- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old Timer wrote:
At the extreme, a cult includes active, intentional, coercive brainwashing as a central component.
How do we define “brainwashing”? To me, this fits in the same category as “cult”, being a word with more stigma than concrete definition. Replace it with “indoctrination”, “proselytization”, or “persuasion” (all which are fitting synonyms with less stigma), and you’ve got most every religion or ideological organization.
My difficulty is, I think we can all agree that certain practices, paradigms, and ideologies have a negative effect on its participants. But we have a hard time pinning down on exactly what those are and why, other than they contradict with what we believe in. It feels like we’re willing to grant forgiveness and understanding to our own particular groups, while passing judgement on those who are different from us. And the more different, the more we condemn them.
I think as was said before, ALL religions and ideological movements contain cult-like attributes and practices. But especially with religions, where the eternal souls of all mankind and the favor of the gods is one the line, it’s justified. Either “it works because it’s true”, or it is seen as an effective means to an end. Sadly, emotion and rhetoric will never be as persuasive as reason. But when such cult-like methods are used by groups which contradict our own, it’s much easier to see them as manipulative and evil.
Anakin, Star Wars ep III wrote:Well from my perspective, the Jedi are evil!
AmyJ wrote:
I could be wrong, butI get the impression sometimes at church that we are trying to outgrow the smaller, insulated, non-mainstream cult-like church we could be perceived as being previouslyas an organization. It’s an awkward question to ask if we were previously cult-like, and since everything is “eternal” – does that mean we are cult-like in some aspects now.
Maybe many individual members are becoming more mainstream on their own by ignoring some of the backward focused ideas still taught by the Church such as homophobia but personally I can’t think of any real top-down changes to become more mainstream since they abandoned the racial priesthood ban in 1978. What other real meaningful official changes have been made since then? For example, the mission age change and exclusion policy for the children of homosexual parents look like they were mostly about trying to maintain tight control over members rather than letting them decide things for themselves. And one instance where it looks like the Church has actually become more cultish recently is modesty. For example, there is a picture of the 1964 BYU homecoming queen wearing a sleeveless dress but now they are pushing the LDS version of “modesty” (garment friendly clothing) even for very young girls.
To me it looks like Church leaders want mainstream popularity, acceptance, and raw numbers but they don’t want to (or don’t feel like they can) let go of some of the cult-like thinking and control such as the us-versus-them mindset, whitewashed narratives, unquestioning obedience, etc. that will typically prevent being truly mainstream in countries like the US that have increasingly valued freedom and equal rights. So instead of real changes to try to become more mainstream in practice what we typically get instead is some kind of PR spin and marketing like the, “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign to try to make us look mainstream, diverse, etc. without really changing anything.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:To me it looks like Church leaders want mainstream popularity, acceptance, and raw numbers but they don’t want to (or don’t feel like they can) let go of some of the cult-like thinking and control such as the
us-versus-them mindset, whitewashed narratives, unquestioning obedience, etc. that will typically prevent being truly mainstream in countries like the US that have increasingly valued freedom and equal rights. Yeah, I’ve yet to get a straight answer out of missionaries and others as to why they’ll latch on to things that don’t really affect how one actually lives as a Christian to fight with anyone of differing beliefs. I mean, why not focus first on similarities, (though granted, LDS ideas about any other faith make the “how Mormons are” comedy look pretty darn accurate by comparison) and then on differences that really do make a difference in one’s life, and save the deeper theological points for later?
For example, from another board, about two weeks ago, and not a single response:
Quote:Then explain how it really matters; does the way we follow Christ change one bit whether he was the literal Son of God, God Himself formless but stuffed into a human suit to come down for a few years, some part of God’s essence given human form, or some other relationship we’re entirely incapable of understanding in this state? If an angel stopped by tomorrow to give you a note signed by God that says “Hey, you guys have all got that one point mixed up, and your brains simply can’t handle even an approximation of how it really is, but Jesus still lived as the perfect example for you, suffered and died for your sins, and acts as your mediator in prayer regardless of how We are actually related, so Son is probably as good a word as any you have” would you consider your faith so irreparably shaken as to go join the Hari Krishnas, or would you do exactly the same things that you’ve done all your life? Do you really believe that if everyone got those, that even one person who possesses any measure of faith in any representation of Christ would change anything about their lives other than to find some other point of Scripture to bicker about?
I mean, you’re probably one of those heathens who will follow the green eyed impostor right into eternal torment, and have tuned out those of us who follow the true brown eyed Savior as spreading heresy, but it’s possible there could be some hope that you will see His brown eyed Light of Truth someday.
NightSG wrote:
Yeah, I’ve yet to get a straight answer out of missionaries and others as to why they’ll latch on to things that don’t really affect how one actually lives as a Christian to fight with anyone of differing beliefs.
