Is Mormon Culture Cult-Ish?

[canard78]

Hi,

 

I came across this survey the other day. I'd be really interested for you to take it based on one of two "mindsets" (or both if you have time).

 

The first is to take it based on Mormon cultural experience. There's the current thread on Social doctrine vs Official doctrine with a discussion about white shirts being mandated in some areas. 

 

http://www.goodcultbadcult.com/assessment_loop.php?question=1

 

Could you take the test with your "actual experience" hat on. And then, if time allows, take it based on what's actually in the handbooks and taught from the pulpit. If you're lucky enough to be in a ward where there is no difference, great - take it like that.

 

I'm wondering whether we sometimes take something that is very simple, and over-complicate it.

 

I'd also be happy to discuss some of the criteria in this survey for a cult. I don't agree with all of them and I think the researcher behind it has a lot of bias. But I'd be interested in your results anyway.

 

Please just post your result below and then we can talk about it.

[BlueDreams]

I got a 28% which is categorized as low risk:

 

This result indicates a modest risk for manipulation. Some of the techniques used by the group may be cause for some concern, but is not necessarily a cause for alarm. 

This organization shares relatively little with controlling cults but does employ some methods found in some controlling organizations. 

We recommend you explore mind control techniques and compliance methods to protect yourself against possible abuses. 

 

 

I'm not sure what mind control and compliance methods are. I'm pretty content not trying them though. My problem with measuring LDS culture by this is one of perspective and personality. I'm already non-compliant, will listen if I agree, and naturally question. I don't feel the same sort of cultural obligation that others may be more inclined to feel. If it doesn't make sense or can't see positive reasoning for it, I'm not likely to comply and there's not any definable repercussions because my personality isn't exactly hidden.

 

A person who find the LDS church/culture more restricting could technically be in the exact same ward as me and have a completely different view of things that appears more polarized and stereotyped and thus get a higher score....not because either of our views accurately depicts it, but because our role and interaction within the structure is very very different. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

I got a 28% which is categorized as low risk:

 

 

I'm not sure what mind control and compliance methods are. I'm pretty content not trying them though. My problem with measuring LDS culture by this is one of perspective and personality. I'm already non-compliant, will listen if I agree, and naturally question. I don't feel the same sort of cultural obligation that others may be more inclined to feel. If it doesn't make sense or can't see positive reasoning for it, I'm not likely to comply and there's not any definable repercussions because my personality isn't exactly hidden.

 

A person who find the LDS church/culture more restricting could technically be in the exact same ward as me and have a completely different view of things that appears more polarized and stereotyped and thus get a higher score....not because either of our views accurately depicts it, but because our role and interaction within the structure is very very different. 

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I find it interesting that they're still issuing a warning with a score of only 28%.

 

I agree that perception is a huge factor in influencing where you sit on this matrix. I picked the link up on another website where people said they were getting 70%+

 

(It's not a great research tool as it's basically a self-fulling-prophecy. If you feel the organisation exerts control over you, then you'll endorse it high on those attributes).

[pmccombs1]

I find it interesting that they're still issuing a warning with a score of only 28%.

 

I agree that perception is a huge factor in influencing where you sit on this matrix. I picked the link up on another website where people said they were getting 70%+

 

(It's not a great research tool as it's basically a self-fulling-prophecy. If you feel the organisation exerts control over you, then you'll endorse it high on those attributes).

 

Do you know who is behind this website and what their agenda is? It only mentions a book by Steve Hassan. Since it is not very forthcoming about its own history and motives, it already exhibits some of the "mind control" characteristics that it allegedly wishes to save us from. It offers potential salvation from "controlling, potentially harmful groups" based on a number of questions that create a measure allegedly "based on" some authority. At the end of the survey, it asks you to label a particular group.

 

Is this a legitimate survey? Is it a good measure of an institution, or is it measuring the person who answers the questions? What do you think?

[bluebell]

I got a 30%.

 

Many of the questions were very annoying, as they were written so that any religion in general would show up as 'some risk' to the adherent. 

[BlueDreams]

I find it interesting that they're still issuing a warning with a score of only 28%.

