Good article on what differentiates a cult from a religion ... it's nuanced. Not always as cut and dried as it would seem .. and then compares the Internet and Information Highway to a new order religion. Which may become the next all powerful, all knowing god on the block. Edited below:

"Walking the Line ...

From my own experience interacting with the best examples of religions, I've gathered that though many involve the veneration of a God-figure whom practitioners hold near-and-dear to their hearts, they're really there to bring people together and give them purpose and meaning. They're all about love for biological family, not turning away from it. They're about integrating with the community that surrounds a religion, not running away and hiding from it. They advocate for peace without violence, and trust in a higher power (or even a mundane power) while still managing to function in great society. Religion offers comfort without too much sacrifice, and spiritual gains at very little, if any, material price.

Cults, on the other hand, are single-minded. There is no sense of outward assimilation with the world. There is only cult and Other. The true nature of religion, in my opinion, is in the giving. This is why it is so common for very religious people to be without worldly possessions, or even to rely on begging. The Buddha was allegedly a beggar, many sects of Christianity were of the mendicant order, meaning their ministers went around preaching Gospel and requesting alms. Cults are not this way. They are more concerned with taking "“ people, things, places, life "“ than in the giving. And what they cannot take by persuasion, they do so by force.

So it would seem that what really distinguishes a cult from religion, or what twists a religion into cult, is its hostile incompatibility with the world around it. It gets so stuck in its ways, and blindly rejects all challenging voices...like science, for one. Like Feminism, for another. The religion need not necessarily accept other beliefs, nor need it necessarily compromise with these beliefs. But what it can't do is attempt to exterminate them, and those who have them.

What you'll see is that many of these small cult movements tend to fade away because they cannot or choose not to negotiate with the outside world. Those that do not manage a way to keep in touch with the greater population fail. Those, however, that amass a fortune and following through legitimate or illegitimate means have a much higher chance of making the long haul. And who knows, maybe that's exactly how recognized "religions" grow out of enterprising cults. But in my book, that doesn't entitle them to be called a religion, just a cult with a long history. That would mean religion and cult go hand-in-hand, and are a lot more tied together than religious people would like to admit.

Will New Religious Movements Be Able to Thrive in Such a Secular World?

A few years ago, WIN-Gallup International performed a massive study into the state of religion, and after surveying 57 countries their findings are at turns intuitive and phenomenal. For instance, the poor on average are more religious than the wealthy. This isn't that surprising considering the emphasis in many religions on poverty, charity, and asceticism. Also, it is no secret that religion can act as a very effective and precious salve for people suffering great hardship.

But, by and large, the number of people self-identifying as religious dropped by 9 percent between 2005 and 2011. France, Switzerland, Ireland and Vietnam all saw double digit declines in their country's religiosity. A study published in 2014 found that education and religiosity actually move in opposite directions: the more years of education someone has, the less likely they are to attend their respective house of worship. It was a cause, and not just a correlation. And with this current generation of Millennials on their way to becoming the most educated generation ever, that could spell disaster for religion.

Though many would argue it's not a recent phenomenon, and they'd be right. The global decline in religiosity started in the interwar period, and continued onward. In post-World War II America, religion was up against some unfavorable circumstances. After globalization brought everyone a bit closer together, even if it was to squash a fascist uprising, the final frontier had been crossed, and the unknowns became known. The development and eventual dropping of the atom bomb challenged many people's faith in a kind and good creator. The Civil Rights and Feminist movements in the 60s and 70s also had a profound impact on religious orthodoxy, and shook up the whole scene.

The world's superpowers had to reconstruct, but were also becoming ever stronger. Democracy and freedom from oppression, any kind of oppression, was on everyone's minds. Today what's on people's minds is technology, so much so that there are actually two new world religions that explicitly dedicate their practice to worshiping it. Three years ago, Switzerland officially recognized a new religion known as Kopimism, whose followers pray before data as if it were manna from heaven. Information data. The stuff that transmits from your server to another server, and which you can intercept through Google. Some say this is just a ploy the movement uses in order to pirate media without fear of government intervention. Yeah, sounds likely. But still, it's a religion.

