In the religious sense I like the quote by Dr. Charles Braden used in the introduction to the book Kingdom of the Cults.
"By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it, is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as the normative expression of religion in our total culture."
I think normative is the operative word. Depending how that is defined, in the religious world anyone with different practices or beliefs can be defined as being in a cult but it is a non threatening definition IMV.
>normative expression of religion in our total culture."
Besides being a sterling example of academese, what counts as the normative religion in the total culture is problematic. ["Problematic" also qualifies as academese - not a word the non-college crowd has much use for.]
If "total culture' is the whole world, then American Christianity is not normative. For that matter, I can think of at least two fairly distinct versions of American Christianity. Which one is "normative"?
If you restrict yourself to smaller subdivisions, wouldn't Mormonism be the normative religion of Utah? It far outnumbers all other religions in Utah, and the state is isolated enough that Utah can be thought of as a stand-alone entity.
I prefer "cult" as a simple pejorative [more academese]. That meaning of the word is widely understood, and serves a useful purpose.
I think in the sense that the ancient Greeks used it, a cult was a small, idiosyncratic religious belief system. One could argue that Mormonism meets that definition.
In the modern sense, it means a very controlling and often abusive sect. I think it meets that definition as well.
Thinking back to an introductory college sociology class, cults often exhibit:
"borrowing" of language/terms and twisting them to suit the group's purpose while still sounding "normal" to the rest of the world
shunning of family/friends who do not participate/left
control, indoctrination
don't ask questions/don't disagree - or face punishment
As fascinated as I am with the LDS, I've recently started watching Leah Remini's investigatory series about Scientology on NetFlix. Definitely giving the Salt Lake folks a run for their money...PIs, sifting through trash, costs (billing when you leave: the Freeloader's Debt?), the Hole (punishment), missing wife of the leader, etc.
I believe the Prime telling of a CULT is when the leader(s) are immune from criticism/shelter themselves from feedback / no sense of empathy - engagement where people (esp. individuals) are in their lives.
My point was that using the word cult sometimes if not often ends discussions - consideration of Facts by offending one or more individuals.
If that's your point, then I agree. Technically, I don't find conversations/arguments with the indoctrinated useful. I used to. But then you realize their reasons are not based on facts or logic but tied to emotion. And you have to know how to talk to them about those emotional points to get them out of those tangled knots. I know there's a way to do it, but it's not something I am good at.
Anyway, IF I were to have a theological conversation with any Mormon, mentioning that their organization is a cult, even if I defined it with reference to the BITE model, would be a futile endeavor and only serve to further incite their emotional defenses. Nobody knows they're in a cult until they think about leaving/have left. And it does have an aggressive "YOU'RE BEING DUPED!" connotation if you tell someone they're in a cult. Which nobody wants to readily believe/admit to themselves.
Here or in other spaces where we can talk safely and freely about what we went through, I wholeheartedly endorse calling the org what it is. It is a cult. It engaged in a high level of behavior control, information control, thought control, and emotional control. Is it the worst out there? No. But it is repressive and controlling enough that it was very hard for myself and many others to find our way out. It fits the bill. But only in the outside spaces do I think it's useful to refer to it like this. In actual conversations with cult members, who are under the influence of all of that control, calling it a cult will only encourage their loyalty. Because heaven forbid they admit they've been taken in.
GNPE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe the Prime telling of a CULT is when the > leader(s) are immune from criticism/shelter > themselves from feedback / no sense of empathy - > engagement where people (esp. individuals) are in > their lives.
This sounds like most business, political and educational environments nowadays!!! Or should I ask a so called fact checker?
Adam Warrior Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cult is definitely a charged word that i just > avoid now. If death oaths doesn't convince > someone nothing will.
The word "cult" means a lot of things. It is only recently that it's attained bad vibrations.
For example, me and my wife are nudists, and some people think that's like a cult. But we're nudists on private property so we bother no one else.
But I guess "cult" is too wide. When we call the Mormons a cult, we put them in with Scientology and Heaven's Gate when they're way milder.
No younger Mormon can remember death oaths because they got abolished in 1990. You've got to be in your sixties to remember them.
Naked at Dawn Wrote: --------------------- > > No younger Mormon can remember > death oaths because they got > abolished in 1990. You've got to > be in your sixties to remember them.
That means the concept of D-day (versus P-day) will soon be lost to history.
Systems of thought that completely justify the obliteration of the individual’s ethos in order to accommodate and entertain the authoritative ethos are whatever word denotes shame and contempt, because groupthink and deep interpersonal discomfort and naked awareness of self are the only things those people respond to. It’s the only form of argument they actually internalize and get twisted in knots over. They’re ready for you to use your appeals to reason, and they hope you abide by the laws of logical fallacy, because they do mental gymnastics every day to throw it in your face. What they cannot stand is when you hold them beneath contempt and dismiss them without a further thought. Nothing speaks more powerfully to them than social proof, and sometimes tactful or calculated name calling can do things to their minds no other thing can.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2022 09:47PM by Cold-Dodger.
A distinct group of folks who have a fanatic devotion to a centralized charismatic figure or ideology bonded by feeling/emotion, characterized by a sense of collective grievance, victimhood, siege mentality, and condemnation of a randomly selected victimizing "other" enemy group(s), whose members are profoundly resistant to clearly observable fact, evidence, and reason, being unable to be dissuaded or reasoned with thereby.
"Cult" is more efficient than all those words.
It's just a word bearing a concept. I use it when it fits.
I use the standard definition you can find on Wikipedia:
“In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals, or its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal.”
Both the CULT of Joseph’s Myth and the MAGA CULT of Donald Trump meet that definition.
The word is being destroyed now days. Now, you'll get a lot of people using it to describe a passion for any ideology. In fact, if you gave the military a cult-test, you probably would find that even joining the Army has so many characteristics that a cult has, that if you didn't mention it was the Army you were talking about, someone would surely say you just described a cult. In some cases, basic and higher education also mimic the description of a cult.
Some people accuse beliefs of being cults simply based on intensity. Simply giving 3% of your money to someone that doesn't know your name, like being a fan on a social forum, is now being called being in a cult. If it's a political forum, 99 times out of a hundred, the person calling it a cult will be someone who happens to have the opposing point of view.
I can't really define a cult, but I can list a few things that I feel largely disqualify a belief from being a cult:
1, The leader or any of his subordinates don't really know you well or what you are doing most of the time. 2. Nobody sponsoring the belief system has your name, your contact information or if they do, they rarely or never initiate contact. 3. If you stopped participating in the belief, it's unlikely anyone would notice to the extent to try to solicit you to attempt to get you back. 4. The belief has age limits of 18 or higher in that you must surpass in order to get actively involved in it. 5. The belief system concentrates on teaching people to think a certain way, but has no enforcement mechanism. 6. Leaders and fellow members are unlikely to find out if you are not following teachings unless you choose to tell them.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2022 02:20AM by miner8.