 

From reading about his book and the comments of those that really loved it.....plus the means of the questions I would assume the survey comes from a perspective belief-structure that is heavily individualistic. Instead of church put your national culture and I'd assume the results would be similar. He/the readers that enjoyed his book, put a value on feeling in control, having autonomy over community, etc. Not that individualism, control, etc are bad. But the balance has swung a little too far insomuch that any indication of conformity, valuing of collectivism, etc becomes equivalent to some form of mind control.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[teddyaware]

Hi,

 

I came across this survey the other day. I'd be really interested for you to take it based on one of two "mindsets" (or both if you have time).

 

The first is to take it based on Mormon cultural experience. There's the current thread on Social doctrine vs Official doctrine with a discussion about white shirts being mandated in some areas. 

 

http://www.goodcultbadcult.com/assessment_loop.php?question=1

 

Could you take the test with your "actual experience" hat on. And then, if time allows, take it based on what's actually in the handbooks and taught from the pulpit. If you're lucky enough to be in a ward where there is no difference, great - take it like that.

 

I'm wondering whether we sometimes take something that is very simple, and over-complicate it.

 

I'd also be happy to discuss some of the criteria in this survey for a cult. I don't agree with all of them and I think the researcher behind it has a lot of bias. But I'd be interested in your results anyway.

 

Please just post your result below and then we can talk about it.

I'm confident that if the apostolic era Church of Jesus Christ could somehow be transported to our time, attired in modern dress, and given the ability to competently speak the English language, this ancient church in modern dress would be considered by many non-LDS Christians to be a cult.

1 The Church would present itself as the only true and living Church.

2 The leaders would claim the right of continuous revelation and the right to add to the scriptures.

3 The leaders would claim to be the only men on earth with God's authority to lead Christ's Church.

4 The Church would make the claim it's organized and run like Christ's true apostolic church.

5 There would be claims of visitations by God, Christ and angels and claims of mighty visions.

6 The Church would boldly claim humans can ultimately become like God and sit in power upon His throne.

7 The Church would practice baptisms for the dead.

8 The Church would claim the gospel is preached to the spirits who were rebellious while on earth.

9 The Church would be accused of terror tactics in order to keep members in line.(see Acts 5:1-11)

10 Etc...

Edited November 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[go_utes01]

I got a 25%. I agree with Bluebell, many of the questions were annoying and would likely lead any group (e.g. bowling team) as using some form of "mind control."

[canard78]

Do you know who is behind this website and what their agenda is? It only mentions a book by Steve Hassan. Since it is not very forthcoming about its own history and motives, it already exhibits some of the "mind control" characteristics that it allegedly wishes to save us from. It offers potential salvation from "controlling, potentially harmful groups" based on a number of questions that create a measure allegedly "based on" some authority. At the end of the survey, it asks you to label a particular group.

 

Is this a legitimate survey? Is it a good measure of an institution, or is it measuring the person who answers the questions? What do you think?

 

I agree - I've got some information on the person behind the study and agree that the study is heavily weighted against the institution.

 

I didn't want to bias this at the outset though. Am hoping a few people don't read this far before taking it

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

There is cult-like behavior in all faiths (not that it is always bad)...if President Monson or so other GA, were to appear in a blue or yellow shirt in conference. By the next Sunday both colors would be sold out within a week. Same with beards. But this is harmless, when people think they have to act like, look like, speak like each GA all the time, or believe it is doctrine, then getting too cult-like.

[Duncan]

ha! I got

"41% Elevated Risk

This result indicates some risk for manipulation and exploitation. Some of the techniques used by the group is cause for concern. The potential for exploitation is there and should be considered carefully.

This is not to say that everything about the organization is bad, or does no good. It means that they use some methods common to other controlling cults.

We recommend you seek the opinion of a non-affiliated therapist for a professional consultation."

 

Suppose I am better than all of you unworthy, evil adherents! i'll have to limit who, when and what time I talk to all of you, tsk, tsk tsk, it's all your fault you know
 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Duncan

[Tacenda]

There is cult-like behavior in all faiths (not that it is always bad)...if President Monson or so other GA, were to appear in a blue or yellow shirt in conference. By the next Sunday both colors would be sold out within a week. Same with beards. But this is harmless, when people think they have to act like, look like, speak like each GA all the time, or believe it is doctrine, then getting too cult-like.