Syntheism, another freshman religion, holds as one of its principal tenets that the Internet is the God of the day. And I don't know about you, but I've often mentioned the two in the same breath before. I've never gotten down on my knees and prayed before my router box, but I also haven't ever done that for any other god either. But at the same time, I'm not dismissing Syntheism's belief outright. After all, the Internet is pretty awesome "“ kind of like how people say God is awesome. It's virtually invisible, it's the pathway to profound knowledge, it's potentially infinite and all-knowing, and it's there even when we go to sleep at night, working away by some mysterious magic. Sounds a little god-like to me.

Religions thrive on a necessary degree of the unknown. Even the explanations to cosmic happenings, like the beginning of the universe, the floods, etc., were explained by the grace of God. Today, there are still inexplicable mysteries, but there's also more access to so many more potential answers. That's not to say that there's no place in modern society for religion. But perhaps it just needs to get refocused. We still arguably don't know why we're here, even though how we got here is less unclear. As more answers start filing in, and today's youngsters are able to reach them in lightning speed, religions will need to propose new questions without answers to stay relevant. Cults will find it harder and harder to mystify their newcomers, and fanatics will lose touch with their fellow extremists.

But it's no great wonder why the Internet is capturing the same kind of attention religion once did. It holds the key to unlocking all our questions, while being itself the biggest question of them all: where the heck is this thing taking us?"

http://guff.com/whats-the-difference-between-religion-and-a-cult-is-there



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2018 01:32PM by Amyjo.

Folks, the difference is easy. A cult is somebody else's religion.

Exactly.

There are some differences, but the two phenomena are on the same spectrum and overlap greatly. The clearest delineation is my faith is a religion, yours is a cult.

I have heard it said that at the top of every cult and every religion is someone who knows it's all a lie. The difference is that in a religion that person is dead.

But I don't agree with that one, really. I'm pretty sure Pope Francis knows what we know.

Cults don't have to be religiously oriented and all religions are not extremist cults.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cults don't have to be religiously oriented and
> all religions are not extremist cults.

In other words, a religion is a diluted cult?

I guess that's true. Biblical christianity is in se an extremely violent doomsday cult. So is koranic islam.

Cults can also operate in corporations, families, and other places where religion is not an issue what so ever. These cults are secular.

A cult is religious by definition. You can call RHCP fans cultish, but you cannot get away with calling them a cult. The only common denominator is people.

You could call a university campus a record store but other people will disagree.

Cheryl is correct.

There ARE examples of non-religious cults:-
https://listverse.com/2015/04/09/10-insane-non-religious-cults/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/whats-wrong-with-mindfulness-more-than-you-might-think/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions

Your three citations don't support your contention. In all three cases the analysis focuses squarely on the religious characteristic of even seemingly irreligious groups and movements.

The first paragraph of the first article states that "Many now see parallels between religious cults and some ostensibly non-religious groups. These groups may be therapeutic, economic, corporate, or political in character, but they share tendencies with religious cults. . ."

The second article describes meditation with a diminished Buddhist component as "a religion tailor-made for the secular West."

The third is about "secular religions," which are not the same thing as cults. But even then, the focus through most of the piece is on the religious characteristics that characterize the secular movements.

The three articles again indicate that as soon as you use the word "cult," you have to deal with "religion." They have been almost inextricably connected for hundreds of years.

Here's a solid definition from the good folks at OED.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cult

The bottom line is that for several centuries "cult" has basically meant a religion. It originated in cultivate and culture, meaning the lives of people in the Roman empire. Since beliefs were central to their lives, "cult" meant lifestyle and especially "religion," specifically around particular lives or deities. Hence the cult of Athena or, later, the cult of the Virgin Mary.

For the last few centuries, though, the word has meant almost exclusively "religion." One exception, not very important, is the use of "cult" to describe a "following" as in "a cult film." The other exception is the "cult of personality" surrounding Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Kim. This usage, however, harks back to earlier forms: political philosophy as worship and rites surrounding a person who inspires religion-like adoration. The Cult of Osiris, the Cult of Mao.

So yes, for the last few hundred years the strictest definition and the better subsidiary definitions put "cult" squarely in a religious context.

There isn't a strong distinction from religion, either, since it's really hard to draw a clear line between what are generally system of worship. It does become pejorative: my religion is better than your cult.

If a group has every attribute of a cult, it is a cult.

Some aspects of cultism would be extreme devotion to leaders, ironclad control of followers dictating clothing choices, food, drink and daily habits. Devotion to the group and its goals and lack of respect for differing views and outside influences.

