Over at Real Clear Religion author Douglas Wilson wrote about distinguishing between sects, cults and religions. He began,
“Classification is always a dicey business, and especially if it is classification that brings with it some sort of implicit praise or blame. And if that praise and blame is connected in any significant way to eternity and the afterlife, then the task of classification is like that red wire/green wire moment in the movies. One false move, and it is farewell to your eyebrows.”
Considering the importance of careful discernment in these classifications, Mr. Wilson made these broad distinctions:
“Within Christendom, a sect would be a group that is basically orthodox, but they usually keep to themselves, fearing the spread of ecumenical cooties. They tend toward rigorism, like the early Donatists, but other than having their sandals strapped on too tight, they are generally orthodox at the center. A cult is a group that is isolated and small, keeping to themselves just like a sect does, but with radically heretical notions at the center.”
Time, he said, can result in the change of one thing into another. That is, something that starts out as a sect might morph into a cult (e.g., People’s Temple). Something that starts out as a cult might grow into a religion (e.g., Mormonism). Mr. Wilson wrote,
“I would want to regard Mormonism as a particular religion, not a cult, simply on the basis of age and size. It is a religion that hived off from orthodox Christianity, but of course, that is also what Islam did — Christian heresies can veer off into cul de sac cults, or they can grow big and become regular religions, like Islam, Marxism, and American Idol.”
Becoming recognized as a religion rather than a cult “does call forth more respect,” Mr. Wilson wrote, but it also has a down side. He noted,
“Now a religion can be every bit as wrong about the world as a cult is, and being widely accepted just puts it in a position to do a lot more damage, and doing a lot more damage is not an upgrade.”
This reminds me of an exchange I once heard about between a mom and her rebellious teen-aged daughter. The daughter, having found herself in some trouble in the past, wanted to do several other things that her mother deemed unwise (and perhaps dangerous). When the mom would not grant permission, the daughter yelled, “Just wait until I’m 18! I can do anything I want once I turn 18!” The mom replied, “All 18 gets you is the right to be tried as an adult.”
It’s same idea with Mormonism. Being “upgraded” to a religion just gets Mormonism the “right” to be scrutinized (and criticized) by a wider audience. That is, it has a greater accountability before men — and God. Being in a position to do “a lot more damage” should be sobering to Mormon leaders as they call people to follow a “different Jesus Christ.”
Defining the differences between sects, cults and religions may seem to some like nothing more than the billowing smoke and frantic hand-waving Dorothy encountered in Oz. Nevertheless, the labels we use do prove helpful as we try to sort through the truth claims promoted in the world in which we live. Yet in the end, the classification that really matters is whether we are numbered among the sheep or the goats (Matthew 25:32). “Who do you say that I am?” Jesus asks (Matthew 16:15). The answer to His question makes all the difference in the world to come.
I agree with Sharon that labels are shortcuts humans use to make classifications. The community of non-LDS Christians can (and perhaps should) use the word “cult” to warn its members against the false teachings of Mormonism. However, Latter-day Saints are often upset when their organization is called a “cult”. In my opinion, there is no good reason to cause this offense. I avoid talking about labels in my conversations with the LDS. My mission does not include convincing Mormons to agree to the term I think best describes their belief system. My mission is to expose the Church’s errors with what I consider to be truth and plead with God to use that information to transform their hearts and minds.
If anyone (LDS or non-LDS) has thoughts on my comment, then please share them! Also, good morning! 🙂
There are common characteristics of cults. Believe it or not, it doesn’t always have a lot to do with doctrine.
I’ve seen Christian groups that I would call cults. They may have been pretty much down the line as far as orthodoxy goes usually with a few peculiarities, however the bottom line for me is the control the groups exercise over members.
Here are some characteristics, but the bottom line is “control”.
The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
The group’s leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
Members’ subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
I think the mistake that people make is thinking that one of the characteristics of someone who is in a cult is that they be “unhappy”.
There are people who love their cult. It has to do with people getting their “needs” met. People join groups to get their needs met and leave groups when those needs are no longer being met. Abraham Mazlow came up with a hierarchy of needs starting with physiological needs at the base and self-actualization at the top.
So why do people leave Mormonism? I think there’s two basic reason. They find the culture intrusive, smothering and limiting. The expectations and the things needed to be done (busy, busy, busy) become a real drag. And last but not least, they just don’t believe it anymore. The “it” being Joseph Smith is a prophet, the BoM is a true historical account, Mormonism is the “one true church” and finally the modern day prophets and apostles don’t quite measure up.
This was seen when Mark Hoffman scammed the bretheran that sit at the top of LDS Inc. The boys didn’t have the spiritual discernment they are reported to have and got taken in by a con man with some forged documents. The reason this is important was because suddenly the LDS church had to explain away what had happened. It’s no telling how many Mormons lost faith in their leadership as a result of this episode.
A quick look at the etymology of the word “cult” would be most beneficial to this discussion.
The word “cult” first appeared in the English language in 1617 (OED). The English word “cult” is derived from the French word “culte” meaning a particular form or system of worship. The French word “culte” is derived from the Latin root “cultus” which means the care owed to a religious shrine or god. It was not until the 1920’s among American Protestants that the word “cult” took on the the perjorative notion of an aberreant religious group that differed from perceived orthodoxy.
In today’s parlance the word “cult” is so abused that its meaning has become abased to being “any religion that I fear or don’t like”. This is why many Evangeilcals call Roman Catholicism a “cult” (Hagee), or Islam a “cult” or along with a whole host of other religions and creeds that Evangelicals fear or don’t like.