Aren't we scaring the members who aren't clean cut, or clean living, out of or from the church?  Wouldn't it be better to not dwell on the clothing aspect, but the welcoming aspect, no matter their dress.  Will they feel comfortable in the environment the church has staged?  I have two brothers that would really feel out of place.  No wonder they never showed up to the baptisms, blessings of my children.  They feel out of place, like they would change the tune of the meeting if they were there.  They both smoke, and I doubt have a white shirt.  Both blue collar workers.  Though every ward probably has the colored shirts, but they stick out.  And my conditioning tells me they aren't as orthodox.  My husband and son will wear colored shirts.  And when they do, I often wonder if they're being judged.  But I know it wouldn't be by many, or would it be?  The mindset is so legalistic, it goes against the grain of our Saviour's message.  I don't mind the white shirts on the Priests blessing the Sacrament... fine.  And don't think the Saviour minds, period.       

[pmccombs1]

There is cult-like behavior in all faiths (not that it is always bad)...

 

True. Cultus, of course, is care and devotion. It's how we get culture and cultivation, as well as cult. Religious worship is cultic. 

 

The survey is supposed to make some distinction between "good" and "bad" cults, based on some assessment of "mind control."  Well, care and devotion require mental conditioning. Meaning has to be poured into something, and the techniques that accomplish this are mind conditioning techniques. It's the kind of thing that happens when you watch a movie, or listen to music, or read a book. You enter into a narrative and yield up your mind to a new thing. When it's institutionalized, there is an authority structure in place. Families, businesses, churches, and communities are all cultic.

 

I think the harm happens if there is no notion of Rumspringa, as the Amish have it. If the institution doesn't include a rite of passage, or some "at will" clause, then it is overtly evil. This isn't to say that systemic evil doesn't happen even in benign institutions simply by way of "culture." It's always difficult to assert the self in contexts of care and devotion, which are usually about things outside of the self. 

 

My score was 64%, FWIW. If it were lower than 50%, I'd consider the institution to be rather careless about its own stories. It would be something that doesn't put much value in what it stands for. So, is there a danger of unjustified dominion over people? Yes, and I'm sure it's something we struggle with along with all other institutions that bring people together.

Edited November 26, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Maestrophil]

40% here, but I answered with my personal perceptions.  If I had answered like my disaffected family members, I am sure the score would have been very high indeed.  Interesting.  I felt that if I would have answered as any faith, or club, as others have said, the risk would have been high.  Also, ANY job I have ever had would have rated very high too.

 

I guess I should move to the mountains and live a life apart!!  :-)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Aren't we scaring the members who aren't clean cut, or clean living, out of or from the church?  Wouldn't it be better to not dwell on the clothing aspect, but the welcoming aspect, no matter their dress.  Will they feel comfortable in the environment the church has staged?  I have two brothers that would really feel out of place.  No wonder they never showed up to the baptisms, blessings of my children.  They feel out of place, like they would change the tune of the meeting if they were there.  They both smoke, and I doubt have a white shirt.  Both blue collar workers.  Though every ward probably has the colored shirts, but they stick out.  And my conditioning tells me they aren't as orthodox.  My husband and son will wear colored shirts.  And when they do, I often wonder if they're being judged.  But I know it wouldn't be by many, or would it be?  The mindset is so legalistic, it goes against the grain of our Saviour's message.  I don't mind the white shirts on the Priests blessing the Sacrament... fine.  And don't think the Saviour minds, period.

When I served in the Bishopric, myself and the other counselor had facial hair. Also being blue color does not mean you cannot be neatly dressed and neatly groomed. It is my opinion that when people feel out of place, it not how others feel. I was taught by my Baptist grandmother that we should dress in our Sunday best, because it is not "our" house we are going too. Even someone with facial hair can be well groomed. Often times when people talk about being blue-color workers, thus they don't have nice clothes, it is only because they do not make it a habit to go places that call for nice clothing. As for the Savior, he cares when you can be, do and act better. Every smoker knows that saving the money for one months smoking could buy a very nice suit, and that beards can be neatly trimmed. For the truly poor, you are right, the Savior does not care, but he does care for those who can look their best, but are indifferent.