The huge families in the news lately are examples of cults when a parent or parents keep their offspring from mixing with the outside world and controlling their every move.

Youth gangs can be cults. Gangs in prisons and motor cycle groups can sometimes be gangs. The leaders make the rules and their followers comply.

Charles Manson ran a cult. Many cults are religious but it isn't always the case.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a group has every attribute of a cult, it is a
> cult.

Yes. That's why I employed the actual definition of a cult. It is not quite what you state. There are narrower definitions used for specific purposes, many of them useful, but a particular person's particular devotion to a specialized definition does not obviate the general definition.

And that general definition includes a strong element of religion or of religious devotion to a particular superhuman, a god or a person with godlike attributes.

-------------


> Some aspects of cultism would be extreme devotion
> to leaders, ironclad control of followers
> dictating clothing choices, food, drink and daily
> habits. Devotion to the group and its goals and
> lack of respect for differing views and outside
> influences.

Yes. That could be a cult. Or it could be the Marine Corps. What is the difference? The degree of fanatic/religious devotion to the leader.

-------------



> The huge families in the news lately are examples
> of cults when a parent or parents keep their
> offspring from mixing with the outside world and
> controlling their every move.

I'm not sure you will find many experts who endorse that view absent a larger religious superstructure with some claim to supernatural authority.

----------------------



> Youth gangs can be cults. Gangs in prisons and
> motor cycle groups can sometimes be gangs. The
> leaders make the rules and their followers
> comply.

Leaders who make rules and followers who comply is far too broad a definition for "cult," surely. The high school dance squad would fit there, as well as the Metropolitan Opera.

-------------------



> Charles Manson ran a cult. Many cults are
> religious but it isn't always the case.

Manson did indeed run a cult. He also exercised an extreme charisma over his followers.

------------



The word "cult," as used in the Anglo-American countries for the last 200+ years means "religion." Its extensions are generally toward political or other bodies that exercise extreme control but also claim some sort of supernal authority. Stalin and Mao ran cults; they did so as secular prophets of a secular religion. Charles Manson ran a cult; he did so with a similar superhuman charisma and implied claim to inspiration.

It difficult to strip religion, or religious fanaticism, out of the definition of cult.

Anyone who doesn't think groups like Amway aren't cults is mistaken.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who doesn't think groups like Amway aren't
> cults is mistaken.

No we are not. Every cult is a scam but not every scam is a cult.

It's a cult that worships the taking of money on the backs of other hard working members. Kind of like the Mormon scam!

Only if you're at the top of the pyramid does the money flow up!

Very, very similar to Mormonism.

What isn't cultish about it?

The difference is the religious element.

Cults have rituals and rites, or the equivalent, an ideology that includes supernatural elements, and a charismatic leader with superhuman powers. Mao and Stalin were cult personalities because they relied on pre-existing religious practices and emotions, imposed new rituals and rites that fulfilled pseudo-religious emotional purposes, an ideology that promoted themselves as prophets, and extreme charisma/personal authority.

Amway is a scam with a lifestyle, meetings and practices that don't really meet the standard of religious rites, no supernatural ideology, no charismatic leader with claims to some sort of supernatural authority.

A nasty, insular group with dress and dietary standards may be a cult, but unless there is that pseudo-religious philosophy and charismatic authority, it is probably just an aggregation of ESTholes.

They chanted and did affirmations and recited prayers to and about attracting money with their products and techniques. They actually all stood on their chairs and waved their arms trancelike like Christians do on late night TV.

I know the Amway sales pitch sure appealed to Mormons where I lived in the Morridor. Went to one of their meetings before moving away from there as a young adult, and the sales pressure was intense to join.

People seemed hypnotized by it and the motivational speakers selling it to get rich quick scheme. It was a depressed economic area (still is ...,) so can see the appeal it held for financially strapped LDS. But the way it suckered them in and held them captive is/was a form of brainwashing. They literally believed in what they were doing and justified it despite it being a MLM scheme - which was something they did not discern.

People were desperate enough to believe in something that promised to save them from dire straits. Although that isn't the way it works in reality, they didn't know any better.

I typically think of cults as extreme religious groups.

But then Kim Jong Un's North Korea is called a cult under his leadership, the way he runs his country. His people worship him, and as their despot, is the central figure including godlike, to the North Koreans.

That is why the term "cult of personality" is a thing.

