I suppose it goes without saying, but there are variations within dangerous or destructive cults. Not everyone believes in flying saucers but then you don't need a flying saucer cult to insist on people following blindly. You don't need to insist that everyone wears saffron color robes to rob them of their individuality. You don't need to insist that people live in compounds to inhibit what they read and to control the flow of information to them. A destructive cult can teach people to be their own 'thought police' by labeling doubts and questions as bad, devilish and teach people to police themselves and their own thoughts.

http://www.factnet.org/rancho5.htm

http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult.htm

"I am so glad we have a prophet" That statement always made me want to vomit.

To me any cult who controls what one reads and who they associate with is dangerous. Any cult who demands money for some fake reward is dangerous. Any cult who shuns a member when they leave is dangerous. And any cult who guilts you over and over for not doing this and that and not attending a Temple session or whatever is dangerous. Mental cruelty is what it is. And that leads to physical ailments at times. How can one be happy in that group????

Maybe I am a bit simplistic, but remember I'm a dog...

I consider it destructive; as to how much I count the number of broken marriages, families, and hearts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 10:40AM by The StalkerDog™.

Hey dog,

I agree that it's destructive, for the reasons you list.

And I always add that it's the ULTIMATE CHILD ABUSE, since it teaches/brainwashes little 3-4 year old kids to lie ("I know the church is twoo") to believe in absurd lies about religion.

Here's the "yeah, but...."

I learned how to be honest and how to work hard, in part, by attending LD$ services & classes.

I know I could have learned that in other places. But the fact is, I DID learn it at least in part, down at the ward.

So, you might be simplistic. But for me, it's complicated.

Among other reasons, TSCC destroys self esteem, it demands members turn off their brains, and it places itself above all other relationships one might have, including relationship with family, friends, and any higher power.

howcultswork is a good site to help people recover from something like Mormonism. However, I wouldn't use it as a basis from which you develop knowledge about cults. The biggest problem with that website is that it attempts to redefine the term and drastically broaden its meaning.

I would say that no, there aren't any serious variations between different cults. Certain things work and certain things don't. Any analysis of cult behavior, even if you just look at the more popular cults, will show dozens of similarities across the board. The moment you start taking away pieces from that formula, it becomes less effective.

Mormonism is destructive for sure, but I would classify it as a business, not a cult.

P.S. - insisting that people live in compounds is not a characteristic of a cult.

P.S. - insisting that people live in compounds is not a characteristic of a cult.


I'll bet Jim Jones repeated that wisdom frequently ...

:)

I bet did.For sure :)

I don't think sun myung moon did, however.

While we can make lists of characteristics of "cults" and then decide if some organization looks, acts, smells like a "cult", actually saying with certainty that a particular organization or religion as a cult is difficult.

Most religions, at some time in their existence, have displayed some of the characteristics, but perhaps not all.

I was watching a Sunday talk show this morning and Santorum was asked if he considered Mormonism a cult? He said no, then went on to say all the Mormons he knew were decent folks.

That's the problem with trying to have a strict definition of cult. When you say the word "cult" to someone, most will form very different pictures in their minds.

Instead of trying to define an organization as a "cult", I think it would be more productive to ask if the organization displays cult-like actions or if their actions are more cult-like than some other organization.

Shades of gray as far as I am concerned. Easy to recognize the ones that go way down the spectrum...like Branch Davidians...but much more difficult for those that only display some of the attributes (and those at some level less than extreme).

All religions are cults to some extent...how could they not be?

Hehe.

Like Santorum doesn't think Mormonism is a cult! Most exMos even think TSCC is a cult.

I was reading what PapaKen said--and I was just talking to my brother about this the other night--my parents taught us to be honest--not the church. My parents raised good, honest, hard working children. My parents never pretended to be something they weren't--like all the mormon neighbors did. We thought we were the odd family because eveyrone else seemed so perfect--only to find out later that we were much more normal than most of the other families in our ward.

I would have been who I am without mormonism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 12:01PM by cl2.

all religions are cults to some extent..how could they not be?

Precisely.

That is why there needs to be a distinction between the words cult and destructive cult.

Saying that there are good people in a group would negate it from being a cult is groundless. There are great people the world over who got sucked into destructive cults.

I don't believe in classifying a group as a cult just because they believe differently. That is freedom of religion.

I think that when a group doesn't present the whole truth of what they believe, of what they will expect of you, what they want from you and what their true agenda is, you have a destructive cult as they are slowly sucking people in without giving that person (or people) enough information to make a full decision about their involvement. That is highly unethical, especially from a group of people who claim to be the one true church of Jesus Christ.

Just saying.

"I think that when a group doesn't present the whole truth of what they believe, of what they will expect of you, what they want from you and what their true agenda is..."

What religious group, or business, or government, does present the whole truth? None really do.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I think that when a group doesn't present the
> whole truth of what they believe, of what they
> will expect of you, what they want from you and
> what their true agenda is..."
>
> What religious group, or business, or government,
> does present the whole truth? None really do.


