Serious question. I guess in any institution with no formal brakes on peoples' enthusiasm the most ardent devotees will get promoted. Is that all there is? Is it simply the age-old question of "Who will watch the watchers"? Thanks.

I think there really is a difference between a cult and a religion. LDS is a cult. It could have passed as a religion at one time, but now it’s definitely a cult.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there really is a difference between a
> cult and a religion. LDS is a cult. It could have
> passed as a religion at one time, but now it’s
> definitely a cult.

Lots of the intensity of the early days sure looks like a cult to me. Drunkenness, speaking in tongues, prophecies, sectarian behaviors, polygamy, etc.

Although one man's religion is another man's cult, no matter the era. As we've discussed here, the DSM has diagnostic criteria for people hearing spirits/God and acting on those imagined commands. But the President says it's 'religious liberty' and is so 'thankful' we have a VP and wife who are faithful followers.

I was thinking the same thing. As messed up as the church is now, the 19th century was wacky! Blood atonement, Danites, polygamy, polyandry (in the Nauvoo era), Mountain Meadows, Deseret alphabet, and all the rest of craziness.

It's like this ...


http://nowscape.com/atheism/sect.gif

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's like this ...
>
>
> http://nowscape.com/atheism/sect.gif


LOL!

Maybe due to the "brain drain" of intellectuals who've left and continue leaving in droves? Mormonism has suffered an exodus of its most thoughtful supporters. In exchange it's been left with the fanatics within the cult who can't envision changing but rather dig their heels in deeper to the doodah that is TSCC.

One would have to be a fanatic to get taken in and remain a LDS for life in this day and age. Zealots, heretics, fanatics are interchangeable. You find them in abundance inside the walls of TSCC. There's no tolerance for moderation or healthy skepticism within its ranks.

Maybe less of a brain drain and more a matter of the fanatics making the church unbearable for the sane people, and as sane people leave, the percentage of fanatics increases, making it even more unbearable, and so on.

Besides, in any organization, the fanatics are more consumed with acquiring control than the more moderate people.

You hit the nail on the head. As more and more “regular folk” are pushed to the margins, the more control the zealots have.

In every organization, the most enthusiastic members take up positions of power.

Fanatics are the cream 'o the crop and always rise to the top. They simply 'care' more than the rest of us and they can't help but want to help. Plus the money is good!

I haven't been paying much attention, so I don't know whether or not it has been taken over by fanatics, but my guess is they haven't taken over. But unlike the other responders in this thread so far, I disagree that it's (still) a cult. My view is that it's a business -- albeit, one that happens to use cult-like tactics. The fanatics are allowed some sway, since that approach helps retention. (It's almost always cheaper to maintain an existing customer relationship than to acquire new customers.)

The business side is in control. It has and will clamp down on the fanatical element when it becomes a threat to revenue/profits, or even the existence of the organization (blacks "allowed" to receive the priesthood, anyone?). It ebbs and flows...the zealots pull things one way, they go a bit too far, there is a compensating move to become (or at least to appear) more mainstream.

How much focus there is on retention/recruitment (and thus apparent zealotry) may depend on how profitable the other branches of the business are. Real estate tanking? Bigger push to keep, re-activate, or get new members -- we need those tithing dollars! Profits up in ranching and agriculture? Quiet down the fanatics, ease up a bit on the members, since their "contributions" are less crucial to the operation and survival of the organization.

(Note: I know none of this as fact; it's merely observation, conjecture and speculation on my part.)

What you say is conjecture, but it makes a lot of sense.

I’m sure the business people will keep an eye on the new “ministering” program. Will it bring people back into activity and deepen the devotion of the faithful (more tithing) or will it discourage members (possibly less tithing).

That somehow makes it easier. They really only wanted my money. But of course the organization behind that keeps inventing new air fresheners to cover the stench, rather than cleaning out the rotting decay.

Exactly, and Mormonism is a cult. (If it uses cult-like tactics, it's a cult.)

