things. Faith is to accept and agree to a teaching, act on it, but knowing that we don’t know it to be true. Most of what religion teaches about afterlife, god, premortal existence, heaven, hell, requirements of salvation — these are things that we cannot have a perfect knowledge of. We can know what we teach, but we cannot know if what we teach is ‘true’.

If I feel a presence of a higher power, and I certainly have many times in my life, that does not mean that I know there is a omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-present, unchanging, physical man-like being who once was man and is now god, but never has changed from being god. It only means that I know that I feel a presence about things. Once we separate the phenomenon (the feeling) from the teaching (god), we can recognize that arguing about the attributes of god based upon our individual feelings is fruitless. Faith is not perfect knowledge. Faith acknowledges we don’t know. we can have faith, provided that what we have faith in is at least possibly ‘true’. So, faith in the flying spaghetti monster, russell’s teapot, or in the standard mormon definition of god is, perhaps, unwise, because such things are not logically or remotely possible.

So this long response is to get us thinking — is defense really the right approach? Or can we approach our faith crisis with method — recognizing truth for what it is, rejecting false beliefs and teachings, and allowing faith on the unproven but plausibly true? I find this method to be much more satisfying than defense.

just my view.

[Anonymous]

alaskaboy19 wrote:

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.

wayfarer wrote:

…as for me, I take a different approach. I do not believe defense of mormonism, the province of Apologetics, is the correct approach for handling faith issues. No-one is convinced through argument, really, and faith requires no convincing. Instead, I recommend method, rather than defense…is defense really the right approach? Or can we approach our faith crisis with method — recognizing truth for what it is, rejecting false beliefs and teachings, and allowing faith on the unproven but plausibly true? I find this method to be much more satisfying than defense.

It seems like most of us are here precisely because we already believe some things the Church teaches cannot be defended. To me this site is not really about pretending problems don’t exist in the Church or that they don’t really matter that much; I see it as being more about helping people come to terms with whatever issues they honestly have with the Church and trying to help them decide for themselves what they should do about it. In this case, regardless of what you want to call it I see a real problem with the overall costs the Church asks for and expects out of members being relatively high compared to other churches as well as having a rather high level of intolerance and disrespect for any dissent within the Church culture.

For me losing faith in the Church was not that hard to deal with compared to some of the anger I felt about all the past sacrifices and guilt-trips I already went through over what I now saw as made up and largely pointless requirements and expectations as well as my wife adding insult to injury with her judgmental reactions to my legitimate doubts. I started to think this is not right, what kind of church have I been born into? Some generic cult checklists look like they were basically designed fuel the idea that we are victims and draw attention to many questionable things the Church currently does along with the JWs and whoever else the authors don’t like without necessarily naming any specific groups. However, many of these points make perfect sense and don’t really sound that bad as long as you actually believe it really is the “one true church” and that Church leaders have special authority and occasional revelations to keep everything on track so I don’t really expect the Church to stop with some of this any time soon.

Now I look at the current LDS doctrines and culture as simply the way the Church has evolved over time mostly in an ad hoc way more than something Church leaders really planned out like this so I don’t really know who or what to blame anymore. It looks like it is almost human nature for people to want to feel special somehow and think they and the groups they identify with are completely right and any perceived enemies or threats are wrong in way that is completely unacceptable so it’s no surprise that ideas like this can easily get out of hand sometimes. Personally I would really like to see the Church make some major reforms and evolve into a kinder gentler church in my lifetime but if not I have already reduced the impact it has on me enough that I can easily live with it mostly by not doing callings and not paying tithing. I’m not sure I could get away with this in a real hardcore and extreme cult without it being much more difficult and painful to reach this point.

[Anonymous]

alaskaboy19 wrote:

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.

This is just my view, but I’m with Wayfarer in that I’m not interested in defending the church. People who tell you what you believe, or who ask questions designed to put you on the defensive are not interested in the church, so there’s no reason to discuss it. There are plenty of reasons why I am a member, I don’t have to justify it to anyone else. If a “friend” of mine told me that my church is a cult, I’d respond in one of the following ways, depending on my mood on that occasion:

1 – Yawn… Oh, I’m sorry… were you talking?

2 – Boy, it sounds like your pastor has issues with the whole “love thy neighbor” thing.

3 – So, anytime you want to have an intellectual discussion about what I believe, or why I am a member of the church, I’d love to chat. But if all you’re going to do is hurl insults and accusations, then I’m really not interested.

[Anonymous]

The link below is to a previous thread about this topic:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2023&p=23667&hilit=+cult#p23655

[Author]

Posts