Falcon’s self-serving definition of the word “cult” could be used to describe virually any religious denomination. Indeed it could be used to describe the Apocalyptic Jesus cult of the 1st and 2nd century that riled up the Romans to persecute and suppress it wherever it was found (Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius).
Shaorn refers to Mormons following a “different Jesus Christ”. I would respectfully submit that the Trinitarian 3-in-1 god that has neither parts nor passion; is the son of itself or conversely the father of itself is a “different Jesus” than that found in the pages of the Holy Bible.
Sharon poses the question: ““Who do you say that I am?” Jesus asks (Matthew 16:15).” Sharon adds: “The answer to His question makes all the difference in the world to come.” To that I heartily agree.
” That is, it has a greater accountability before men — and God. Being in a position to do “a lot more damage” should be sobering to Mormon leaders as they call people to follow a “different Jesus Christ.””
Maybe this is why LDS are trying to become more mainstream…
Not takin’ the bait, Alex. Kind of irrelevant.
falcon referred to a group’s being “. . . preoccupied with making money.”
Follow this link to see the LDS Church’s latest form, the New and Returning Member Progress report.
http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/english/wwlt/hasten/PD50020824-member-progress-form-eng.pdf?lang=eng
I think it’s more than a bit telling that the first benchmark to be covered is tithing in relation to temple preparation.
The two primary commandments Jesus commended to us were to love God with ones whole heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Love, not money.
Ah, Alex, are you really going to rely on Hagee as demonstrative of all of Christianity, or at least evangelical Christianity? The guys a loon and supports a cult himself.
I think you have a habit of finding the worst in some people and using that to tear the rest of the group down. This is not really a good way to argue.
I, personally, don’t like calling Mormonism as cult. Why? Because it only inflames. It may or may not be true, but the label does not do anyone any favors. I prefer to look at the differences in our faiths.
You bring up one in the trinity. Its interesting to note the adjectives you use, such as the passionless and inability to distinguish the parts. Its clear you really have little understanding of what it is we believe.
I suggest you do some more research on what it is we believe. I think you will find our tri-une God is hardly passionless, let alone that each body has a huge role in all of our lives.
I suspect, however, you will remain in your bubble equating us all with Hagee and looking at the varied and complicated past to conclude that all Christians fight amongst each other.
MJP referes to the erroneous LDS of how Christians conceptualize the Trinity, “passionless and inability to distinguish the parts. Its clear you really have little understanding of what it is we believe.”
When I started attending a Christian church regularly, I kept my eye out for the old Mormon notion of Christianity’s concept of God I learned in the temple when I went through:
Do you believe in a god without body, parts, or passions, who sits on the top of a topless throne; whose circumference is everywhere, yet whose center is nowhere; who is so large he fills the immensity of space, yet is so small he can dwell in your heart? Do you believe in such a being?
For the church I attend, the traditional, and ancient, Christian creeds are important. Nowhere in the Apostles’ Creed, nor in the Nicene Creed do I find the drivel found in the old LDS temple skit. For generations, Mormons were actively taught false concepts about Christianity. I’m confident that the wording used in the temple skit can be found somewhere, but it is not part of the central and most used Christian creeds.
An aside–the articles of faith are nothing more than a Mormon creed. So what? Creeds are nothing more than a concise statement of belief. Taking the Nicene Creed, one can find all of its elements in the New Testament.
Fellow Posters.
I have placed Alex on double final probation.
He is an impostor, a fraud and a troll. I caught him and if you notice, he has not answered my charge that he’s just one of the old worn out Mormon posters from the past who may have gotten the boot from this site and has now come back to life as “Alex”. Do with him what you will, but as for me and my house, he is shrouded. I will, however, continue to pray for him and intercede to the Lord God on his behalf. I believe what he is doing is deceitful and violating the trust factor that we have here.
I would use the word “cult” sparingly. I certainly wouldn’t use it with folks who are in a cult. I would, however, use it as a means of “cult proofing” folks that I was teaching/training about cults.
One of the all time great books (rush out and buy it) is “Kingdom of the Cults” by Dr. Walter Martin. He gives a little history of sects like Mormonism and then compares their beliefs with those of orthodox Christianity. It’s a great resource.
Ken, you made some great points .
Today this term is used in so many ways that people don’t take it to seriously anymore. Like
a commercial on the Western channel informing viewers on the upcoming ” the cult classic ,
Lonely are the Brave ” ( a Kirk Doulgas movie which was’nt widely acclaimed , but which he said
was his favorite film to star in ) .
Now what I found interesting is that Alex said many ” Evangelicals” call a religion or creed
that they fear or don’t like , a cult .
But he forgot to include that the fact that some Mormon leaders have done this same thing .
So what does this mean ?
Here is an example of how dishonest Alex is. He writes,
Of course he took this from wiki. And of course Alex added his own dishonest spin to it. Totally dishonest spin. Notice the wiki entry:
Again this link also does not mention “American Protestants”:
There is nothing in there about “American Protestants” initiating the word cult. Alex just made that up. In fact, if one does their research the word cult appeared from 20th century writers and sociologists, NOT “Protestants” as genius Alex affirms,
And,
This is exactly what Sharon is getting at, that “cults were small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs,” and that Mormonism evolved from this. This definition, is the one used today against Mormonism,
deviant religious groups “deriving their inspiration from outside of the predominant religious culture
The dishonest manipulation that Alex employs in his comments is staggering.
grindael,
A Mormon lies, obfuscates, makes things up, mis-represents? Say it isn’t so.
That almost sounds like Joseph Smith doesn’t it. The foundation upon which Mormonism is built is deceit. That’s how they get people to join the cult. They give them some Pollyanna version of Joseph Smith and never bother to mention who they claim as their god among other things that are considered “meat”.
