We Are A Christian Cult

[Ariarates]

A few years ago I had a discussion with our CES-guy and asked him what he thought about the church being labeled a cult. He said: “Obviously, according to some definitions, we are. So what?”

Since that time I looked into the issue a bit deeper and I would like to share some of my findings with you, since it seems to be a current topic in the US.

But first, the issue of whether we are Christians. Well duh, of course we are. We may not be mainstream Christians (we reject many orthodox Christian dogmas and most Christians, in turn, reject many of our core beliefs ) but we are Christians nonetheless. The difference is in degree, not in kind.

As far as the cult-issue is concerned, I came across a website that has grouped various definitions of cults in three categories: theological, sociological and psychological.

Theologically speaking, the website defines a cult as a group that fits in a wider tradition but differs from that tradition on several key points of doctrine. I think this is a useful definition because it merely emphasizes differences rather than judging who is right or wrong. In this sense, I have no problem with Mormonism being labeled a cult, as long as it is understood that we are a part of the wider tradition of Christianity (see above).

From a sociological point of view, the site leans heavily on Stark & Bainbridge’s idea that there are no clear distinctions between “cults” and “churches”. Instead, it’s more like a scale: religious organizations all have cult-like and church-like characteristics to varying degrees, depending on their developmental stage. From what I have read in Stark & Bainbridge's "Theory of Religion", I’d say that our church, being relatively young and small, still has a considerable number of cult-like characteristics. Does that make us a cult in the sociological sense? Not really, because sociologists wouldn’t apply such a label.

The psychological perspective focuses on the symmetry of the relationship between the individual and the group, or the member and the church. In our church, this relationship is rather asymmetrical; to most of us, the church is “bigger than we are”. We tend to “follow our leaders” in a top-down, hierarchical way. That opens the door to the kinds of abuses that D&C 121 warns against. To the extent that these abuses, unfortunately, do occur, the church has a cult-like impact on the affected individuals.

As far as I can tell, the psychological perspective is the one that most often does the rounds on the internet. There are several “lists” of “cult characteristics” and plenty of disengaged members who apply such lists to their own negative experiences. While I do not wish to diminish these personal experiences, a disadvantage of this approach, imo, is that it doesn’t systematically tell us something about “the” psychological impact of “the” church on “the” individual. I have not found any studies that address this matter methodically.

Another disadvantage of such a balanced approach is that you can apply these definitions to many churches and, indeed, non-religious organizations and institutions. And that brings us to the 64,000-dollar question: how useful is applying labels anyway?

[CV75]

And that brings us to the 64,000-dollar question: how useful is applying labels anyway?

I would say the more broadly-accepted the criteria for a label, and the more "intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer” it is, the more useful it is. Any criterion that is developed by a sub-group is helpful only to that sub-group and those that might understand what it is trying to convey, and the more explanation it requires, the less useful it is for the rest of the population, or to use it in engaging the rest of the population. Obviously the more parochial the subgroup, the less useful the application of labels becomes as well.

[Storm Rider]

It is a level-headed approach to the term cult;however, the term is a slur when used by most religious groups when demeaning other churches. It will always be a slur until it is abandonned by them in place of other more accurate, clear terminology like "baby-eaters", "satanists", "demented polygamists", or the ever kind, "they are definitely moral people, but they worship a different Jesus".

[thesometimesaint]

Being a sociologist I have a bias.

[Deborah]

I think the issue isn't with the definition so much as with what people think of when they hear the word cult. Jim Jones and Waco come to mind. It's like the word gay, which once had a specific meaning to being carefree and happy and now has a totally different meaning when people hear it, to the point we don't use it in it's original meaning anymore. Parsing the word cult is like parsing the word Christian; it only serves to continue the argument.

[One Clear Voice]

I think the issue isn't with the definition so much as with what people think of when they hear the word cult. Jim Jones and Waco come to mind. It's like the word gay, which once had a specific meaning to being carefree and happy and now has a totally different meaning when people hear it, to the point we don't use it in it's original meaning anymore. Parsing the word cult is like parsing the word Christian; it only serves to continue the argument.

Sadly when we proclaim our religion to be the only True religion upon the earth, this not only offends all the other religions but it is very threatening to their very existance!

