Is Mormonism a cult?

[_asbestosman]

Why does it matter what you define the church to be? Labels can be useful, especially in technical fields as an efficient method of communication, but I ams less certain about the utility of such when it comes to people or groups of people. I don't think I can meaningfully say much about exmos when I consider that individual former members often have very different attitudes and perspectives.

I admit that there is much in Rocky Mountain LDS culture I dislike, but I've always been free to examine things as I would. I've always been free to associate with non-member family and friends. I'm generally not hounded about my somewhat unorthodox manner. I'm unlikely to do something just because I've been told to which perhaps means I'm not CK material, but also demonstrates that the "brainwashing" isn't particularly intense.

[_Some Schmo]

Why does it matter what you define the church to be? Labels can be useful, especially in technical fields as an efficient method of communication, but I ams less certain about the utility of such when it comes to people or groups of people. I don't think I can meaningfully say much about exmos when I consider that individual former members often have very different attitudes and perspectives.

I admit that there is much in Rocky Mountain LDS culture I dislike, but I've always been free to examine things as I would. I've always been free to associate with non-member family and friends. I'm generally not hounded about my somewhat unorthodox manner. I'm unlikely to do something just because I've been told to which perhaps means I'm not CK material, but also demonstrates that the "brainwashing" isn't particularly intense.

I wonder what would happen if you went to your local bishop and asked him about any of the problem areas of church history or theology, telling him about this or that read on the internet. Would he tell you to investigate further? Or would he recommend "church-approved" materials in order to combat the "anti-mormon" literature to which you've been exposed?

Sure, everyone's free to do whatever they want. The question is, what are the ramifications for doing so? It's the severity of those ramifications that determines the degree to which it's a cult.

[_Mephitus]

Why does it matter what you define the church to be? Labels can be useful, especially in technical fields as an efficient method of communication, but I ams less certain about the utility of such when it comes to people or groups of people. I don't think I can meaningfully say much about exmos when I consider that individual former members often have very different attitudes and perspectives.

I admit that there is much in Rocky Mountain LDS culture I dislike, but I've always been free to examine things as I would. I've always been free to associate with non-member family and friends. I'm generally not hounded about my somewhat unorthodox manner. I'm unlikely to do something just because I've been told to which perhaps means I'm not CK material, but also demonstrates that the "brainwashing" isn't particularly intense.

I wonder what would happen if you went to your local bishop and asked him about any of the problem areas of church history or theology, telling him about this or that read on the internet. Would he tell you to investigate further? Or would he recommend "church-approved" materials in order to combat the "anti-mormon" literature to which you've been exposed?

Sure, everyone's free to do whatever they want. The question is, what are the ramifications for doing so? It's the severity of those ramifications that determines the degree to which it's a cult.

I've known people whom have been threatened with ex-communication for even discussing things that, even though true, do not put the church in good light. that's a huge notation of a cult in most books. Any healthy organization will allow its problems to be discussed openly for the purposes of improvement. The problem arises when those issues stomp down all claims that such an organization makes about its truthiness.

[_asbestosman]

I suppose my mother is a cult because neither her nor my father allow me to criticize her (my dad tolerates criticism of himself).

Furthermore, I don't think apologists such as Dr. Peterson are being threatened with excommunication even when they discuss the less flattering parts of the church.

[_Runtu]

My position has never changed since my days as an apologist: using the word "cult" is counterproductive to everyone because it says virtually nothing except "We don't like your religion."

The church has its good and bad points, and it works for a lot of people. The bottom line for me is that it is not the true church it claims to be. That's more important to me than quibbling over a pejorative label like "cult."

[_wenglund]

Why does it matter what you define the church to be? Labels can be useful, especially in technical fields as an efficient method of communication, but I ams less certain about the utility of such when it comes to people or groups of people.

I am curious about this as well.

Would those in favor of labelling the Church as a "cult" please explain what you see as the utility in doing so? In other words, what useful purpose do you think will be served by such name-calling?

Your answer may give indication whether there is value or not in quibbling over this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

My position has never changed since my days as an apologist: using the word "cult" is counterproductive to everyone because it says virtually nothing except "We don't like your religion."

The church has its good and bad points, and it works for a lot of people. The bottom line for me is that it is not the true church it claims to be. That's more important to me than quibbling over a pejorative label like "cult."

I'm actually not quibbling over it. In my mind, it's a cult. Why sugar coat it? Based on the definitions provided in this very thread, it's a cult. It's that simple.

People tend to call a spade a spade. It has little to do with whether I like the religion or not; it has everything to do with the distinguishing characteristic of the religion. One man's pejorative is another man's want for a more descriptive word.

[_silentkid]

Would those in favor of labelling the Church as a "cult" please explain what you see as the utility in doing so? In other words, what useful purpose do you think will be served by such name-calling?

Your answer may give indication whether there is value or not in quibbling over this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Dearest Wade,
How about you go back, read the OP and subsequent definitions given for the word cult, and explain why you don't think those definitions are sufficient in describing Mormonism. Then, maybe you could explain why you think the word "cult" has a negative connotation. Shermer's definition of cult (which I posted previously in this thread) was used in his book to describe the followers of Ayn Rand, not Mormonism. Many posters in this thread have claimed that the Mormon church, today, is not a cult but could have been described as one at its inception. How do you feel about this assertion? Others have claimed that there are varying degrees of "cultness". How do you feel about this assertion?
Sincerely,
silentkid

[_Runtu]

I'm actually not quibbling over it. In my mind, it's a cult. Why sugar coat it? Based on the definitions provided in this very thread, it's a cult. It's that simple.

People tend to call a spade a spade. It has little to do with whether I like the religion or not; it has everything to do with the distinguishing characteristic of the religion. One man's pejorative is another man's want for a more descriptive word.

Well, that's just exactly why I dislike the word. There's no generally accepted definition for what constitutes a cult, and the ones given in the thread are broad enough to apply to just about every religion. Again, what's the point? It's merely to say, "I think your religion sucks."

[_Some Schmo]

Well, that's just exactly why I dislike the word. There's no generally accepted definition for what constitutes a cult, and the ones given in the thread are broad enough to apply to just about every religion. Again, what's the point? It's merely to say, "I think your religion sucks."

Actually, that's the thing: it's not to indicate what I think of Mormonism in particular. I do consider all religions to have at least an element of "cultishness." I don't think people should belong to any religion really. I only talk about Mormonism because it's the religion with which I'm most familiar.

I don't think the question should be "is the Mormon church a cult?" The question should be "just how much of a cult is it?" or "to what degree is it a cult?" or even "how dangerous a cult is it?" Those would be much more useful questions, in my opinion.