This “meat” is simply road kill dressed-up to look appetizing.
I’m wondering how many of our former Mormon posters here think they were in a cult?
Here’s what some other former Mormons say on the topic.
“Personally I would consider Mormonism a cult but I would consider the word to be almost useless in any context other than RFM. I would rather talk about the specific issues that make the Mormon church cult-like than focus on what many consider a pejorative.”
“The MTC is definitely a cult environment. The temple is a cult ritual.
The mormon church mandates that its members give them 10% of their money. You are either in the church, or you are out. There is no in-between. Its a cult.”
“To me the fact that the church makes you promise to give your life and everything you own to it is “creepy”. I can also see how someone could use that as criteria to call the church a cult – because it goes so far – further than your average US Christian religion.”
“There are multiple stories of people having “courts of love” convened on them despite having resigned. It can be a crap shoot whether the church will respect the consitutional right of association. Likewise, the church still blackens the name of people that leave, sometimes publicly, and especially if they have written anything critical of the church. Some of the nastier stuff the church conveniently uses its apologetic henchmen for, like preventing D. Michael Quinn from getting speaking engagements. Just because the church hasn’t come after you personally, don’t assume it hasn’t done so to other people.”
“It’s a cult. Its exit costs are very high. They can’t threaten to kill you, and you are free to leave, but they can cause you a lot of pain if you want to leave, and that the pain is psychological rather than external, typically, does not take away from the cult characteristics. Pain and fear are coercive means of controlling someone’s agency. Mormonism also habitually practices false inducement or deceptive recruiting, and that is another means of taking away agency.”
To my adoring MC fan club,
Is there no end to your words of kindness and love?
Here on MC there is a limit of 6 posts per day and a limit on the length of each post. Therefore, please do not take umbrage if I am not able to respond to each an every one of your well-reasoned and consumately argued posts. So please don’t take it as a personal insult if I should choose to ignore you.
Now where do I start,
Grindael, I am glad to see that after much whining on your part that you actually took the time and trouble to look up the subject of “Cults” on Wikipedia – There now, that wasn’t so hard was it? It must have taken you all of 15 seconds to do that. I provided a brief summary of that entry, and you gone and copied and pasted it here for all to see. Bravo.
BTW I never stated that American Protestants originated or as you write “initiated” the word “cult”. A more careful reading of my post by yourself would would have avoided that error. What I asserted was: “It was not until the 1920′s among American Protestants that the word “cult” took on the the perjorative notion of an aberreant religious group that differed from perceived orthodoxy.” (I know, I know a lot of big, scary words). However, my words are not remotely the same as your misconstrued reading about my claim of Protestants “initiating” the word “cult”.
Grindael, may I just respond to your many personal insults: “sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me”.
MJP,
You state: “You bring up one in the trinity. Its interesting to note the adjectives you use, such as the passionless and inability to distinguish the parts. Its clear you really have little understanding of what it is we believe. I suggest you do some more research on what it is we believe.”
Well MJP here is the first article of the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith – (the creedal foundation of most English Protestant groups):
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions…”
Take it easy there MJP, simmer down now. I know just what you are thinking. You are thinking that those damn Mormons craftily inspired the the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith. Scandalous isn’t it!
Falcon, are you still babbling inanities about the Mormon conspiracies? Does the Mormon bogieman hide under your bed? Fear not, I can sell you a tin foil hat that is guaranteed to protect you from the Mormon bogieman.
Mike,
When has any Mormon, leader or not, called another group a “cult”. Oh, … what’s that? … never?… Oh , I see, you just made that up.
Wow, I am just so amazed at what an intelligent, thoughtful, and considerate group y’all are.
It has been a pleasure
Alex,
I like how you try and say, I have a 6 post limit each day, so I cannot reply to every person.
But then prior to that, you claimed you had a reason for being here, and that reason summed up is, Your tired of us lying about your church and you here to set us straight.
The problem is, we have not lied about your church, and not once in all the quotes any of us here have posted from your leaders or scriptures, have you ever said, Ok, your wrong and here is why.
So it seems you have no idea how to tell the truth, so when you end your letter with, It has been a pleasure, I hope that means your leaving and not coming back.
I am open to honest debate, but when you cannot do as you say, then their goes the Honest part.
What Alex left out of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.”
Yup, a God who is “most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin” is surely passionless. Not to mention that a God who is “terrible in His judgment, hating all sin, and who will be no means clear the guilty” has even less passion.
Continuing on in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.”
Sounds to me like Mr. Alex is cherry picking here…
I’ll add that his, Alex’s, use of the word “passion” is utterly void of any analysis on what passion truly is and what it says about God. I’d like to see him explain his position more and his understanding of why those who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith used this specific word. Surely it can’t be because they were careless. And surely the recognize the love and compassion God has for all of us, since they included so much of what they did.
Therefore, let’s read what Alex has to write about the word “passion”.
Alex, you said to me : ” Mike, when has any Mormon, leader or not , called another group a
‘ cult ‘ . Oh…..What’s that ? ….Never? ….Oh , I see, you just that up .”
I reminded everyone that some Mormon leaders have indeed referred to others as cults .
Are you saying that this is a false statement by me , that I simply made it up ? Is this your
testimony ? Really ? Your comment is a fitting capstone on your rhetoric and faulty reasoning
which you’ve displayed here on this blog the last several days . It’s sad that you have such an
attitude against others who you conveniently have to label as ” anti’s ” . I love the Mormon
people , and even those who have an antagonistic attitude like you . I would have been more
than happy to supply you with examples of where some of your leaders have referred to others
as “cults” , but considering your attitude , that would probably be a waste of my time now.
