Oh No! We'S A Cult! Follow Up.

[MatthewG]

Follow up article written by an Evangelical with some very important points about "Cults" and why the LDS Church isn't one of them.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/09/my-take-this-evangelical-says-mormonism-isnt-a-cult/

I think this is one of the most important points the author makes to distinguish that we are not a cult:

Religious cults are very much us-versus-them. Their adherents are taught to think that they are the only ones who benefit from divine approval. They don’t like to engage in serious, respectful give-and-take dialogue with people with whom they disagree.

Are we Christians to the author? That's another topic apparently:

While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.

This guy apparently is one of the few good guys out there, unlike the at the SBC who cause this issue recently.

[Calm]

You were doing so well at keeping to the topic and avoiding personal attacks right up until the very end.....just hang on just a little longer next time, I'm sure you can endure to the end in this effort.

PS: the topic is also being discussed in In The News.

Edited October 10, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Richard Mouw does seem like a good man.

He was the one who got up in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and apologized to LDS for the way Evangelicals have sinned against us. He must have known he would take a huge amount of flak for doing so. It was very brave and very generous and kind of him to do so in my opinion.

For those interested in more detail, here is his talk: http://www.beliefnet...gainst-You.aspx

I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.

We have made much of the need to provide you with a strong defense of traditional Christian convictions, regularly quoting the Apostle Peter's mandate that we present to people like you a reasoned account of the hope that lies with in us-but we have not been careful to follow the same Apostle's counsel that immediately follows that mandate, when he tells us that we must always make our case with "gentleness and reverence" toward those with whom we are speaking. Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is "really" trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best, we have-and this is true of both of our communities-we have talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts of what the other group believes.

Edited October 10, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

Richard Mouw does seem like a good man.

He was the one who got up in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and apologized to LDS for the way Evangelicals have sinned against us. He must have known he would take a huge amount of flak for doing so. It was very brave and very generous and kind of him to do so in my opinion.

For those interested in more detail, here is his talk: http://www.beliefnet...gainst-You.aspx

Good for him. Wish more EV leaders had that attitude.

Pejorative labels such as "cult" or "anti-mormon" serve no purpose in civil discourse.

Anyone who would throw around such a label is not interested in fostering common understanding, but just wants to throw stones.

[Zakuska]

Good for him. Wish more EV leaders had that attitude.

Pejorative labels such as "cult" or "anti-mormon" serve no purpose in civil discourse.

Anyone who would throw around such a label is not interested in fostering common understanding, but just wants to throw stones.

Well yur an anti-Mormon Jaybear.

[ldsfaqs]

Good for him. Wish more EV leaders had that attitude.

Pejorative labels such as "cult" or "anti-mormon" serve no purpose in civil discourse.

Anyone who would throw around such a label is not interested in fostering common understanding, but just wants to throw stones.

I don't agree. "Anti-mormon" is a descriptive term to describe a particular "type" of action and behavior, i.e individual.

Usage of the word "critic" is inappropriate to me, because not all critics are anti-mormons. For example, I'm critical of other religions, but I'm certainly not "anti" other religions. I don't do anything that anti-mormons do to my faith toward other religions.

Anti-mormon belongs because it's descriptive of a a particular type of "bigot".

On the other hand, calling Mormons a "cult" is completely false an inaccurate to the traditional and normative definition and meaning of the term.

Thus, your trying to use the two as if they are exactly the same "kind" of "wrong" thing, is a complete fallacy and false.

Now, if a mormon went around calling other Christians "Devil Worshipers", then you would have an equal and accurate comparison, compared to them calling us a cult.

Get it?

[Calm]

If one expands the definition of anti-Mormon to include a broader range of behaviors such that even individuals like Mudcat fall under its umbrella, I think one is doing pretty much the same thing, playing with the traditional definition of the word to suit one's polemical purposes.

If one uses caution in using the term in strict accordance with its definition, I think the word has value; value that is extremely diluted when used inappropriately. Unfortunately it has been used inappropriately often enough that it has acquired connotations that are difficult to overcome, but this should restrict its usage to those cases that actually fit with those negative connotations to avoid using a word that many feel is pejorative against those who don't deserve to be painted with those nuances that have attached themselves to the word.

