Okay I know the answer to the question, I don't think it's a cult because if you look at it technically all religions or organizations are cults. But why does everyone say its a cult??

Edit: Thank you for the answers, I see how it is now. If I came across as defending the church I'm sorry, those days are pretty much over...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 11:09PM by quatre.

Actually, there are a couple of answers here.

From an anthropological perspective, you're partially correct. A religion is a body of study, and the adherents are the cult.

However, in modern parlance, there are very specific things that law enforcement (for example, the FBI) look at to determine whether a particular group is a cult. They use something called the cult danger evaluation frame, which was developed by a pagan named Isaac Bonewits many years ago. Basically, higher numbers make a given organization more likely to be a cult. You can look at the scale here: http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

On my most generous day, i.e., using the lowest numbers that I can and still be honest, I find that TSCC scores 162 out of 180.

The BITE Model
I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control

http://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php

Well-known models for determining whether a group is a 'cult' whether religious or not often rely on determining whether there are elements of certain types of control over adherents. The trouble is that there is a key distinction between true 'control' and mere suggestion or recommendation of regulation which is common to practically all groups which has to be made. A healthy amount of regulation is helpful or even necessary for society to thrive - hence the need for a legal system, rules and regulations - and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people, especially those who do not like or do not follow certain rules, might be quick to use these as reasons to (mis-)label a group as a 'cult'. But where these rules are actually helpful or at least not truly harmful, such a characterization might not be fair or accurate. But there is the potential for excessive regulation and control which may be vulnerable to abuse, and that is a quality which may be characteristic of certain true 'cults'.

Additionally there may be the possible concern of unduly sanctioning or even requiring immoral or unethical behaviour, possibly even that which is clearly against the tenets of a group member's chosen faith, and that would - if preached or supported by a faith or group itself, and NOT solely by deviant members who do not truly follow the tenets of a faith or the rules of a group - are most definitely not features of a bona fide religion or safe group and could be indicative of an organisation that may be reflective of a true 'cult'.

There is also a spectrum of degrees of engagement in behaviours that resemble or match those of a 'cult' which may even be engaged in to some degree even by those who are truly not in 'cults'. One has to be careful and exercise due caution in making a fair and accurate determination about what is a 'cult'.

spelled with a k

Kormonism is a cult?

Traditionally, the word cult means the adherents to a faith. A mind-control cult is a different matter entirely. Look up Steve Hassan. He has a rubric that is very good and objective.

Omreven posted Hassan's link.

This very question is what got me questioning the church. Here are a few definitions I found:

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.
The followers of such a religion or sect.
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

a group of people showing intense devotion to a cause, person, or work (as a film).

These definitions sound a lot like the church to me. Cults also don't like people to leave. In the church now we have love-bombing but, in Brigham Young's day he taught blood atonement and supposedly had avenging angels to slay those who would leave or broke covenants.

from the latin occult, meaning 'of a cult'.


Occult: (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret")

"knowledge of the hidden"

as in hidden plates? ;-)

brandywine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as in hidden plates? ;-)


and hidden mates

:o)

Because you aren't allowed to question or disbelieve without being demonized.

Because when one family member leaves it immediately creates a rift in the family.

Because of the ingrained fear of "outsiders" and the "outside" world.

Because they tell you what to think and what is right and wrong.

Because of the micro management

Because of the way it takes over one's life

Because... oh it goes on and on. Now you may argue these things are present in other religions, but they aren't just present in mormonism, they are prevalent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 07:45PM by nonsequiter.

Using some of the tools people have linked on this thread, I think mainstream Mormonism falls on the cult spectrum because it exhibits a lot of cult-like behavior (making you wear garments, "follow the prophet, he knows the way", every member a missionary, clergy asking kids if they masturbate, never a legitimate reason to leave, etc.), but, when compared to stuff like JW and Scientology, it doesn't take things quite as far (nowadays, anyway).