Mormons like you are not beyond the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ , and one day may
come to understand the incredible difference between the religion of Joseph Smith , and a
personal saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ .
Jason or Alex, whatever your present name is
You said this to Grindael
“Grindael, may I just respond to your many personal insults: “sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me.”
You really are a joke, if you are trying to tell us that you take it all on the chin & never insult anyone may I just remind you of your totally unwarranted & personal attack on me when you said this
“…Oh wait a minute now I understand. Old Man you should have gone to school when you had a chance. At least you should read a book on the history of Christianity”
So, not being content with simply insulting people you are now showing us that you’re a liar or a hypocrite as well, probably both. It might be better if you quietly leave before you are banned again.
To be honest I don’t see any further need to respond to your posts, you never respond to mine anyway. The truth is, & I feel I must congratulate you on this, you do more harm to Mormonism by the things you say & the insults you carelessly throw around than any one of us could do. You are an excellent ambassador for Mormonism, Your deception is worthy of the false prophet & adulterous womaniser you follow, Joseph Smith.
LOL,
Alex.. (or whatever your name really is)
You ARE dishonest. That is not name calling it’s a fact. The Protestants had nothing to do with initiating pejorative use of the word cult in the 1920’s. You are lying and plagiarizing wiki while adding your own lies to it. And of course I meant the meaning of the word you were conveying. DUH. That’s when the word came into prominence in the U.S. You can’t give proof, nor comprehend what people say.
It’s not name calling when it’s true.
You still haven’t provided the proof asked for, so it’s time to go.
Have a nice life.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but in talking with an LDS friend of mine, one of the first questions she asked me was whether or not I would call Mormonism a cult. I would not, simply because as other posters have noted, it is not helpful and doesn’t offer real definitions of the differences found in our faiths. Once we removed that label from the discussion, we’ve been able to have much more open and helpful conversations. Falcon–I appreciate the list you wrote describing cult-like behavior. I think it’s very helpful in terms of knowing how to pray specifically for LDS friends.
So is Alex, or whoever that is using that name, taking his final shots and like the drive by Mormon gangster he is, speeding on down the road to avoid having to face the truth?
It’s really hard for these Mormons to stay away so we’ll see. But here’s the deal. He stayed here long enough to hear the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and in my case, lift him up in prayer that he might come to Christ in faith.
The heat may have just gotten to our poor lost Mormon. The reason is that the Christians who post here, many of whom are former Mormons, are very strong in their faith and very knowledgeable. That is not any fun for the Alex type of Mormon. I’ve seen it time and again during the years I’ve been posting here. Different names, same M.O.
So our Mormon friend throws out a few final insults and runs away. But here’s the deal. He can’t run away from God. He will come to Christ. He will be saved. He will leave Mormonism.
Kudos to all of you who have shown what I think is extraordinary patience in dealing with this lost Mormon. Oh, but not Rick of course who has an entirely different roll to play here which I appreciate.
I couldn’t pass that up Rick!
I’m wondering if you former Mormons could tell me what the LDS wards do with the inactive members? The people I’m talking about are those who are sort of on the fringe of the program. They come once in a while, the kids might be in a few programs, but the adults don’t really get into callings, don’t pay a tithe and certainly aren’t interested in the temple routine.
It seems to me that the members who are controlled are the ones who take Mormonism seriously. It must frustrate the daylights out of a bunch of control freaks that they can’t control some people. I suppose they can do the love bomb routine or threaten with fear, intimidation, withdraw good will; any number of tactics to try and kick people into high gear.
The LDS church certainly isn’t going to kick someone one out for inactivity. I’m particularly interested in the “Jack Mormons”. They seem to be a significant sub-set in the LDS church. I saw one of these types in action one time when I was in Utah. The guy was smoking, drinking and talking about his son having just returned from a mission for the church. This guy was a college professor. He was really funny and entertaining and I guess he just kept on the down-low.
There are also “social Mormons” as a sub-set. Anyway, it doesn’t seem that the “cult” is very good at controlling these types. It would appear that there are groups of people within the cult who have learned how to game the system; be in but not really and there isn’t much the controlling forces can do about it.
And finally, what about BYU? Are there morality police there and are students encouraged to inform on each other? I’ve heard directly from a young devout Mormon returning missionary that he ran into a lot of very aggressive “wild” young women who made it quite challenging to live the Word of Wisdom.
My point is that it appears that there are those members who’ve learned how to game the system.
When I was LDS I was completely offended when people said that I belonged to a cult. I couldn’t figure out how they would come to that conclusion. I was very happy with my life and community. “Cult” has so many nagative conotations and I just couldn’t see it. I didnt understand until I left. It is hard to describe here but leaving the LDS Church was the hardest thing I had ever done because it had infiltrated almost every aspect of my life. It was like being held onto by this monster squid and as soon as I had been free of one of its tentacles I would have to deal with another one. The LDS Church was in my marriage, my finances, my routines, my friendships, family relationships… And more. It was in my thinking, how I related to others and interacted in the world around me. It was my culture and heritage. I had only seen the world in one way and once the Mormon goggles were taken off, it was freeing but scary too because I had to relearn and rebuild almost every aspect of my life. I don’t say things like cult and brainwashed to those I speak with that are still in the LDS Church because like many here have said it is not helpful. It causes a wall to be put up. however, after leaving I cannot describe myself as being anything less than brainwashed. I was trained to react a certain way, to give certain responses, to only think inside of a small box. when my sister and I left the LDS Church (around the same time), we both said to each other, “The world is bigger and more amazing than we had ever imagined.” God is bigger and more amazing than I had ever imagined.