Then they can be charged with fraud, be fined, go to prison, be exposed in the news or papers what have you. There are, to some extent, watch dog groups and other government agencies that businesses and such have to answer to.

Besides, just because joe blow of the first apostolic tabernacle holier than thou scams people, it doesn't make it okay for the LDS to scam people.

JUST AN IN GENERAL VENT FOLLOWS NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE

This just irks me to no end. Just because so and so back in the days of the skunk cabbage shortage scam .....NO

This is NOW, this happened to me, this happened in the name of Jesus Christ and I am pissed and I just don't see any justification for what they did, what they do and what they will continue to do to people, especially if we all fall into apathy.

They are not just another cult, club, denomination what have you.

UGH

The lds church is a bunch of freakin monsters sucking the life juice out of people. But Pope Paul Boneonhisface the pure the innocent back in 425 ad did worse,so it's okay. I got robbed last night but the neighbor down the block got robbed first so ..whatever it's okay.

I love you.

Well put.

Now I am going for a drink and cigarette.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

"Besides, just because joe blow of the first apostolic tabernacle holier than thou scams people, it doesn't make it okay for the LDS to scam people."

Clearly not. I don't think so either.

"The lds church is a bunch of freakin monsters sucking the life juice out of people."

Very true. We all are with you on that one. Leaving Mormonism has made me happier than anything else possible could have.

That's definitely destructive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 01:54PM by munchybotaz.

The problem is exactly that "cult" is a very wide and misunderstood term. You can hear the erroneous understanding in the defenses offered.

Pastor Jeffries, though he was right to call mormonism a cult, cited the wrong reason: that mormons did not believe in the traditional christian jesus. Others are defending mormonism by saying, "I know many nice mormons, therefore they are not a cult."

I happen to like howcultswork.com as an introductory primer on cults, because it is a very simple site that provides an excellent template for what a cult is. It clearly describes the fact that a mind-control cult is about control and deception. Cults can be about religion (mormonism, scientology). They can be about a business (amway, young living). They can be about an idea or philosophy (EST, landmark).

An essential hallmark of mind-control cults is that the people in them DO NOT KNOW THEY ARE IN A CULT.

Therefore, of course cults have nice people, smart people, sincere people, non-threatening people. Of course these people freak out when their organization is called a cult. They don't know they are in a cult and they are defensive.

It is easy on that site to check off the key points of a mind-control cult. If a group exhibits a key point, it is most probably a mind-control cult. Mormonism exhibits nearly all of the characteristics in frightening detail.

I consider mormonism to be perhaps one of the MOST dangerous cults, simply because of its slick, polished Madison Ave. image of being merely another mainstream religion.

The word "cult" is frankly too dirty and ambiguous a word, and it causes problems when used as a descriptor, but unfortunately there just isn't another word (yet) that can convey the characteristics of a mind-control cult.

In the meantime, I for one will continue to use the word cult alongside any discussion of mormonism at every opportunity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 12:42PM by rodolfo.

You see, I don't think cult is really that ambiguous of a word. The dictionary definition tends to paint all religions as cults, but cult experts (not howcultswork.com) tend to be very specific with the use of the term.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2011 12:24AM by cultfree.

posting moved to end of thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2011 12:29AM by cultfree.

All religions are NOT cults because all religions do not deliberately lie, nor do all religions have as their central goal to control minds.

We need a word to describe an organization like mormonism that will accurately convey their beliefs and practices. The standard dictionary definition is too broad I agree, hence the addition of "mind-control."

howcultswork.com provides a checklist of characteristics common to dangerous, damaging mind-control groups.

I do not give a shit if this matches some formal definition IF whatever word ends up defining it can convey accurately to the general public what mormonism really is unambiguously. This is where mormons play the "not a cult" card successfully by muddying the waters and confining the definition to compound-living-hippies, or some other fringe idea.

If people match mormonism up with the list of characteristics it will match exactly. Any method and any word I can use to get as many people as possible in out of mormonism to compare the lists, I will do so. I do not care if the word is not technically accurate or if other religions can or should also be included.

This is like asking if Al-Qaida is technically Wahhabi-ism or not before telling people to beware of them.

"I do not give a shit if this matches some formal definition"

Perhaps you don't. Clearly I do.

"This is where mormons play the "not a cult" card successfully"

Mormons don't do this, the very word has been ambiguous well outside of Mormonism for a long time. We can't blame them for it.

"If people match mormonism up with the list of characteristics it will match exactly."

Not really, no. Perhaps if you match it up to the very, very, broad howcultswork.com it will, but not if you match it up against the BD's or the Moonies.

"Any method and any word I can use to get as many people as possible in out of mormonism to compare the lists, I will do so"

...and that is fine. I support your goal. We clearly have different goals. I'm much more interested in something like a general study of cult characteristics than I am about helping Mormons out of Mormonism.