I do not think that one has to be a bigot to be anti-Mormon though many anti-Mormons are in my experience There are valid reasons in my opinion for believing LDS are wrong and therefore working against the spread of the faith. If one hasn't received a spiritual witness of the truth of the LDS faith and believes one has received such a witness of its falseness, it makes sense that if one feels the LDS faith is leading people astray from the Lord one would work against it (even though I believe they are fundamentally wrong in their understanding). Of course, the most effective method in my view would to simply share the gospel to the best of one's own understanding, this would avoid falling into error by giving false witness if one doesn't truly understand LDS doctrine and practices.

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

I don't agree. "Anti-mormon" is a descriptive term to describe a particular "type" of action and behavior, i.e individual.

"Cult" is a descriptive term to describe a particular "type" of organization, ie a specific church.

Anti-mormon belongs because it's descriptive of a a particular type of "bigot".

Not coincidentally, the term "bigot", like "cult," and "anti-mormon" is also a pejorative term. Calling someone someone a bigot also detracts from a civil discourse.

On the other hand, calling Mormons a "cult" is completely false an inaccurate to the traditional and normative definition and meaning of the term.

Technically, one could have a discussion, beginning with the definition of "cult", of whether Mormonism is a cult. Just as we have had discussion here, beginning with a disputed definition of "anti-mormon", as to whether an individual is an "anti-mormon."

We could also define the term "fat" and have a discussion here about whether certain posters here are in fact "fat."

But to what end? What purpose would be served by a national discussion of whether Mormonism is a cult?

Thus, your trying to use the two as if they are exactly the same "kind" of "wrong" thing, is a complete fallacy and false.

They are both pejorative terms. As such, when used, they detract from a civil discussion.

Some people are not interested in engaging in a civil discussion, but in tarring an adversary. If that is your objective, then feel free to call people anti-mormon.

Get it?

Yes. I get where you and others here are coming from. You don't believe Mormonism is a cult. Ergo, calling someone a mormon is rude and discourteous, because its NOT TRUE.

Calling someone a "bigot", or an "antimormon," is not rude and discourteous IF ITS TRUE. In that case they are simply a "descriptive terms."

Telling yourself its not rude if its true, is your way to rationalize your desire to call people names.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that in a civil conversation, characterizing your opponent in pejorative terms, TRUE OR NOT, is best left unsaid.

[Daniel Peterson]

"Cult" is a descriptive term to describe a particular "type" of organization, ie a specific church.

It's doubtful, though, that cult, used in this sense, is sufficiently well-defined to be anything more than a pejorative term. What precise content does it convey?

I argue -- I have argued -- that it conveys little or none, that it offers no more cognitive substance that does an expletive or a grunt.

Not coincidentally, the term "bigot", like "cult," and "anti-mormon" is also a pejorative term. Calling someone someone a bigot also detracts from a civil discourse.

And yet there are cases where it is precisely accurate, even necessary.

Bigot and anti-Mormon have discernible content. They are not worthless simply because they also carry a pejorative charge.

One of the major problems with cult is that it has the appearance of factuality but can't sustain that appearance under scrutiny.

What purpose would be served by a national discussion of whether Mormonism is a cult?

Very little. Particularly of any relevance to electing a chief executive for the United States. And especially when measured against the harm and ill-feeling it would (will) generate.

Telling yourself its not rude if its true, is your way to rationalize your desire to call people names.

I don't feel it rude to describe the American Nazi Party as anti-Semitic nor the Ku Klux Klan as racist and bigoted.

I feel no particular urge to "call people names," but I'm also not embarrassed to say that Bull Connor and James Earl Ray were racists.

I believe that in a civil conversation, characterizing your opponent in pejorative terms, TRUE OR NOT, is best left unsaid.

I disagree. There are certainly contexts in which such words would be inappropriate or, at least, not particularly useful. But there are other situations where such words are virtually demanded.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

The word "Cult" has specific meanings. Within the context of religion it is #1, #2, and possibly #4. All those apply to ALL rel

Cult

   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA

noun

1.

a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.

an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

   /kʌlt/ physical fitness cult.

3.

the object of such devotion.

4.

a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.

Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

That some EV's use it as a pejoritive to inflame their followers is at it very best poor English.