I think that as many Americans become less religious generally, many others are going to be those with more ardent, even extreme, views. I have even noticed this in the Catholic Church lately. There are still many, many liberal and moderate Catholics around, but the most conservative ones, in some cases fanatical, are much more evident and more vocal now. I almost never heard extreme views when I was growing up Catholic and going to Catholic schools; I hear them more among Catholics now, albeit the extremists are still in the minority. It's probably because nowadays they are making up a greater proportion of Catholics still going to church regularly. Something similar is no doubt happening in Mormonism and many other faiths.

Interesting. I grew up in the Catholic church, and I would say that the fanatics were less than 5% of the church at that time and perhaps into the 1990s. They were there, but you felt like they didn't dominate at all.

There was a schism in the 50s I believe. One half of the church was interested in intellectual exploration into spiritual ideas. They also were like pharisees when it came to obedience to W.O.W. and dress standards. (think of the sleeveless homecoming queen in 1964), but slowly they were pushed out of higher positions in the church and the new guard were the ones that liked to double down on obedience above all else, along with harsh punishments for lawbreakers.

So, I think the church history goes like: cult, gradually turning into a normal religion, DOUBLE DOWN ON THE CULT!

My parents have doubled down like crazy for the cult lately (my mother even travelled from CA to go to Women's conference this week).

In this case I believe my parents are getting so close to the end of their lives (turning 70 next year) that they are now scrambling and feeling afraid of not making it to the CK. And they will do whatever it takes, at whatever cost. They are baby boomers and that is a huge generation that is now lining up for the CK. They are the ones I've noticed are the fanatics right now.

My younger siblings that are still in the cult care more about trendiness, competition, making Mormonism 'cool'.

How are they spinning Mormonism to be cool? Do they know it's a hoax, or are they as taken in as your parents are?

They are definitely as taken in as my parents are, but (for example) my sister is all about supporting and promoting people like the 'tattooed mormon' and others like that. Her attitude is that of, 'see, we're normal and cool just like everyone else!' I've also walked into their house only to hear techno-versions of primary songs blasting on their stereo. My gut reaction was WTF? This isn't how I was raised, but they want to try and make Mormonism cool in any way they can. Also, there's a new version of EFY called AFY (adventure for youth). They want to make that indoctrination camp as cool and alluring as possible. All of these things, just to name a few, are what my sister and her peers deem as making Moism cool. My parents would not agree with these sentiments, as they see anything 'wordly' as evil.

Trying to make Mormonism cool just shows the younger Mormons value being accepted by society more than they do being "the peculiar people" the older church members were taught to be. When I was younger we were to value not fitting in and to value holding fast to the church doctrines. Making Mormonism cool will just make it like everything else eventually and that would be the slow death of the church.

"Be in the world, but not of the world" - ring a bell?

When you have year after year of "I'm going to add just one more new rule...!", you wind up with the current missionary program.

A: It began with fanatics.

The so-called "Church Of Latter-Day Saints" was from its inception a fraudulent scheme to enrich its creators.

It has never been a legitimate religion.

It was a scam from the beginning
Was back then and ever shall be
Fraud without end,
Amen, Amen.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2018 01:33PM by anybody.

^^^^^This^^^^^ Thanks Anybody!

I agree. Scam+fanatics+mindless obedience = LDS.

Can you tell I've just finished reading Blood of the Prophets?

Tom in Lima
Still waiting for the baby to arrive

It was done one careful step at a time.

No FEEDBACK LOOP in their decisions, policies, or actions.


that's my story and I'm sticking to it...

I got some of those fanatics down my street.

You mean Joseph was not a fanatic?

Smith was a con man who specialized in appealing to fanatics.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

+1000 the crazy lady down my street comes to mind.

Or the government, for that matter.

Taken over? Try STARTED BY (fanatics).

They don't even watch themselves.

They get home and turn on a ball game, eat ice cream, and do genealogy.

moremany Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taken over? Try STARTED BY (fanatics).
>
> They don't even watch themselves.
>
> They get home and turn on a ball game, eat ice
> cream, and do genealogy.

Weeee haave a winner. You just explained my father. Man your good.