So, to me, it's basically a Lite version of a cult. Your mileage may vary, though.

faboo (not logged in) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, to me, it's basically a Lite version of a
> cult. Your mileage may vary, though.

I think that "whether a specific group/religion is a cult" can also depend on factors that are not on the accepted cult checklists, and that may be hard to quantify.

For example:

WHERE--or WHAT--SPECIFIC SUB-GROUP is being evaluated?

I think that the LDS Church in a place like coastal California would be classified, at most, as "cult lite," but in many other places (small town Morridor, etc.) the constraints on behavior, etc. would be FAR more, and the likelihood of "cult" would increase.

A non-Mormon example: In most areas of the United States, the contemporary Catholic Church would not be considered a cult (many people who consider themselves "faithful Catholics" still use birth control...may well get an abortion without a second thought if they thought it necessary...and would think nothing of premarital sex, whether "fooling around" or all the way).

But I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Catholic Church of the Forest Avenue/Troop St. area of Kansas City, Missouri when my husband was growing up there was a full-on cult. The constraints on behavior were HORRENDOUS by today's standards (parents would "go to Hell" if they sent their children to public school, etc.), and my husband's mother (a born and raised Catholic who married a divorced Catholic), very soon after my husband's birth, had to go through a formal religious ceremony with her husband in which they both vowed to NEVER have sex again (or see each other naked, or touch each other except in the most NON-sexual way) for all of the rest of their lives. This was so that she could begin again to take Holy Communion (she said she could not go on living without being allowed to take Holy Communion). My husband's father (a very sexual man) did NOT like this, but he agreed to it because he sincerely loved his wife. So my husband grew up in a house where his parents (who did love each other) lived as if they were LITERALLY siblings, instead of a married couple, for all of the rest of their lives (even after they moved far away). The priest who FINALLY agreed to do this ceremony told them that if they ever broke this vow that they were making, the PRIEST would go to Hell for allowing the ceremony to happen!

My husband has a huge collection of other stories, perhaps not as shocking (because I had difficulty believing this when it was first told to me; his mother confirmed it to me so that I would believe that it actually happened), but just as cult-y.

So while I wouldn't call the [entire] Catholic Church a cult, I do DEFINITELY think that they had their own flourishing cult going on there in Kansas City, in the area surrounding Lillis High School (which was a Catholic school, of course)...at least during the time that my husband was growing up. (The family later moved far away to another state after my husband graduated from high school.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 08:37PM by tevai.

I was fortunate enough not to have lived in the Morridor, so when I evaluated whether it was a cult, I was going on my own experiences. You're right that cult-y behavior may also be dependent on the area and other differences in culture, which is what my "your mileage may vary" comment was in reference to.

That story about your husband's parents is really sad. Amazing what becomes considered "acceptable" and "normal" when everyone around you pretty much lives in crazytown.

I have a very simple definition for a "cult"

Any organization that counsels its people to not do independent research and only use "approved" literature produced by the organization.


I have been told the political definition of a cult is 2 million members. If an organization has over 2 million members it is a religion.

In the case of my husband, when he was growing up in Kansas City, Missouri, all Catholics who had not taken religious vows (priests, brothers, nuns, etc.) were admonished CONSTANTLY to NOT read the Bible! Only the Catholic version of the Bible was approved, and then only in the specific sections that the priests talked about during Sunday Mass or in Catholic publications.

They were also told that, under no circumstances, were they ever to read "non-Catholic literature." (Sound familiar?)

There was an actual "Index" of forbidden books and films that no Catholic was allowed to see without specific permission of Church authorities, and then only for very limited purposes: they were academics doing specific research, for example.

Yes.

Any religion that successfully creates followers who willingly agree to only read church approved material...

is a cult.

I've had discussions on this topic with Mormons in the past,
and a couple of those folks were intelligent, educated LDS.
Of course they all denied the "cult" identification.

But some of them reluctantly admitted that some of the
fundamentalist LDS sects are indeed cults. The LeBaron cult,
the FLDS, the sorts of "apostates" we read about in "Under
the Banner of Heaven."