As I was having difficult inner rumblings relative to Mormonism, I came across this list of cult characteristics. It comes from a web site that is not directed at the Mormon church. What I recognized was that the Mormon church is, to me, cult-like because for me at least, each these religious cult characteristics are present in one form or another. How much the LDS church can be a cult probably has more to do with the intensity of these characteristics and not just their presence.
American Family Foundation (14 Characteristics)
1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
[How zealous and how unquestioning varies. That Joseph Smith and the current prophet/president and apostles are given deference and personal commitment is beyond question.]
2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
[Duh. The events of the last year and of the last week with the age requirement changes and the increased emphasis on “member progress” shows this in spades.]
3. The group is preoccupied with making money.
[Duh again. After the recession hit in 2008, I found it more than telling that the church was having cash flow problems because of the increased emphasis on tithing during the April 2009 conference. They couldn’t just say, “Hey, the recession is hitting the church hard, please continue your contributions as you can.” No, they had to emphasize tithing in a way that engendered guilt feelings. It was very off-putting, although, at the time we had officially tendered our resignations.]
4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
[Is there any question that this takes place? Yes, you can believe anything out of line you want so long as you keep such beliefs to yourself. Once you speak openly about your thinking, even to ask the questions, you are in trouble.Maybe you won’t get censured or punished, but you will get the stink eye. I did.]
5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
[To me this is the weakest cult behavior found in the LDS church. However, as a missionary in Europe in the 1970s, I see the work routine we had as rather mind-numbing and limiting. The same goes with many of the leadership callings I had. The intense focus on the Mormon church, culture, and system when one is fully participating is, indeed, mind-numbing.]
6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).
[This does exist. Because faithful LDS members view church leadership with great deference and respect, every conference talk or by-lined Ensign article lends the church a certain amount of power relative to how members should think, act, and feel. If one thinks, acts, or feels differently than what is presented officially by the church, members find themselves full square in cognitive dissonance.]
7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).
[The prophet/president is the only one holding the keys of the priesthood of God on earth, Joseph Smith had more to do with human salvation (excepting only Jesus) than any other person who ever lived, the LDS church is the only true and living church on the earth with which the Lord is pleased, etc., etc.]
8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. [Very much present. This us-versus-them mentality has existed since day one, and it isn’t just due to persecution. The faith claims of the Mormon church, from the church-of-the-devil teachings in the Book of Mormon through the first-vision-all-creeds-are-an-abomination, to the current LDS cultural construct to avoid the very appearance of evil inherently create conflict with the wider society. In order to reduce this inherent conflict, LDS leadership harps on the idea that “we are Christians just like you.”]
9. The group’s leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
[Another duh. No accountability whatsoever to church membership as to the decisions made or how much money is flowing in and how it is spent. There is no accountability at all to the greater church. As far as accounting goes, sure, the church follows GAAP–generally accepted accounting principles–but whatever level of accountability that creates is strictly internal–and secret.]
10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).
[Lying for the Lord. It does exist. This mentality does exist.]
11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
[One can’t get very far into a conference session without encountering this. The same goes with sacrament meeting talks, priesthood lessons, and Sunday school discussions. Is it intentional? In my opinion most people/leaders are not overtly trying to control people. Their motivation is more to help people stay the LDS course, which, they believe leads to eternal life and exaltation. The effect, however, is significant exertion of control on how people act based on guilt feelings.]
12. Members’ subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.
[This happens all the time. I’ve known people who have tabled their obvious and God-given passions and talents in favor of the Church because the pursuit of their internal tugs would have entailed ‘risky’ association with non-mormons or working on Sundays by choice, for example. Also, family associations are affected. Just this past weekend my wife and I attended a wedding reception for a nephew. The whole family in attendance is very, very LDS. There was a certain ‘coolness’ or ‘aloofness’ that was never there before my wife and I ditched Mormonism. I think it took my brother- and sister-in-law aback when I gave each of them a big, full-on embracing hug. It was totally spontaneous on my part–I was genuinely glad to see them. I’m not much of a hugger, but having been around my current Christian community, which is a hugging bunch, I’ve become more open with my displays of genuine affection. Anyway, the sense of cut ties flows mostly from LDS family members toward us and not so much from us to them. Thankfully, it isn’t very intense, but it is nonetheless there.]
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.
[Anyone who has been a Mormon knows this is so very true, especially for those who wholeheartedly buy into it and end up in leadership positions.]
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. [This is culturally quite true among Mormons. They don’t like to think it is, but it is.]
Is the Mormon church a cult, using the modern meaning of the word? You be the judge.
Falcon
Ever consider that the groups you just mentioned are actually proof that the church has no intention of controlling anyone?
Of course you haven’t, as that would then contradict your whole claim to it being a cult, which I have noticed is you favorite thing to talk about and harp on. The church has never sought to control anyone, and you have given the proof for that.
Shem,
Absolutely! That’s why I brought it up. I’ve heard/read all of the stories of people whose lives were controlled by LDS Inc. Did you read what Jaxi wrote right above your post?
You say the church has never sought to control anyone. Well thanks for setting me straight on that. There sure are a lot of former Mormons out there that give a totally different point of view from what you express. Are they lying? Are they just discontented former members who have an ax to grind with the church?
Here’s what Jaxi said in case you missed it:
“……leaving the LDS Church was the hardest thing I had ever done because it had infiltrated almost every aspect of my life. It was like being held onto by this monster squid and as soon as I had been free of one of its tentacles I would have to deal with another one. The LDS Church was in my marriage, my finances, my routines, my friendships, family relationships… And more.”
Sounds like control to me!