[Deborah]

Sadly when we proclaim our religion to be the only True religion upon the earth, this not only offends all the other religions but it is very threatening to their very existance!

Actually we proclaim to be the one true church. There is a difference. We accept that many churches teach truth to one degree or another. However, we claim to be the only church that has Priesthood Authority to act in the name of God. They may not like that but it's the same claim the Catholics make.

I often hear this argument, but the interesting thing is when I had the missionary lessons many years ago I wasn't told that my church was false but I was taught what Mormons believed. Since I'd already rejected many of the ideas (particularly their teaching on the Godhead) at that time I was ready to hear the truth. I wasn't offended when I heard the truth, just happy I had finally found it. I think most people who get the missionary lessons are already looking for something more and know something is missing from their own church.

[One Clear Voice]

Actually we proclaim to be the one true church. There is a difference. We accept that many churches teach truth to one degree or another. However, we claim to be the only church that has Priesthood Authority to act in the name of God. They may not like that but it's the same claim the Catholics make.

I often hear this argument, but the interesting thing is when I had the missionary lessons many years ago I wasn't told that my church was false but I was taught what Mormons believed. Since I'd already rejected many of the ideas (particularly their teaching on the Godhead) at that time I was ready to hear the truth. I wasn't offended when I heard the truth, just happy I had finally found it. I think most people who get the missionary lessons are already looking for something more and know something is missing from their own church.

Deborah, I agree completely. I also stand corrected. I believe all religions have goodness in them!

[Calm]

If this is the definition of theological cult, there is a perfectly worthy word already in existence that not only means the same thing but is understood so no one has to explain what it is not as is the case for theological cult. That word is heretic.

And if one wants to avoid what baggage that word has, another easily understood word is unorthodox.

So what is the advantage? Most likely it is the connotations associated with "cult"....one can use a pejorative term but then proclaim one's innocence just as Jeffress did.

Edited October 16, 2011 by calmoriah

[Ariarates]

Being a sociologist I have a bias.

Did you read Stark & Bainbridge? I tried to find follow-up literature but it seems very little has been done with their "Theory of Religion" since it first appeared in the 1980s. Or is it generally accepted now?

[Ariarates]

Parsing the word cult is like parsing the word Christian; it only serves to continue the argument.

I'm not sure what "parsing" means but I do agree that it's a lot of semantics. Still, even if a better word is found, I guess it will soon become politically incorrect as well. I´m more interested in the underlying issues myself and am not put off by the word cult per se (we use the word "sect" in my language).

[erichard]

...

The psychological perspective focuses on the symmetry of the relationship between the individual and the group, or the member and the church. In our church, this relationship is rather asymmetrical; to most of us, the church is “bigger than we are”. We tend to “follow our leaders” in a top-down, hierarchical way. That opens the door to the kinds of abuses that D&C 121 warns against. To the extent that these abuses, unfortunately, do occur, the church has a cult-like impact on the affected individuals.

...

Hi Ariarates,

Which is why I would like to explore on this board all the scriptural and other evidences that individuals should have, and do have, a God-given right of dissent over decisions and teachings of the church leadership. And how the church should correctly go about dealing with such dissent.

Since my efforts are always immediately squashed, my suspicion that something is wrong in the church is only intensified.

When I look at the FLDS (and I grew up in Southern Utah and have known these people all my life) I see a people that have given into the idea that God guarantees that their one top leader is always doing His will-- there is no basis for any dissent. They just throw you out if you even question Warren Jeffs. They used to believe that their Council of Seven had to all be in agreement, but eventually the head of this council was set up as being beyond questioning.

The LDS church is not as crazy as the FLDS by any means, but it remains disturbing that any dissent over the Church President is always seen as automatic apostasy. You keep it up and they throw you out. Those who defend the Church President against any dissent feel like they are defending the church and the gospel, but it sure seems to me what they really are doing is the politics of men. I am convinced that the scriptures do not support a personality cult trust of any member, not even the church President.

Richard

Edited October 16, 2011 by erichard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

Disagreement in any of itdself is not Apostasy. Refusing counsel, and publically speaking against the Church and/or its mission is. We have well established channels by which to disagree with any leader in the Church.

