Did MG read this part from his link:
EB wrote:In historiography, there are no negative connotations to the use of the term cult

If I look at the Britannica definition you quoted in blue, I'm thinking, what does it ultimately mean to have all of these attributes? Does it mean anything that Neapolitan ice cream has three lanes; strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate? How does that make it fundamentally different from any other kind of ice cream? The narrow definition is comprised of a collection of things that sound kind of bad, but what does that collection tell us as a whole?
Maybe it's this:
So the collection of attributes in blue as a whole, are the attributes generally found in groups at tension with the rest of society? Does that sound right? Well, a cult isn't exactly the same as a street gang or a mafia, but there are some common attributes.EB wrote:In more recent decades, groups designated cults have been those at tension with the rest of society
Anyway, I think I'm going inward here, what is on the mind of the cultist, such that cults find themselves in tension with society?
I think 1-4 on your list are really strong hits. The "canny attempt at isolation" I've said is very important. I think for a cult to be a true cult, the cultists can't merely be simplistic prisoners of the cult such that when the compound is raided, they're freed and go on to do something else, but they are programmed such that, like the Reptilians, they can blend into polite society and mimic the day-to-day lives perfectly appear to have deep relationships with others, but it's all a ruse that they step away from without a hitch on feeding day. Another example would a spy in deep cover. I saw a movie a while back about an Israeli spy in deep cover for decades, who had marriages, 23 concubines, this great social standing -- as beneficial as that might be to one's home country, it takes a special kind of f'd up psychology to pull that off. How do you fake deep relationships with people for decades and never flinch in your duty to use them for the goals of your handler?
So in my OP, my example was a businessman from a podcast who was a Mormon through-in-through. I've know a few Mormon businessmen like this who are Utah-white, but they are very effective, very capable, charismatic, and cunning. From a non-Utah job long ago, A Mormon guy came in to restructure the company. He did some downright weird stuff. He cracked a joke during a company meeting once about the urim and thummim from the Old Testament, nobody reacted because they have no idea what he's talking about. And that's because he has no idea that Mormons have a unique doctrine of them as translation devices.
The tension of course results from the weirdness that's part of the ploy to take power, but it's deeply embedded, and so I guess my continued example here, is that even these very successful, world-travelling Mormon businessmen have the inability to absorb their surrounding culture when away from the Church. They are fundamentally locked and view the world through the lens of their upbringing and it's near impossible to change that.
Point 5 maybe more later but I'm low on the belief that transcendence is part of the Mormon cultist. Point 6 could go with 1-4 but I'm hesitating for some reason. Point 7 I think goes with 1-4 as deeply rooted identity, the Mormon obsession with sexual purity, especially when in light of Mormon history, is stunning.