Totalitarians figured out long ago that you can create a god-like or prophet-like charismatic role for the leader, use rites and confessions like religions do in support of a super- or supra-natural ideology, and thereby create an ultra-cohesive nation-state or popular movement.

Kim Jung Un's cult is a lot weaker than that of his grandfather, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, etc., but it probably does count as a cult of personality. And all of these, to greater or lesser degree, share elements of religious ideology an practice.

It came about by convention. Someone coined it and others adopted it because we all know what it means. It is not a literal cult. You would never call it a "religion of personality", would you? Yet in many other languages, their equivalent of a personality cult uses the word religion.
In Dutch, for instance, it's "personencultus", and "cultus" is a very refined, polite word for a religion, not a cult. (A cult would be called a "secte", while sect in English is less offensive than cult.)
And before you dismiss foreign languages as irrelevant: the English phrase is younger than their French, Dutch and German equivalents, all of which use Kult, culte etc in the meaning of a "genuine" religion.

Combined phrases can have a meaning that is not the sum of their parts. Ever heard of the Beatles and the "British invasion"? Would you consider that a violent military attack?

No really, Amway, North Korea and Justin Bieber are neither cults nor religions. But cultish I grant you.

I think I showed above that I know the origins and history of the word "cult."

Like you, I want to stick with established meanings and hence believe we can't lose the notion of religion or religious enthusiasm from any derivative definitions.

But "cult of personality" is an established, well-defined term in, as I said, the Anglo-American sphere. Stalin's cult of personality, Hitler's, Mao's, were real phenomena and the word "cult" does a good job describing the religious and totalitarian elements of those systems. I don't have a problem using the word "cult of personality" since alternatives like monarchy, government, regime, even tyranny, don't capture as many of the relevant nuances.

Was Kim Il-Sung's North Korea a cult? No. But he did run a "cult of personality" as that term is defined in standard English dictionaries.

Amway and Justin Beiber's fans are neither cults nor cults of personality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2018 03:58AM by Lot's Wife.

Hassan, the best expert of cultism that I've met, says, "If it looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

Origins of a word isn't the issue.

Words matter; etymologies matter; research, analysis and credibility matter.

Hassan is better on mind control than he is on cults. In the field his definition is viewed as excessively capacious for the reason we are discussing: it would include the high school drill team. He's made a career out of self-promotion and television punditry and is only now seeking a Ph.D. (from an online college).

Hassan's work is helpful for parents and teachers and others who want a superficial grasp of mind control and the groups that employ it--including, I believe, understanding Mormonism--but he uses words loosely and for shock value.

Because he is imprecise, he misses important nuances. There are better sources on cults.

Oxford Living Dictionary's definition

cult
NOUN
1A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

‘the cult of St Olaf’
More example sentences
1.1 A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
‘a network of Satan-worshipping cults’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing.
‘the cult of the pursuit of money as an end in itself’

Two quick questions.

1) What is your point with regard to that dictionary and its definition?

2) Can you provide a link to the definition? I can't find that dictionary online.

Thanks

It's found @ Oxford's online dictionary, verbatim:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cult

Got it.

Oxford Living Dictionaries:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cult

Not the most precise dictionary and definitions, but the entry does fit the pattern we've been discussion. "A system of religious veneration and devotion," and two subsidiary definitions. So there's the fidelity to the etymology.

It's also significant that if you press the button for more examples of 1.2, you get 20 more instances of the word used in a sentence. Of those, 14 use the phrase "cult of personality" and one talks about the cult of the nation and state. So 75% of the examples indicate that personality cults are an acceptable extension of the original religious usage.

Is that what you are getting at?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Got it.
>
> Oxford Living Dictionaries:
>
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cult
>
> Not the most precise dictionary and definitions,
> but the entry does fit the pattern we've been
> discussion. "A system of religious veneration and
> devotion," and two subsidiary definitions. So
> there's the fidelity to the etymology.
>
> It's also significant that if you press the button
> for more examples of 1.2, you get 20 more
> instances of the word used in a sentence. Of
> those, 14 use the phrase "cult of personality" and
> one talks about the cult of the nation and state.
> So 75% of the examples indicate that personality
> cults are an acceptable extension of the original
> religious usage.
>
> Is that what you are getting at?


Occasionally a post of mine will end up not precisely where I would have intended it to be. Such was the case with this post. I apologize if the placement of my post caused confusion.