Edited October 11, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Zakuska]

C.S. Lewis once observed, "Once we allow people to start spiritualizing and refining, or as they might say 'deepening' the sense of the word Christian...it will become a useless word....It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge...It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian."

[Jaybear]

It's doubtful, though, that cult, used in this sense, is sufficiently well-defined to be anything more than a pejorative term. What precise content does it convey?

I argue -- I have argued -- that it conveys little or none, that it offers no more cognitive substance that does an expletive or a grunt.

I disagree. The term "cult" when used in reference to a religious organization, has a very clear and specific connotation to most people.

Bigot and anti-Mormon have discernible content. They are not worthless simply because they also carry a pejorative charge.

I did not say the terms were "worthless." I made two points:

1. The term is pejoritive, as you seem to agree.

2. Characterizing someone you disagree with as an "anti-mormon" or "bigot" or cult member is not conducive to a civil discussion.

Please don't overstate my argument.

One of the major problems with cult is that it has the appearance of factuality but can't sustain that appearance under scrutiny.

I am sure those that use the term freely, would disagree with you. I suspect that they could even construct a list of factors to help them and others discern whether a specific organization is or is not a cult.

I don't feel it rude to describe the American Nazi Party as anti-Semitic nor the Ku Klux Klan as racist and bigoted.

Context. Under what scenario would you be inviting the American Nazi Party to sit down and engage in a civil discussion of issues that matter to both of you?

Mitt Romney was invited by evangelicals to participate in the Value Voters Summit. It was rude and inappropriate for an evangelical to use that forum to accuse Romney of belonging to a cult.

I feel no particular urge to "call people names," but I'm also not embarrassed to say that Bull Connor and James Earl Ray were racists.

I don't disagree. I consider Brigham Young to be a racist, and have said so.

However, if I were engaging Brigham Young in a civil conversation, I would not call him a racist.

I disagree. There are certainly contexts in which such words would be inappropriate or, at least, not particularly useful. But there are other situations where such words are virtually demanded.

Then we agree. Context is important.

Can you cite an example of how calling your opponent an "anti-Mormon" on this forum, was conducive to furthering a civil dialogue with him/her?

[Calm]

I disagree. The term "cult" when used in reference to a religious organization, has a very clear and specific connotation to most people.

And yet Jeffress was required to state what his use of "cult" meant by not only telling us that he meant "theological cult" but then he had to state how he defined that term. If it has such a clear and specific connotation why was he forced to give more info to be understood?

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

And yet Jeffress was required to state what his use of "cult" meant by not only telling us that he meant "theological cult" but then he had to state how he defined that term. If it has such a clear and specific connotation why was he forced to give more info to be understood?

The point being that he had a specific meaning of the term in mind, and wasn't merely issuing an "expletive" or "grunting" as Peterson claims.

[Zakuska]

The point being that he had a specific meaning of the term in mind, and wasn't merely issuing an "expletive" or "grunting" as Peterson claims.

He had a specific meaning but he knew good an well that the more general and scinister meaning is what the general voting public would be what was percieved. He farted in the Jacuzii and left the stench behind.

[frankenstein]

And yet Jeffress was required to state what his use of "cult" meant by not only telling us that he meant "theological cult" but then he had to state how he defined that term. If it has such a clear and specific connotation why was he forced to give more info to be understood?

The point being that he had a specific meaning of the term in mind, and wasn't merely issuing an "expletive" or "grunting" as Peterson claims.

He knew his audience, those he spoke primarily too, whether by name or not, he knew his audience. And those who he spoke too, knew what he was saying.

That he "was required" to explain to persons to whom he was not speaking too, is of little concern, as the more important issue is whether those to whom he was speaking knew.

Its like this is could say "I went to the steak building, and saw the SP, EQP, and Exec Sec, sat next to them and we feasted." I could be speaking to a mixed audience, but I am really only speaking to those who understand what I am saying.

The "religious" folk who heard him speak, would most certainly understand the theological application of the term "cult". Any explaination "required" later is for the non-religious who are not accustomed to the theological application of the term cult.

[Calm]

The point being that he had a specific meaning of the term in mind, and wasn't merely issuing an "expletive" or "grunting" as Peterson claims.