[erichard]

erichard:

Disagreement in any of itdself is not Apostasy. Refusing counsel, and publically speaking against the Church and/or its mission is. We have well established channels by which to disagree with any leader in the Church.

Hi tss,

As an experiment, why don't you go to your local bishop and say that you have decided to NOT sustain President Monson. Have some good reason. Possibly you could say that you believe the church should have had common consent voting by all members in 1978 BEFORE church leadership ended the ban. Come back and tell us how your Bishop took this. If he accepts your right to have dissent then tell us. If he does not, then tell us.

Richard

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

I ask myself quite regularly if I sustain President Monson along with all my other general and local authorities. So far the answer has always been yes I do. So for me it would be illogical to do as you suggest. OTOH there was a Church policy that which I have disagreed with. I successsfully got that policy changed. I just used proper channels to voice my disagreement. I would rather not go into specifics as that would identify me beyond which I'm not willing to go.

[Vance]

I like the term "non-Creedal". It is accurate and concise. It also has the benefit of making some of the religious bigots apoplectic.

[ldsfaqs]

The "Theological Cult" term is a new one, a way for the anti-mormons to make themselves sound less like bigots, so they try to redefine the term.

Further, the whole thing is a straw-man and fallacy from the get go. Even if we are supposed to accept the new term, it still doesn't change the intent and the ideology's and behaviors behind it. No matter how one cuts the Cheese, anti-mormonism is wrong from both a moral and Biblical perspective.

Christ in Mark 9 and Luke 9 specifically condemns the actions. As those chapters indicate, even if we are the outsiders, the so-called unorthodox, the unauthorized, the false, Christ makes clear in those chapters that EVEN US ARE HIS. He directly states that those who offend and try to destroy the Faith of even those children of His, it's better they cut that offending part off, and if they don't, then not only will that part end up in Hell, but their entire being will end up in Hell.

You can't get more clear and direct than that. Christ makes clear the issue at hand is outsiders, people without the authority, people not with the Church, but people who simply believe. Every aspect that can apply to LDS or anyone who is the so-called outsider or "unorthodox". Thus, Christ is directly condemning anti-ism. I'm grateful that in the latter-day Church God has made this principle even more clear when he said "contend against no Church save the Church of the Devil". But, most "Christians" don't actually know their Bibles, if they did, they would recognize the truth and God's doctrines and Church from it. But they don't, they just follow whatever interpretation the religion they are in claims, and see nothing else.

[Storm Rider]

The "Theological Cult" term is a new one, a way for the anti-mormons to make themselves sound less like bigots, so they try to redefine the term.

Further, the whole thing is a straw-man and fallacy from the get go. Even if we are supposed to accept the new term, it still doesn't change the intent and the ideology's and behaviors behind it. No matter how one cuts the Cheese, anti-mormonism is wrong from both a moral and Biblical perspective.

Christ in Mark 9 and Luke 9 specifically condemns the actions. As those chapters indicate, even if we are the outsiders, the so-called unorthodox, the unauthorized, the false, Christ makes clear in those chapters that EVEN US ARE HIS. He directly states that those who offend and try to destroy the Faith of even those children of His, it's better they cut that offending part off, and if they don't, then not only will that part end up in Hell, but their entire being will end up in Hell.

You can't get more clear and direct than that. Christ makes clear the issue at hand is outsiders, people without the authority, people not with the Church, but people who simply believe. Every aspect that can apply to LDS or anyone who is the so-called outsider or "unorthodox". Thus, Christ is directly condemning anti-ism. I'm grateful that in the latter-day Church God has made this principle even more clear when he said "contend against no Church save the Church of the Devil". But, most "Christians" don't actually know their Bibles, if they did, they would recognize the truth and God's doctrines and Church from it. But they don't, they just follow whatever interpretation the religion they are in claims, and see nothing else.

There is room in scripture for proving those that are false. Revelation 2 states, ",,,and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" The problem is that trying those who profess to be apostles is a face-to-face environment. The apostle has come to them and attempted to act as an apostle. In addition, the apostle has lied about something, but there is not an explanation about what he has lied.