Amyjo found the link. (Thanks!)

My point was that the meaning of the word "cult" seemed to be under debate.when some were saying "what 'cult' means to me" while others were insisting a cult must by definition have a theological context, we have dictionaries available the provide "consensus" definition(s). Perhaps the dictionary I chose wasn't the very best dictionary, and I didn't copy every definition. I included enough to show that a religious context isn't inherent in every sense of the word.

Agreed on both points.

The Oxford Living Dictionaries are not as good as a lot of others. But there certainly is a vernacular use of "cult" that means nothing more than "people who are interested in." An example would be Rocky Horror Picture show as a cult classic, or the cult of Krispy Kreme lovers.

I don't think that this tongue-in-cheek use of the word "cult" is very helpful when talking about something serious like Mormonism or Stalinism, nor when discussing the "difference/s between a Cult v. Religion," which is what we were doing in this thread, but the popular usage is definitely a thing.

Then I guess we need a new word for cults that must include the religious element. Is there an existing word for that or do we need to make up a new one?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2018 09:27AM by jay.

Cult is the established word for cults. See the Oxford reference link above. Religious is the first meaning. But there are others.

The complete Oxford Dictionary definition:

cult
NOUN
1A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.

‘the cult of St Olaf’
More example sentences
1.1 A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
‘a network of Satan-worshipping cults’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.2 A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular thing.
‘the cult of the pursuit of money as an end in itself’
More example sentencesSynonyms
2A person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.

‘the series has become a bit of a cult in the UK’
as modifier ‘a cult film’
More example sentencesSynonyms
Origin
Early 17th century (originally denoting homage paid to a divinity): from French culte or Latin cultus ‘worship’, from cult- ‘inhabited, cultivated, worshipped’, from the verb colere.

Pronunciation
cult/kʌlt/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2018 09:33AM by Amyjo.

I Disagree with the mine-ours vs. others' statements.


For years, I've attended (Fellowshipped) with the Mennonites. Here in Seattle, our congregation works to support our community, Never disparages or denigrates others; Extremely Big Tent kinda people.

We NEVER refer to people of other religions as cult members in open meetings, I've never heard Mennos refer to members of other churches/organizations as cultists, we simply aren't interested in others, our energy is focused on our efforts, sharing in-with the community.

Mennonite as you describe sounds more like a religion to me than it does a cult. As an outsider, it does make me wonder how peculiar its teachings are because it's compared to being Amish.

Lots of Mennonite churches around me. All a little different from each other. Really nice people.
Car of choice for young Mennonites--black tricked out VW Jettas.

Great article! Thanks for sharing, Amyjo.

I agree with the article.

>>"The true nature of religion, in my opinion, is in the giving."<<

I think that giving, meaning the active verb, the actual "works" and results, and not lip-service, pretense, advertising--what religions give to others and the community is the litmus test for good vs bad religions.

The same principles in the article can be applied to the various volunteer groups in which I have worked, over the years. The PTA, the Board of Education, research groups, helping battered women, the Jewish Community Center, to name a few, have all those GOOD qualities, yet those aren't "religions." I don't think worship of a "God" or "Prophet" is necessary.

Another test is the love-test, which Mormonism fails miserably. It's new prophet does not believe in unconditional love, and bad-mouths this kind of love as being "anti-Christ."

Giving is the test. Love is at the heart of it. It seems so simple, really, and I wonder why we were ever sucked into an evil cult, at all. Many of us were born into it, and were raised to trust our own parents. Family and peer pressure, along with fear and brainwashing, are also reasons cults survive.

Cults feed on people's weaknesses. Religions and community groups build on strengths. Religion is usually positive; cults are negative. (Did you ever feel depressed, as a Mormon?)

exminion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Religion is
> usually positive

Quite a blanket statement. A lot could be argued against that.

Thanks for sharing that, exminion. I agree.

Yes, I believe it was as a Mormon where I learned what depression is. Its teachings and perfectionistic doctrine have that effect.

Back in the day our Mormon leaders taught that depression was a spiritual weakness. If someone suffered from it they weren't doing enough, or weren't living worthy. That came straight from the top ie, relief society president and the GA.

Those days are at least gone as TSCC has accepted depression as a chemical imbalance which can be caused by certain triggers (like TSCC!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2018 05:17PM by Amyjo.

"Giving is the test."