When there is another word available without the extreme pejorative connotation attached----in this case "heretic" which is used to define "theological cult" in the several references I checked in the past couple of days---that would not require the additional clarification the preferred term does, then it would appear that the reason for the preference is the pejorativeness or "stench" the word carries with it, which does not move a discussion forward or anything else but create a foul odour in the room.

Add-on...

In my experience when people use expletives they have a very specific meaning in mind as well, this does not mean the word they use suddenly ceases to be an expletive nor does it mean the expletive is understood to have that meaning by others or that there is any intent on the speaker's part to convey that meaning.

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

IOW a Dog-whistle.

Dog-whistle politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a term for a type of political campaigning or speechmaking which employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience. The term is invariably pejorative, and is used to refer both to messages with an intentional subtext, and those where the existence or intent of a secondary meaning is disputed. The term is an analogy to dog whistles, which are built in such a way that the high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs, but appears silent to human hearing

[Jaybear]

When there is another word available without the extreme pejorative connotation attached----in this case "heretic" which is used to define "theological cult" in the several references I checked in the past couple of days---that would not require the additional clarification the preferred term does, then it would appear that the reason for the preference is the pejorativeness or "stench" the word carries with it, which does not move a discussion forward or anything else but create a foul odour in the room.

I don't agree that any "clarification" was required. I know what he meant. Evangelicals knew what he meant. Zak knew what he meant. I suspect you knew what he meant.

Any reporter asking what he meant, was just hoping to stir the pot.

[Calm]

He knew his audience, those he spoke primarily too, whether by name or not, he knew his audience. And those who he spoke too, knew what he was saying.

The idea that he was talking to a limited audience...those that use the term exactly as he does...seems to be counteracted by his actions, first in that he he hung around the press waiting to be interviewed (reported by an individual at slate.com who observed him doing so) and then pretty much went on every interview he possibly could, including on stations not favored by his usual audience to repeat over and over what he said.

[Calm]

I don't agree that any "clarification" was required. I know what he meant. Evangelicals knew what he meant. Zak knew what he meant. I suspect you knew what he meant.

Any reporter asking what he meant, was just hoping to stir the pot.

You knew that he meant that Mormonism isn't a sociological cult, that instead it is a theological cult identified as heretical by it having a human founder, not Jesus Christ and had new revelation beyond the Bible?....no, I did not know that because of what I have read and heard from many anti cult sites. I thought he meant a sociological cult, something much more than just heretical, and all you have to do is look at the responses prior to his clarification as well as responses to his clarification to see that others assumed he meant something else as well.

Edited October 11, 2011 by calmoriah

[ldsfaqs]

Thank you Daniel for responding to Jaybear's comments to me. I entirely concur.

[Zakuska]

Romney Not Cultist, Fuller President Says Cautiously

As Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has become an issue in the GOP presidential nomination race prompting the Latter-day Saints to launch an ad campaign, the President of Fuller Theological Seminary Richard J. Mouw has declared, though cautiously, that Mormonism is not a cult.

“While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior,” Mouw, head of the Pasadena, Calif., seminary wrote in an article on CNN Sunday.

http://www.christian...utiously-57688/

Edited October 11, 2011 by Zakuska

[Hannah Rebekah]

Calmoriah,

You mentioned about a this pastor meant that Mormonism is a theological cult identified as heretical by it having a human founder, not Jesus Christ and had new revelation beyond the Bible?

If this pastor is a Southern Baptist wouldn't they have a had a human founder (not Jesus Christ) at some point in history? For the life of me I just can't remember anywhere in the New Testament or that Old for that matter where we can find the "South Baptist Convention." And don't they have new revelation beyond the Bible in that they adopted the one Martin Luther or whomever...who took the Apocrypha (7 books) out of the existing Bible to make the Protestant Bible. The Bible had been canonized for well over 1,000 years before they did this and then they added some creeds. So wouldn't that count as believing in new revelation beyond the Bible?

Could you or someone else tell how the SBC got their start?

Thanks so much,

HR

[ldsfaqs]

Hi Hannah..... Not to sound sarcastic, just factual. But a quick Google search will immediately provide you with the answer, likely a Wikipedia article.