So the Mormon church has never tried to control anyone. Man that’s quite a claim. In the history of Mormonism, no one in authority has ever tried to control someone else? Well here’s something recent. I guess I found one person who thinks differently on this topic from what you claim.
“The mormon church uses mind control on it’s members to completely control every aspect of their lives. After learning about this, I consider it a miracle from God for those of us who have been able to escape Mormonism.”
“The horrible thing about mind control is that when it is used on a person, that person doesn’t realize they are being deceived. All cults that use mind control use the BITE method which stands for:
Behavior Control
Information Control
Thought Control and
Emotion Control
Here are example of how the church uses the BITE method to control it’s members:
1)Behavior Control-
*They tell you what to wear (mormon underwear, no sleevess shirts, neat appearance)
*They tell you how to wear your hair (men can’t have long hair or beards)
*They tell you you cant have tattoos or more than one earring
*They tell you what to eat and drink (word of wisdom- no coffee, no tea, no tobacco, little meat)
*They control your time. Many active members spend up to 20 hours a week doing church related work- (Sunday & Wednesday meetings, callings, family home evening, personal and family scripture study and prayer, youth activities, scouts, genealogy, temple work, etc.) – They keep you so busy that you don’t have time to stop and think.
*They demand strict obedience and perfection
*They tell you who to associate with (you are to avoid “apostates”- those who have left the church)
*They give you financial obligations (tithing). Mormons believe you have to attend the temple to reach exaltation (be with God in heaven) and in order to be worthy to attend the temple you have to pay 10 percent of your income to the church so basically you aren’t just “earning” your salvation but you are “buying” it.
*They tell you to follow the prophet no matter what and to never even question leadership authority.
There’s a lot more. You can read the whole thing at the link I’ll provide. I guess I found the one person, in the history of Mormonism who claims to have been controlled by the church. I’m just wondering about those folks who kind of do their own thing and don’t get trapped on the LDS treadmill? I’m wondering how they pull it off.
http://frommormonismtochristianity.weebly.com/1/post/2013/01/mormon-church-uses-mind-control.html
I would suggest that our readers click on the above link, go to the bottom of the blog and watch the first video. The presentation on the psychology behind Mormonism starts at about the ten minute mark. The presenter is a physician and former Mormon. He spoke on the program “Heart of the Matter” in late November of last year. I believe he said he left the Mormon church in 2010.
So the Mormon church has never sought to control anyone?
What a totally foolish statement.
To all,
It is interesting to consider the types of people who focus on and place very significant emphasis on lists of criteria for cults and groups. Inherent in this focus and reliance on lists is the behavior of the follower. It is very ironic and somewhat humorous. This reliance on lists and criteria from other people is nothing more than a insecure person looking for justification for his or her own position. It is the mindset of the insecure teenager. I could not care less about what some group or individual critic thinks about my beliefs or faith. Yet those people and critics somehow interpret my independence of thought and faith as blindly following others or being manipulated or brainwashed by the church.
The position of the critic is in reality one of weakness, dependency, and frailty. Although the rhetoric and arguments from the critics attempt to suggest otherwise, the behavior of striking out at other people based upon their religion is based upon insecurity with one’s own faith and religious foundation. This is as obvious as anything in the world. It is very telling that so many of those who leave the church dressed in the claim that they have to stand on their own and are doing their own thinking submit requests to have their names removed from the church using form letters written by other people. I can hardly think of a more fitting method for these folks.
The critic is desperate to win an argument. They always have to have the last word. Their focus is on the here and now, and they cannot seem to rely upon the wisdom and timing of God.
The battle over the label “cult” is nothing more than the effort of some people to mask their dislike and disdain for another group of people.
falcon, you asked what LDS wards do about inactive members…I had my name removed a year ago. A few months before that, I regularly attended Ward Council and Priesthood Executive Committee meetings on Sundays. These meetings included the bishopric of the ward as well as leaders from the ward organizations like Elders Quorum, Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, High Priests, Primary, and Sunday School, and the ward mission mission leader. During these meetings, these ward leaders would bring up names of less active members, people struggling with one thing or another, part-member families, and non-members living in in the area. We discussed what was being done to stay in touch with or help those people, which mostly had to do with assigning visits from home and visiting teachers, and sometimes missionaries. Or perhaps a special invitation to a ward social activity. Most of the help for things like food assistance or new parents, illnesses, was turned over to the Relief Society. If someone needed help clearing their yard, Elders Quorum would be assigned, and probably the Young Men too.
In my experience, this was done out of love or at least a sense of duty, in the hope that continued kindness would bring someone back to church.
“[Critics] always have to have the last word.”
My last word on this is a list of one item:
“Jesus is Lord.”
FoF,
You said, ” It is very telling that so many of those who leave the church dressed in the claim that they have to stand on their own and are doing their own thinking submit requests to have their names removed from the church using form letters written by other people. ”
You have used this argument before. It is weak and absurd. The reason people use letters from others is because if the letter isn’t worded just right the LDS Church won’t remove your name. There are legal specifications for how the letter needs to be written. Most people don’t know what those specifications are so they cut and paste parts of someone else’s letter into their own. I did that but I also continued my letter for 7 additional pages which I wrote all on my own. I think most people do that. Using someone else’s letter is more about making the document legally sound that that they are weak. I think you should look for another argument to try to claim that those who leave the LDS Church can’t stand on their own two feet.
FOF,
You really struggle with people leaving the one true church and accepting their explanation that they don’t believe Mormonism any more. It’s always something like they didn’t read the BoM enough and now it’s something about their resignation letter. You need to face reality.