So if mormonism gave more of its time and money to actual "charity," then it would no longer be a cult, but would be a bona-fide religion?

Really?

In the course of its history, there has not been a time this was so. To do so would be a complete reversal of its primary function which is to take.

And that is a hallmark sign of a cult.

Amyjo

I loved that little write up! I think it's spot on.

One person's God is another person's joke--such is the state of the human condition.

A state that will live in infamy, I suppose.

I guess as Humans we all have our fallacies, but I still cannot fathom why some will not even try to tell the difference between S**T and SHINOLA.

"There's a sucker born every minute." (Good old Mr. Barnum) From what I can see that is very likely true.

About 5 years.

CULT - break it down
Con
Control
Use
Lies
Leverage
Trick
Trap

Mormonism won't let you do anything - be anyone, ESPECIALLY YOURSELF! Think? Plan. Escape!

ANY WAY YOU CAN.

There are many religions.
Joseph Smooth talker began a cult.

A million ways IN and
NO WAY OUT! Without a doubt.

The scam? PAY IN, EVERY MONTH, EVERY YEAR OF YOUR LIFE, and GET OUT of it. Nothing. But promises for "eternity", which might be gone by then - when your dead - and CERTAINLY of no use without the body, or free-agency or LIFE.

A cult sucks you/ your relatives IN and never spits you OUT. You have to poke it. And QUIT it. Be free! Like me. Smiles

M@t

One is based on truth, the other on lies . . . ?

There are many religions and many cults. Only one among all of those can be "true". More likely it will be zero.

Nonsense. Truth can be found in the world's great religions. The great ones share universal values, despite their differences.

You got your absolutist all or nothing, black and white thinking from years of being a Mormon. True religion doesn't teach or preach there is only one true religion that claims to be IT. Whereas cults such as Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses, do.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nonsense. Truth can be found in the world's great
> religions. The great ones share universal values,
> despite their differences.

I grant you that they are good at cultural appropriation. They all claim to have invented things like the golden rule, or no killing, or honouring your parents or children, or saving the environment. But to this they attach a lot of nonsense about the world being born from an egg, a prophet flying to god on a winged horse, the mother of all gods living in a bush village far away, etc. That is what I meant by saying only one of them can be true, and it is more likely that none of them is true.


> True
> religion doesn't teach or preach there is only one
> true religion that claims to be IT.

Then I don't know of any "true religion" because that is just what all the ones I know claim. At best they believe all non-believers to be left outside alone, at worst they think all infidels should be converted, subjected or killed.

One prominent poster here in particular left JWs and soon joint mormonism. Others studies their way out of mormonism but fell pray to multi level marketing or other cultish groups on jobs or clubs, political groups or psychological schemes. Remember EST or some of the new age groups starting in the 1960s?

Once out of mormonism, we need to be cautious of over veneration of "experts" and not join overly controlling or greedy causes and groups.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Once out of mormonism, we need to be cautious of
> over veneration of "experts" and not join overly
> controlling or greedy causes and groups.


This sums things up well for me. I decided to accompany my wife to her Catholic parish when feasible so that our nuclear family could attend church together. What some guy in a white robe and funny hat in Rome says, however, will never be the bottom line for me. Fortunately for me, it isn't the bottom line for my wife, either.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Once out of mormonism, we need to be cautious of
> over veneration of "experts" and not join overly
> controlling or greedy causes and groups.

Rather, we should learn to tell the true experts apart from the false ones. I don't see much wrong in following the advice of university professors who are experts in their fields and whose work was scrutinized by peer review.

That is what religions do: they warn you to stay away from experts, from learning, from outside information, from the internet. Yes, the internet contains a lot of nonsense but it is also a treasure trove of academic research.

I'd be blind if I hadn't disbelieved some of my eye specialists and sought out better ones.

I'd have been dead long before that if I'd continued to believe neurologists and others who claimed I had no brain tumor when I actually just needed better specialists to find my problem.

All of those experts were fully qualified and greatly admired but I had to trust my own judgement and it saved my life and my eyesight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 02:41PM by Cheryl.

AKA a second opinion. ;)

What's the point?

That even as you reject expertise, you continue (wisely) to seek it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 07:21PM by Lot's Wife.

No more than you are.

You recited your experience, which was replete with specialists. That was hardly the history of someone who disfavors experts in anything but word.

That is what Visitors Welcome was observing.

Good post.