Regardless, these actions in no way overcome the Great Commission to preach the gospel to the whole world. Anti-Mormons have forgotten the teachings of Christ; they have confused his priorities en toto.

Whereas I can understand how they might be confused about priorities, it does not excuse them for their actions. In the end, it really does not matter what they do or what they say. The Gospel of Jesus Christ will roll forth and encompass the whole earth. Their actions do nothing to slow down anything God has chosen to do.

[Rob Bowman]

ldsfaqs,

You wrote:

The "Theological Cult" term is a new one, a way for the anti-mormons to make themselves sound less like bigots, so they try to redefine the term.

Really? How new do you claim this definition is?

Walter Martin's 1955 book The Rise of the Cults defined cults as groups that "adhere to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origins to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources" (11-12). Arthur H. Barrington in 1898 published a book entitled Anti-Christian Cults: An attempt to show that Spiritualism, Theosophy, and Christian Science are devoid of supernatural powers and are contrary to the Christian religion. So this theological usage has been around well over a century.

I have more thoughts about the term cult, but I'm about to board my plane out of Salt Lake City. I will mention -- and elaborate on this later -- that at the Compassionate Boldness Conference this weekend, I and other presenters stated categorically that we prefer not to use the term cult in the theological sense at all, even though many evangelicals still do. We feel that the theological sense has been overwhelmed by the sociological and psychological use popularized in the media ever since Jonestown, making it very difficult to use the term theologically without misunderstanding. But that usage is not "bigoted."

[Storm Rider]

ldsfaqs,

You wrote:

Really? How new do you claim this definition is?

Walter Martin's 1955 book The Rise of the Cults defined cults as groups that "adhere to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origins to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources" (11-12). Arthur H. Barrington in 1898 published a book entitled Anti-Christian Cults: An attempt to show that Spiritualism, Theosophy, and Christian Science are devoid of supernatural powers and are contrary to the Christian religion. So this theological usage has been around well over a century.

I have more thoughts about the term cult, but I'm about to board my plane out of Salt Lake City. I will mention -- and elaborate on this later -- that at the Compassionate Boldness Conference this weekend, I and other presenters stated categorically that we prefer not to use the term cult in the theological sense at all, even though many evangelicals still do. We feel that the theological sense has been overwhelmed by the sociological and psychological use popularized in the media ever since Jonestown, making it very difficult to use the term theologically without misunderstanding. But that usage is not "bigoted."

The term cult is certainly a power-packed term that carries a great deal of baggage. It does seem to be most often used as a slur and a way to demean the religious practice of another human being. Is the use of such term biggoted? I guess that would depend upon on the usage; it is definitely offensive to most of those it is used against.

Regardless, I strongly agree with you that its usage should be minimized when discussing religions as a whole.

[Rob Bowman]

Some more thoughts about the term cult.

In a book published in 1992 entitled Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment, I advocated that evangelicals stop using the term cult in a theological sense. Here's what I said (pp. 113-14):

What do you think of when you hear the word cult? Chances are that you think of an oppressive religious group with a dictatorial leadership that practices a severe form of mind control over its members. Such cults do exist, of course, and they are of concern to everyone, including non-Christians.

However, evangelical Protestants tend to use the word cult to refer to both such socially and psychologically destructive groups and other groups that may be more socially acceptable. Often evangelicals call a group a cult if it espouses heresy, regardless of its social character. Obviously, this can be confusing to people, and unnecessarily offensive to members of such theological “cults.”

My recommendation is that Christians avoiding labeling groups as cults unless they fit the usual sociological and psychological profile of a cult as understood even by non-Christians. Of course, if such a group also espouses heresy, it will be a cult in that theological sense as well. But in my judgment using the word cult to refer to socially mainstream religious groups that espouse heresy is counterproductive.

When referring to religious groups that teach heresy but are socially more or less in the mainstream, I prefer to call them heretical sects or unorthodox groups. These labels are more descriptive and less prejudicial than the label of cult. Of course, no one likes being called unorthodox or a heretic. But you stand a better chance of being understood using these expressions than if you call them cultists.