Why does there always have to be some super secret reason? Can’t you accept the fact that people don’t like the LDS church any more and they don’t buy its claims? I think it’s because Mormons who are really into the program just can’t imagine how someone could conclude that the organization isn’t true and dig all the cool stuff especially the temple rituals.
I think a refrain might be, “But they’re giving up so much.” You see they don’t agree that they are giving up anything. In fact, for those who come to know Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they have the same attitude that the apostle Paul did upon leaving Judaism and coming to Christ. He said that he considered anything he might have gained in his former religion as “garbage” compared to knowing Jesus.
The Mormon religious system won’t payoff in the end. It won’t payoff for one very good reason. It isn’t true.
Former Mormons also say that they can’t believe how much time and money they have since they left the LDS church. That’s just an ancillary benefit of course, but people enjoy getting their life back.
In the video on the link I provided above, the physician who does the presentation talks about how he had many fellow Mormons as patients. After he left the LDS church, these folks were told by the Bishop or someone in authority not to see him any more for medical attention.
I think that qualifies as “control”.
Looking at the indicators listed above, what strikes me is the idea that members of cults are discouraged from associating with those outside of their belief system. In relating to my LDS friends, I have sometimes had the feeling that there is always an undercurrent of proselytizing, and that once it is understood I will not be converting to the Mormon church, the friendship may wane. I have wondered however, and this is a question I especially would like to ask the former Mormons here, if perhaps my LDS friend is not really free to develop a deeper friendship with me because of questions that will be asked of her at the time of her temple worthiness interviews. Are Mormons only free to inquire into other faiths if they are actively sharing their own in the process? If that is the case, then I welcome the conversion efforts if it keeps my LDS friends “in the clear” in terms of continuing to look into biblical Christianity.
Bloom,
I had a conversation with a young guy who had been a Mormon convert but his wife had been raised in the LDS church. They dropped out after having gone through one of the temple rituals. He told me that all of their close Mormon friends had dumped them when they left.
Fortunately they live in the mid-west so their everyday lives were not as entangled in the Mormon curtain. He’s the guy who had joined the LDS church and didn’t have a clue about their most fundamental beliefs including the doctrine of the nature of God.
Decades ago I had a friend who was in the Peace Corps on American Samoa. He loved to play basketball and the Mormons were the only ones with a gym. They were very friendly and would invite him to play until it became clear he was not a good prospect for the Mormon program. The invitations to play BB ended.
I think that with Mormons the bottom line is always the idea of converting their acquaintances. How many people are invited over to a Mormon family’s home only to have the missionaries “just drop by” later for an introduction?
My guess is that in areas where Mormons don’t dominate the population and culture you get a different sort of flavor of Mormonism. They are forced by circumstances and training to be different from those Mormons out in Utah.
Well, our kids are friends and I think we’re both interested in maintaining the friendship, undercurrents of potential conversions aside… I was wondering more about potential ramifications for her in her temple interviews–I don’t know much of the specifics about those but believe they are asked if they’ve had contact with those of another faith and what level that is on?–if she is to continue engaging in dialogue with me about what I believe as an evangelical, will she be asked by the bishop about this contact, and if she continues to share her LDS faith with me, does that provide her with “cover” in terms of continuing to investigate biblical Christianity?
Bloom said: ” I have sometimes had the feeling that there is always an undercurrent of proselytizing, and that once it is understood I will not be converting to the Mormon church, the friendship may wane.” That has nothing to do with what leaders say. If a friendship wanes it is because of that particular Mormon as a person. It has nothing to do with what the church teaches its members to do.
Bloom said: ” ….. if perhaps my LDS friend is not really free to develop a deeper friendship with me because of questions that will be asked of her at the time of her temple worthiness interviews.” Not true. Mormons are free to develope friendships with anyone. Questions in interviews never have anything to do with who friends are and has nothing to do with Temple worthiness.
Bloom said: “Are Mormons only free to inquire into other faiths if they are actively sharing their own in the process?” No. Mormons are free to inquire into other faiths without actively sharing their own in the process. I personally have done so and never got into trouble. I even went to a Baptist function with a friend of mine because they needed help with the kids. Yes, I helped. I did not get into trouble. I never brought up religion. As a matter of fact, all the Baptists brought up religion, asking me about my religion. All the Baptists tried to convert me. I did not stop helping my friend because of this. If a Mormon drops you as a friend because you show no interest in the Mormon church then that Mormon is wrong to do so and it was a personal decision. I have had people of other religions do the same to me! I showed no interest in their church so I got dumped. It is not just Mormons who do this! It is wrong for anyone of any religion to do this.
Regardless of what has been said, the Mormon church leaders never tell members they can not have friends who belong to other religions; members are never told to make friends with someone just to get that friend to join the Mormon church and if the friend won’t join then the Mormon is to dump them; members are never told to not associtate with people of other faiths. I have many friends who are not Mormons and we get along great. They come to church functions with me and I go to their church functions with them. I also have Mormon friends. I have never been in trouble with the Mormon church for associating outside the Mormon religion! In my hometown my friends drink alcohol and get a little rowdy, but they never drink around me. We respect each other’s lifestyle and beliefs. That is what the Mormon church teaches. That is what I have always been taught.
If there are Mormons who do not associate outside the Mormon religion then it is a cultural thing in certain areas. Mormon church leadership has never prevented members from associating with non-Mormons. Mormons are told to choose friends carefully – in other words do not hang out at bars, casinos, do not have friends who have unsavory characters, are in gangs etc. etc. etc. The Mormon church leadership is starting to address cultural issues within the church. There are culture issues that people think is doctrine or came from leaders, and both members and non-members think this. If family members distance themselves from a family member who quits the Mormon church then that is the family doing it, not the church leaders telling them to do it. If the person who left the church always bad mouths the church then no doubt the active family members will distance themselves from the family member who quit. I would because I would get tired of hearing the complaints all the time. But not because the leaders tell me to do so.