My mother is a wise woman, and held a high general RS position. She's still Mormon, but doesn't agree with the changes, especially the changes in history. She also read our ancestors' church-damaging diaries.

Anyway, she was a huge David O. McKay fan, and she says the church changed after Joseph Fielding Smith came into power. (You know, the prophet who said that man would never walk on the moon, and that the earth is 6,000 years old, etc.) It's all just a business hierarchy of power and who-you-know. Mother thinks that fear and weakness fuels fanaticism, and that the church is only pretending to be strong and unchanging, when it is really just swaying and bending to the times. She thinks it's following the big money, and Mom was in a position to know.

I wonder when the modesty standards for women (i.e. covered shoulders, even for women that haven't been through the temple) came into play? When Mormon moms started dressing even young girls as if they were covering garments? To me that is a sign of fanaticism. We've all seen the photo of the BYU homecoming queen with bare shoulders, probably from the 60s.

The Catholic church, and the moderate to liberal mainstream Protestant churches, on the other hand, got more lax about dress. I wear pants to Catholic funerals, and no one bats an eye. I've seen parishoners exiting church in sundresses. In some churches business casual is fine, and in others it's come as you are (jeans are perfectly okay.) When I was growing up, women wore head coverings to church and dressed in their Sunday best.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2018 05:59PM by summer.

I've said this before, but I must repeat. In the early 1960s my mother was a YW leader. At Girls' Camp, (1) there were no men allowed, and (2) the girls went swimming in their undies because they were not told to bring swim suits. My mother took home movies of it and showed all her female friends and neighbors. She showed it to us kids, also, but at the time we thought girls were yucky.

Yes, the fanatics/zealots have succeeded, and that is why the church is dying.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder when the modesty standards for women
> (i.e. covered shoulders, even for women that
> haven't been through the temple) came into play?
> When Mormon moms started dressing even young girls
> as if they were covering garments? To me that is a
> sign of fanaticism. We've all seen the photo of
> the BYU homecoming queen with bare shoulders,
> probably from the 60s.
>
> The Catholic church, and the moderate to liberal
> mainstream Protestant churches, on the other hand,
> got more lax about dress. I wear pants to Catholic
> funerals, and no one bats an eye. I've seen
> parishoners exiting church in sundresses. In some
> churches business casual is fine, and in others
> it's come as you are (jeans are perfectly okay.)
> When I was growing up, women wore head coverings
> to church and dressed in their Sunday best.

Summer, most of what you say is true; in fact, I am always struck on occasions when I am in a Catholic church how many people of all ages dress like borderline slobs. Even at a family baptism I attended a few years ago, out of six or seven couples having babies baptized that day, only set of parents had bothered to dress up. The others were wearing jeans and T-shirts. I was a little shocked they hadn't at least made more of an effort for their own children's baptism.

Having said that, however, I have also noticed much more recently that the "modesty" crap for girls has even begun creeping into the Catholic church...or perhaps I should say "re-entering," since I am sure my mom experienced it in the 50s and early 60s. Case in point: My niece had her First Communion three years ago, and she, along with some of the other little girls in her class, wore beautiful, sleeveless Communion dresses. They were long, full-skirted dresses, but sleeveless. For the neverCatholics on this board who may not know, Catholics generally undergo First Communion in second grade, so at seven or eight years old.

However, this year, my nephew had his Communion, and his mom told me that the parents were instructed this year that girls could not wear sleeveless dresses unless they had a sweater or shrug to cover their--gasp!--eight-year-old shoulders. She was disgusted by this new rule. This is the same parish and same Catholic school at which my niece underwent the same ceremony in her sleeveless dress only three years ago.

And then there was that news item quite recently about the Catholic high school somewhere that announced it would provide "modesty ponchos" for girls who arrived at the prom in too-sexy dresses (though I guess the school later dropped those plans). So, even with some Catholics something weird is going on with "modesty." I'm not saying there should be no dress code standards for high school students, by the way, but modesty ponchos? And ANY rule requiring young children to "cover up" I find truly warped. Who the hell is fixating on little girls' shoulders?