By no means do I advocate backing off calling a group a cult if they deserve the label. Some religions are cults in the most sinister sense possible. But you will rarely gain a hearing if you call someone’s religion a cult to their face. They are likely to think that they cannot be a cult because they know very well that they are normal people who joined their religion freely, who love their families, and who live responsible lives in their communities.

For that matter, it does little good to use labels at all when confronting people in false religious systems. It is better to be as descriptive and nonabrasive in your language as possible. But if you are asked for your assessment of a group, you should not hesitate to call it cultic or heretical or apostate if the shoe fits. The principle to follow in all such situations is to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

Edited October 18, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[3DOP]

I guess this is all about modern living language. I am glad I am a member of a church that utilizes a "dead language" so that what was said a thousand years ago means the same thing two thousand years from now. Anybody who wants to be part of a movement that can outlast your own generation might give that idea some thought.

If I am not mistaken, it is only in recent years that the term "cult" has been employed to signify crazy people. But it is useless in that there is not universal agreement on who is crazy. I can now find books about my faith in the "cult section" of some book stores. It is pathetic how stupid it is. I am truly sorry they are so ignorant. There are over a billion baptized members of my "cult" worldwide and the people who think my particular belief is "cultish" (in the modern sense) might number 1% of that . When you consider that the billion plus baptized are associated with a belief system that has said the same things for two thousand years, it seems unnecessary to even argue with some loon who has the ignorant audacity to think they can somehow categorize my faith outside of Christianity. If it weren't for the change in meaning over the last fifiteen or twenty years, I wouldn't care if somebody said I was in a cult. Who wasn't fifty years ago? Living languages stink.

I am sorry that some tiny, miniscule minority of people on earth now, who represent nobody who ever lived in the past, think they are comepetent to categorize as a "cult" those who believe what has been passed from generation to generation for 20 centuries. What can I do about it? They won't listen. Okay, I am in a cult. If anti-Catholics are not a cult, what are they? The way the word is used now just means anybody with whom you disagree.

Whatever.

Edited October 18, 2011 by 3DOP

[Calm]

If anti-Catholics are not a cult, what are they? .

You know, now that you mention it the argument could be made probably just as strong using their own definitions for exactly this. As I mentioned before they appeal to an "authorized body" to determine what is and isn't an orthodox belief or practice and I don't see another 'body' around more 'authorized' by either numbers/popularity or history. Any authority based on truth claims has demonstrate those truth claims and this is not possible to do in a way where all involve agree, so again outside of any organization speaking to it's own believers it seems to me when determining what is and isn't orthodox the Catholic faith wins hands down, the Orthodox being the only challenger based on longevity.

Edited October 18, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It would be so cool if we were all bilingual, having one very precise language set in stone in regards to meaning, spelling and pronunciation...all legal, business and academic communication would take place in the 'dead' language and any other communication where you wanted to limit miscommunication but you would have a second language to play with for literary purposes and just for fun and this one could change like language pretty much always does.

Unfortunately since context affects how we perceive language and context is always changing (the world that Latin was created in is not identical to the world today even within the Church's walls) I suspect that even Latin can't meet this ideal though it probably comes the closest of any language in use these days.

I think there is something absolutely profound about men in 2011 using the identical language to worship God not only throughout the world, but but for millennium. Definitely I envy that sense of a continuous community of worship.

Edited October 19, 2011 by calmoriah

[Garden Girl]

I am sorry that some tiny, miniscule minority of people on earth now, who represent nobody who ever lived in the past, think they are comepetent to categorize as a "cult" those who believe what has been passed from generation to generation for 20 centuries. What can I do about it? They won't listen. Okay, I am in a cult. If anti-Catholics are not a cult, what are they? The way the word is used now just means anybody with whom you disagree.

Whatever.

Maddening isn't it... I feel the same way being told I'm not a Christian, and our faith is also a cult..

What gets me is that the traditional view of the Trinity was the product of a council of men... priests... who gathered together to debate the nature of God. There was discension and a number of priests walked out because they didn't agree with the concept of the Trinity... but the majority held for that, and so we have it today... Who gave them the authority to decide for the world what/who God was... anyway, we are told we aren't Christian because we don't follow that concept...

Whatever...

GG