So -- if modern Mormons will admit that some of the things
happening in those fringe sects make them actual "cults,"
then what would happen if the Mormon Church did those things?

Or, to put it another way -- What would the Mormon Church
have to be doing, or preaching, in order to honestly be
labeled a cult today?

None of my TBM debate partners would ever answer the question.

The closest I ever got to an answer was, "We have the Holy
Spirit and authority -- they do not."

And, I think that pretty much answers the question.

However, I'll qualify my response by pointing out that there
have been instances in the past when the Mormon Church was
obviously more overtly "cultlike" than what we see today.

The Missouri "Saints" holed up behind the barricades at
Far West in 1838, waiting for a Waco or Jonestown style
apocalypse -- that was extremely cultlike.

The Iron County Militia murdering almost an entire wagon
train of immigrants in 1857, but sparing the lives of the
children under the Mormon defined "age of consent," and
then blaming the whole thing upon Indians -- that too was
very cultlike.

The modern indoctrination and control of new missionaries
by the Church authorities is exceptionally cultlike.

It's a mixed bag these days. The so-called One True Church
can evolve away from its cult past -- or it can possibly
even revert to the "good old days" of the Reformation and
Mountain Meadows Massacre.

I wonder which way things will go?

UD

The answer is "no", it is not a cult.

Because cult leaders are charismatic and dynamic.

And Joseph smith was clearly neither of those...

Yinyang1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The answer is "no", it is not a cult.
>
> Because cult leaders are charismatic and dynamic.


Brigham Young wasn't "dynamic" ???

Could have fooled me.

UD

Any organization that gets you to trust it more than you trust yourself is a cult.

When you accept all they say point blank without batting an eyelash rather than use your own reason or even consider the merit, you are in a cult. You have relinquished your very self.

We can compare lists and criteria all day long and play fun semantic games about what each bit of criteria means and if its applicable, but when you give an organization control, you are in a cult.

To my way of thinking, any religious organization that claims to be the "one and only" true church or faith is a cult.

This video presentation from Hassan at an Exmormon Conference was very helpful to me in assessing this situation more accurately. The audio isn't great, but if you're in a silent room with your speakers turned all the way up it's alright. I've watched this twice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az4tE2eLoKc

The reverse of many here, in my case, my study of cults and destructive organizations led me to a study of Mormonism. Does that answer your question?

There are also subsets of Mormonism with are clearly cults. Missions being the number one example. Missions utilize almost all components of brainwashing: no contact with your family, you have to change your name (identity), sleep deprived, cut off from outside information (no news, books, etc), strict schedules, and uniforms. Basically a big brainwashing camp.

Aren't exmormon and other anti-Mormon websites proof that Mormonism is a cult. What religions/sects have websites where people are obsessed (current members or former members)? It is controlling of mind, body, action, and thoughts. How could this not be a cult? People are obsessed with this organization, even after being gone for years. Some people never get over it. TBM's are controlled in every way by this organization.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2014 10:59PM by sam.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind why you believe Mormonism is not a cult...you stated that technically all religions are cults, so is Mormonism not a "religion" in your eyes? I hope I don't sound snarky, I do tend to overanalyze and overdissect things... :)

Anyhow, I posted a response to a thread several days ago about why I personally believe Mormonism is a cult. The number one reason, in my eyes, is the emotional abuse the members are subjected to. They are threatened with loneliness, eternal unhappiness, and damnation in extreme cases if they do not strictly and obsessively adhere to EACH and EVERY principle laid out by the "prophets." I especially hate the way they force small children to sing songs that have brainwashy lyrics, like "follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray." It's pretty vile.

vile indeed.

Just put on your temple robe, apron, and hat/veil and explain to a non-member what goes on inside the temple. I think the answer will become quite obvious.

The CULT gets a big 10 on each question. CULT CULT CULT!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism

It is worse than a cult. It is a totalitarian regime bent on money and power