[Palerider]

I scored 69%

 

No comment.......

[BlueDreams]

Aren't we scaring the members who aren't clean cut, or clean living, out of or from the church?  Wouldn't it be better to not dwell on the clothing aspect, but the welcoming aspect, no matter their dress.      

 

Our pianist is a guy with slightly long hair and two prominently pierced ears (they might be gages, I don't remember too well). It's a new fad to grow a mustache. My HT is bearded. I've met plenty who wouldn't fit the usual mormon dress/mold and mostly at church. This girl worked my temple shift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Cxa_gDg-w) and often gives talks and such to wards/stake firesides about not judging on the outward appearance. From what I've seen we could be doing a far better job of scaring/shunning people out of the church that don't match, per se. 

 

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

Ok, if you've got this far and not taken the test... here's your last chance to take it "fresh":

http://www.goodcultbadcult.com/assessment_loop.php?question=1

 

I'd be interested to discuss some of the points the survey author considers to be classifiers of a cult, both in terms of whether they apply to the church and whether those things are 'cultish.'

[Tacenda]

Our pianist is a guy with slightly long hair and two prominently pierced ears (they might be gages, I don't remember too well). It's a new fad to grow a mustache. My HT is bearded. I've met plenty who wouldn't fit the usual mormon dress/mold and mostly at church. This girl worked my temple shift (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Cxa_gDg-w) and often gives talks and such to wards/stake firesides about not judging on the outward appearance. From what I've seen we could be doing a far better job of scaring/shunning people out of the church that don't match, per se. 

 

With luv,

BD

I watched that.  So what does that do to the youth that want tattoos, "look, she gets all this adoration (her FB following comes to mind), what's wrong with me doing it".  It's the obedience thing.  Just like drinking coffee.  We don't know for sure if it's not any worse than drinking soda with caffeine but we don't drink it because it's a matter of being obedient.

 

Just got off the phone with my son's seminary teacher because my son walked out of class with a few other students when a girl in their class did, because the teacher spoke about things that are anti Christ and what the world tries to do to make you think somethings ok.  And apparently he brought up coffee, and the obedience thing, well the girl that got up and walked out, drank coffee apparently and was upset.  These rules seem a little over the top.  Why aren't we obedient more to loving God and our neighbor as ourselves?  

 

Too much emphasis on obedience, sorry.  But glad to know that wards/stakes are giving firesides on the not judging on outward appearances.  That happens to be what my son said when I asked why he walked out of seminary, I didn't know the full story yet.  He kept saying he hates how people in the church judge.  I haven't talked about members doing this, so I don't know where he gets it.  We hardly talk at all, he's at that age.  But back to the topic, no wonder people might think it's a cult.  Yes, we say we have our free agency, but when using it, beware the church might hunt you down.  Like my son, the bishop is mad at him for not attending the ward's baptism for the dead and temple day recently.  Then the seminary teacher told me he'd pull my son out of his regular class and talk to him if he misses again.  He is doing this out of love for him, I know, but still it comes off like lack of choice here.  But my son had apparently promised he'd come to class to the seminary's principal.   

 

Last Sunday my son and husband had a blow out about him not wanting to go to church.  My son kept saying "don't I have a choice?"  I was completely out of an answer.  But kept coming back to we need to show HF that we worship him.  Since we worship everything else sometimes.  I guess he can worship God elsewhere besides seething in Sacrament meeting about being there.  I'm totally on the fence, I see your point, I see the seminary teacher's point, the bishop's point.  Just want to see God's point.  And if he authorized all these points.              

Edited November 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Ok, if you've got this far and not taken the test... here's your last chance to take it "fresh":

http://www.goodcultbadcult.com/assessment_loop.php?question=1

 

I'd be interested to discuss some of the points the survey author considers to be classifiers of a cult, both in terms of whether they apply to the church and whether those things are 'cultish.'

Did they have LDS in mind when they came up with these questions?  My word, they listed so many I can't even count that struck close to home.  I'm embarrassed to say I got 77%.  I at first had 5 or below and sometimes a 1.  But on a few it was a 10 or hovering around that.  But see that many other organizations may do the same things, but I'm not aware because I'm a lifelong member. 