Seriously, if the Church were to do away with the requirement to believe in “truths” that don’t have anything to do with Christian living, I would jump straight in to 100% activity, hold callings, do “ministering”, get my temple recommend, the whole
shebang!But I’ve got to draw the line when I’m forced to bare my “testimony” of things I simply don’t believe in. I’m fine with all the other commandments, but the “sin of unbelief” is what’s really holding me back. DevilsAdvocate, it’s funny that you mentioned garment friendly clothing. I checked the recent garment designs from LDS.org and I was shocked. The women’s garment tops sleeves are shorter than the men’s, almost sleeveless. The men’s garment top sleeves don’t look like that. I just don’t understand. There have been quite a few changes toward mainstreaming and away from previous traditionalist elements in the he last few decades. Ideologically, we are quite different now than we were in 1980. It is easy to look for stunning, “revelatory” change and ignore significant change that doesn’t seem or isn’t revelatory in nature. Doing so, however, blinds us to real and important movement.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:What about sex cults? There could be others like austerity cults as well. To be honest, I think the LDS Church fits many of these descriptions you listed at the same time but many members would deny that these points are a bad thing because it is supposedly coming from God so who are we to question God and his chosen prophets?
On top of that, I think many Church members think of the word “cult” mostly as an identifier for some of the relatively small and most extreme groups like the followers of Jim Jones that drank the Kool-aid, the followers of David Koresh, Heaven’s Gate, etc. and they will feel like anyone calling the LDS Church a cult is just a hater calling us names out of spite. Personally I think there really is more to this than many Church members want to admit but I definitely wouldn’t call the Church a cult when talking to most Church members because it seems like it will typically just make them defensive.
You should watch this. The Waco survivors tell a very different story – the first time tanks were used against civilians in the USA, government cover ups, highly aggressive troops, helicopter gunships. The whole thing was a hot mess. Waco is a much more sinister turn in US history than 9/11.
The more Waco is examined, the more we find the Branch Davidians were VICTIMS of unconstitutional government action. Yet it suits the government to pretend otherwise… as they did for years with native Americans.
As for sex cults – I pipped you to it. ?NIXM is mentioned above.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:
DevilsAdvocate, it’s funny that you mentioned garment friendly clothing. I checked the recent garment designs from LDS.org andI was shocked. The women’s garment tops sleeves are shorter than the men’s, almost sleeveless.The men’s garment top sleeves don’t look like that. I just don’t understand.
I think it’s because enough LDS women have complained about garments so much that they finally made this minor concession. But even these new re-designed garments still wouldn’t work with the 1964 BYU homecoming queen’s dress. And why should women and girls that aren’t even wearing garments yet still be expected to wear clothes that would cover them in the first place? It seems like it has become yet another obedience test and externally visible in-group versus out-group marker to try to separate the good Mormons from the supposedly evil world similar to the Word of Wisdom.
Old Timer wrote:
It is easy to look for stunning, “revelatory” change and ignore significant change that doesn’t seem or isn’t revelatory in nature. Doing so, however, blinds us to real and important movement.
I think for many of us the most significant change the church can make is that one thing (or many things) that will make us feel like we’re at least
welcomeat church; be they stunning, significant, or something else. The change that makes us feel more welcome is going to be different for everyone. Until then it’s easy to see how people can be blind to the incredibly sloooooooooow changes taking place… specifically because the slow changes haven’t yet addressed the types of things someone needsin order to have their spiritual or emotional needs met. DevilsAdvocate wrote:
I think it’s because enough LDS women have complained about garments so much that they finally made this minor concession. But even these new re-designed garments still wouldn’t work with the 1964 BYU homecoming queen’s dress. And why should women and girls that aren’t even wearing garments yet still be expected to wear clothes that would cover them in the first place? It seems like it has become yet another obedience test and externally visible in-group versus out-group marker to try to separate the good Mormons from the supposedly evil world similar to the Word of Wisdom.
Every ward/region has their own flavor but if anything I feel like we’ve taken steps backwards in this department. You mentioned the 1964 BYU homecoming queen. Even in just the last 20 years it feels like the “modesty police” have been militarized.
DevilsAdvocate, good point. Excessive control over the behavior of its members, to the point of curtailing personal freedom. Jonestown Massacre, for example. Hard to leave it once you are in it without massive censure. SilentDawning wrote:
Excessive control over the behavior of its members, to the point of curtailing personal freedom. Jonestown Massacre, for example. Hard to leave it once you are in it without massive censure.
I am playing Devil’s advocate here (although I do believe Waco was a government massacre not a suicide thing)… People’s Temple actually started out with positive aspects… people liked the fact that it wasn’t racially segregated for example. I think it traded off the good parts of its past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.