In the 60s I remember wearing a sleeveless Easter dress.

It was only when touring St. Peter's in Rome in the early 70s that I was asked to cover my shoulders. I've never had an issue at any other Catholic church, either in North America or Europe.

IIRC, in the 60s a lot of Catholic women took fashion cues from the first lady, Jackie Kennedy. She had beautiful sleeveless dresses, and also hats and lace mantillas. As an aside, as a gift, I bought my mom a black lace mantilla at someplace like Woolworths for 50 cents! She loved that mantilla and wore it to church regularly.

The church really is a weak organization. The reason it moved up the age you can serve a mission to 18 is too many high school graduates were going inactive. Missions are to keep the priesthood in the church. Without missions a large percentage would go inactive and end up romantically involved with someone who probably would want to get married in the temple. The church membership would shrink very fast without missions and temple marriage.

slskipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Serious question. I guess in any institution with
> no formal brakes on peoples' enthusiasm the most
> ardent devotees will get promoted. Is that all
> there is? Is it simply the age-old question of
> "Who will watch the watchers"? Thanks.


The LDS church was started by a fanatic. Nothing has changed in that regard.

you speak AS IF there was a period of time when MORmONISM was NOT run by fanatics .....

Good point.

During the 1950s-early 1960s there was some attempt at dialog with "the world", but, yes, that was a rare interlude between rabid anti-cooperation types.

I guess many of us were looking for a sort of Mormon Vatican II council, but that did not happen.

Even back in my TBM days I was uncomfortable with the similarities between church leadership and the old Soviet politburo.

The church was taken over by the pharisees long ago.

Anyone that stays a mormon nowadays is a cult member. They just don't realize it or bothered to research it. I don't think the community is that friendly to keep attending even after you have emotionally and spiritually decided that the church is bogus.

There may be a few more good people but why stay for 3 hours only to talk/chat with them a few minutes in between lamo activities of "worship".

I was a member for decades and never really felt like attending any of the meetings was sign of worshipping God.

In the 70s nobody cared if you wore a white shirt to church. That was for missionaries. Now everyone wears one and colored shirts are frowned upon. The church has definitely changed and it started with priesthood correlation.

Haha! It was a looser church in the 70's. It was more about activities and socializing than hardcore worshipping. Wearing a sweater with a shirt and no tie was quite common. If you wanted to dress up you wore Angel Flight slacks, Cuban heals, and a rayon shirt. The John Travolta Saturday Night Fever look was acceptable at church. Haha! haha!

"Taken over by fanatics????" You mean founded by fanatics right...?

Correct, Mormonism has always been infested with fanatics.

It's always been run by fanatics!!

At Nauvoo when BY usurped the leadership. Then he reduced the competition to nothing. The latest step was when they made Eldred G Smith Patriarch Emeritus and refused to let the rightful Patriarch take his office.

I never remember it being okay to dissent or have a different opinion than what was being said or taught in church.

Hey, if a member continuously questioned doctrine and church history, then that person was privately advised to stop attending sunday school. And when the numbers of "disbelievers" grew, then they were told either get back to class (and keep your mouth shut) or get out.

I noticed the EQ class going way right (politically) in the 1990s. A lot of them were listening to talk radio aka Rush-bo.

Have you ever endured a church lesson where the elders say "Ditto" instead of "Amen" at the closing?

The LDS church was run by fanatics from the outset. It had a brief foray into almost-mainstream religion in the fifties to early sixties, but it was run by fanatics even then.

This rings true to me.

You old geezers who went on your missions in the 50s, 60s and early 70s, have probably taken notice how different the missions sound now. The fanaticism has really ramped up!

scmd1 has it right here.

There's even a book out there that I read at least part of on my way out with a thesis to this effect. The gist was that early Mormons (leaders and otherwise) tended to have been involved with other extremist or fringe religious movements before joining Mormonism.

The extremism may seem absent in the sterile contemporary Mormon church when you grow up in it. But, outsiders still notice it and the extremism is woven into the fabric of the story. I mean it is not a normal thing to think that Israelites are the principal ancestors of native Americans.