[cinepro]

If the LDS Church is "true", why would it be bad for it to be a "cult"?

[canard78]

From Wikipedia, "the anti-cult movement tend to define a "cult" as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities."

 

On that basis, would you agree that any of the following would describe a cult (alone or collectively). And would you agree or disagree that any of the following apply to the church:

 

1. This organization manages where, how and with whom the member lives and associates. Association with non-members is discouraged.

Defines: I can see how this might be part of an "anti-cult" definition.

Applicable: I don't think so

 

2. The organization has rules regarding what clothing, colors, hairstyles or footwear the member wears.

Defines: On its own, clearly not. As mentioned, some employers and clubs require a certain 'appearance.' As part of a bigger group of attributes, maybe.

Applicable: Yes. Not all of the above, but clearly there are expected dress and grooming standards.

 

3. The organization has restrictions or proscriptions about diet.

Defines: Seems a stronger classifier than '2' as it's unlikely that organisation have diet proscriptions. I suppose some athletes do

Applicable: Yes. Though often only followed in part! (Meat...)

 

4. This organization has rules governing sleep and wake-up times.

Define: Don't know

Applicable: No (I suppose there's an 'early to bed...' - and FT-missionaries)

 

5. This organization creates conditions that may make the member financially dependent upon it.

Define: Yes, I think so

Applicable: No, I don't think so. Quite the opposite. I suppose someone could argue that the "promise of tithing blessings makes you dependent on paying them" - but I wouldn't agree!

 

7. Preparing for and attending all of the recommended meetings constitutes a major time commitment.

Define: Potentially, if an organisation consumes all your time then it may be part of a definition

Applicable: Yes and no. For many it's 3 hours a week. On the other hand, there have been times in my life when I've been doing a "church thing" on: Monday (at home, but recommended), Tuesday (youth activity), Wednesday (Home teaching), Thursday (PEC), Saturday (ward or stake activity), Sunday (obviously). In between those I'd be preparing lessons, activities reports etc.

 

8. Permission needs to be sought (from leaders or from the divine) for major life decisions, such as education, retirement, marriage or pregnancy.

Define: Yes

Applicable: Not permission (though guidance is given)

 

That'll do for now. There are 50 more!

[canard78]

Did they have LDS in mind when they came up with these questions?  My word, they listed so many I can't even count that struck close to home.  I'm embarrassed to say I got 77%.  I at first had 5 or below and sometimes a 1.  But on a few it was a 10 or hovering around that.  But see that many other organizations may do the same things, but I'm not aware because I'm a lifelong member. 

 

No, it wasn't designed for LDS. It was written based on one researcher's definition of a cult (he's not the last word on it). His definition is highly disputed. I don't agree with all of his classifications.

 

Don't worry, you're not in a cult (in the 'anti-cult' definition of a cult). This is more an experiment in perception. I'm interested to see how we perceive our relationship with the church and its influence.

[cinepro]

I got 56%.  

 

A lot of my answers were influenced by my having read about "cults" like the Jim Jones/ Peoples Temple movement, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Scientology, and John-Roger/MSIA.  Once you see how a real cult works, it's hard to classify anything the LDS Church does as being anything close to what goes on in those groups.  

 

That being said, there were some questions that still did apply quite clearly to things the LDS Church does.  But these things were generally applicable to just about any religion.

[canard78]

I got 56%.

A lot of my answers were influenced by my having read about "cults" like the Jim Jones/ Peoples Temple movement, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, Scientology, and John-Roger/MSIA. Once you see how a real cult works, it's hard to classify anything the LDS Church does as being anything close to what goes on in those groups.

That being said, there were some questions that still did apply quite clearly to things the LDS Church does. But these things were generally applicable to just about any religion.

I agree. In the context of "extreme" cult behaviour we pale in comparison.

On the definition of this study, Sikhs, Muslims and Buddhists would likely end up qualifying (at least to 50%+).

On the other hand, I've sent the survey to my friend who goes to the Congregational church. I'm guessing he'll score low.

If nothing else, it's an interesting exercise in asking yourself how independent minded you are, even in the church context.