Your goal isn't any less valid than mine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 02:40PM by snb.

Snb writes, "Not really, no. Perhaps if you match it up to the very, very, broad howcultswork.com it will, but not if you match it up against the BD's or the Moonies." You should have added, "or the Mormons."

I think you have this breadth of definition idea reversed: YOU are using a very broad definition of "cult," e.g., appealing to one of the neutral dictionary definitions, which describes any breakaway sect of any group ever.* You even make the appeal in an earlier post on this thread that the idea of a destructive cult being one that deceives could apply to any "religious group, or business, or government," b/c what if any of them ever "does present the whole truth? None really do." So now the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders are the equivalent of the LDS church and it's not different from them. It's night and all the cows are black.

That's about as broad as one can get. So there's no need to play games about being the one using a specific definition of a cult while everyone else is going broad. What you mean is that you want to insist on the broadest possible definition, emptied of as much content as possible, and ignore the relevance of the specific definition of a cult as deceptive and destructive,* or, if it's applied to the Mormon church, then all groups are similarly deceptive and destructive. You are basically conducting apologetic sophistry.

Just because the word has multiple meanings and you can troll with the ambiguities doesn't mean the rest of us are fooled by such shenanigans or that we are incapable of disambiguating the innocuous sociological definition of the term that people like Jan Shipps operate with exclusively from the more sinister meaning of the term "cult." The word does very good work from both angles so long as one is clear about which meaning one is intending.

---
*How is it that despite the fact that the term obviously has currency in the language as a pejorative that one sometimes finds dictionaries that do not acknowledge that fact among the possible definitions of the word? It's not ambiguity; it's intellectual dishonesty at worst and blank omission and irresponsibility or simple laxity at best. English speaking people have been using the word "cult" in a pejorative sense for sometime, but for some reason some dictionary writers, some RFM posters, and some professional sociologists don't want to acknowledge that.

**"cult (kult) n. 1.a. 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." (American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd edition)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2011 03:42PM by derrida.

"e.g., appealing to one of the neutral dictionary definitions"

Actually, I'm not doing that. I'm fairly certain you don't understand my argument.

I am not using the dictionary definition. I am using a much narrower one. You are using a website that is neither professional, nor academic, nor useful.

"Just because the word has multiple meanings and you can troll with the ambiguities doesn't mean the rest of us are fooled by such shenanigans"

This was a friendly conversation before you made this comment. In fact, I was trying to find common ground and even agreed with you on plenty of things. However, now that you started the name calling, I'm unsure of why I actually continued arguing with you in the first place.

In the future I'll ignore you instead. People who resort to name calling are not worth my time. Neither are people who obviously know nothing about the subject matter.

All you are doing is trying to justify using the word cult to describe Mormonism. It is clearly an emotional reaction and not based on any actual thinking at all. Your inability to avoid calling me a troll is also an emotional reaction.

Show me one that does not lie.

Yeah, that's a misstep and a red herring. The real question is does one equate the People's Temple (Jim Jones) with the Red Cross (someone introduced the idea that ALL organizations lie), or does one equate the lies of the US Govt. to the lies of the LDS church? Does one equate the "lies" (not sure what they are) of the Unitarian Universalists with the demonstrable lying and deceptive recruiting of the LDS church?

It was nothing but a destructive force in my life. It took a long time for me to realize that, but once I did I got out rather quickly.

I have to say....that I absolutely love this board. You folks really say it like it is, and for the most part seem to have recovered fully!

I was never a Mormon,but ..... I was in a very similiar mind control cult (Church of Scientology)for over 10 years and escaped from it about 20 years ago. In fact, I would have entirely forgotten about them, but in 2008, the cult went and kicked the internet bee-hive called Anonymous.

Anonymous responded, both on the internet and in real life, by protesting the cult globally, with over 9000+ anons demonstrating at 100+ locations.

At about the same time (spring of 2008), the cult decided to try to "recover" everyone and anyone who had ever taken a course, or bought a book on scientology. So they ended up really irritating a LOT of people who had long since realized it was a scam, myself included.

Since then I regularly comment on newswebsites,blogs, etc....about the dangers of scientology.

Currently there is a petition at the US Whitehouse website, to get the Church of Scientology investigated by the Justice Dept/ FBI/ IRS.

There is currently a major push to obtain 5000 electronic signatures on this petition - that has just been put up on the US Whitehouse website. The petition has only been up for a few days, and it already has over 2500 signatures, another 2500 signatures are needed by October 24, 2011 in order for an official investigation to be initiated.

Please consider signing this petition, and help spread the word. And if you are considering a similiar petition, we can certainly work together!

This is quick and easy, and takes only 5 minutes. Only your first name and last initial will show up on the petition. Here is the website:


http://wh.gov/4Os

Or the longer URL:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#! - then click on "open petitions"(top of page) - then type in scientology in the search bar, and it will take you directly to that petition.