Falcon says: “In the video on the link I provided above, the physician who does the presentation talks about how he had many fellow Mormons as patients. After he left the LDS church, these folks were told by the Bishop or someone in authority not to see him any more for medical attention.
I think that qualifies as “control”.” The doctor was either paranoid OR if true then who ever told the patients to quit using him as a doctor was wrong to do so. Once again, it is a cultural issue that is wrong. Now IF the doctor was trying to get his Mormon patients to quit the church, or bad mouthing the church to the Mormon patients, then I can see the Mormon members being told to quit going to this doctor. I personally would not want to have a health professional talk to me about quiting my faith or bad mouthing anyone or anything to me every time I had an appointment with them.
I have read other people’s experiences in leaving their religion (not the LDS religion) and even spoke to some in person, and they say EXACTLY the same thing as people who left the LDS religon – ” it was hard to leave, the church was in everyting I did, I could not have friends who did not go to church with me, the church controlled everything, we had to this, we had to do that, etc. etc. etc.” Sounds exactly like ex-Mormons. Hhhhmmmmmmm…… There have been plenty of religions in the news (Protestant, general Christian, and otherwise, not LDS) that function very much like a cult.
The first Christians were called cultists by the Pagans, so I am in good company. And there are people today who consider Christianity as a whole, a pagan and cultic religion. They also believe Jesus was not even a historical figure, that He is made up in the minds of Christians. So it baffles me why sites like this one, who bash the LDS church, do not do battle with the Aetheists. There are plenty of Aethiest sites that do to Christianity exactly what sites like this do to the LDS religion.
Silkworm:
“…it baffles me why sites like this one, who bash the LDS church, do not do battle with the Aetheists. There are plenty of Aethiest sites that do to Christianity exactly what sites like this do to the LDS religion.”
Are you arguing that all religious apologists should devote equal time and energy to each of the many alternative belief systems? If so, that seems like an unreasonable demand. Even the apostles Peter and Paul concentrated their efforts on specific groups of people (Galatians 2:7-8).
I have to kinda laugh at a Mormon calling critics weak, dependent (on what?) and frail. This coming from someone who can’t even prove that the Book of Mormon took place in this reality after almost 200 years of frantic searching. This from someone who would have us believe that Jo Smith’s Book of Abraham is an “inspired document” from the Christian God but has a picture of a pagan God with an erection labeled as the Christian God. Who hail Jo Smith as a prophet of God, yet the man was nothing but a petty conjurer, who had people dig for treasures that could never be found because they “slipped” back into the earth, and then had the audacity to write in a made up book (that he said was a record of some Hebrew Indians that can never be proved) that God said these (“slippery treasures”) really happened and was all his doing.
The problem with the letters was the fact that when people ASKED to have their names removed, they were not. I had to threaten my Stake President with legal action. I’m not the only one who had this problem. The letter is just a legal formality, the thinking had been done long before that. Again, another straw man argument that makes little sense.
We see how little FOF “cares” about what critics think. He can’t shut up. He can’t walk away. He has to come back continually because he is afraid of what is being revealed about Mormonism. Everything FOF says is a contradiction. Everything he posts shows that he blindly follows the blind without a care for the truth.
Mormons today have been manipulated and brainwashed. Brainwashed into thinking that their “prophets” who claim inspirational infallibility, when their statements are brought under the light of scrutiny are made out to be only makers of “folklore”, “speculation” and “opinion”. But this is not what they really think. This is just a convenient lie they tell the public.
I once proved that Mormonism is false by way of Parley P. Pratt, who was an ordained “prophet, seer & revelator” who said in 1838 that there would not be one unbelieving Gentile left on the American Continent 50 years from the date of his “prophecy” or the Book of Mormon was false. That all the American Indians were descendants of Hebrews and would “rise up” against the U.S. Government. He said it as a prophecy and in the name of Jesus Christ and Pratt was never corrected by anyone, and is still hailed as a great “apostle”, “prophet seer & revelator” by the Church.
No Mormon will touch this kind of thing with a ten foot pole. They are embarrassed. They can’t explain it. I can bring it up again and again and it will be ignored. Why? Because it proves Mormonism is false, that it’s core “apostles” were nothing but liars, and Jo Smith another one, who bestowed upon them a phony priesthood that he had to write in to his “scriptures” years later.
There is so much wrong with Mormonism that it is mind boggling that anyone will believe it. There is one explanation for this. It is a cult.
Just feel this needs to be pointed out: SLC, a city dominated by LDS, is a notoriously difficult place to live for non-Mormons. It is said that unless a family is a part of the LDS church, the family will have a hard time having friends. Kids are not invited to birthday parties and parents are left out, too.
I have not lived there, so I cannot speak directly to this reputation’s veracity. I have, however, spent a lot of time in Park City, a nearby town to SLC (and far less Mormon) and have spoken to people who say this happens even in Park City.
Food for thought, if nothing else…
Silkworm,
What exactly do we on this site do to the LDS religion and why is it like what atheists do to Christianity on other sites? I don’t get your point.
What we do here is defend orthodox Christianity against those teaching unsound doctrine as the NT says we should. That’s the mission of MRM as I understand it.
You are perfectly welcome to come here and defend Mormonism. In fact I welcome you to do such.
This site isn’t about Jehovah Witnesses, or Moonies or atheists. It’s about Mormonism and its claims to be the restoration of first century Christianity. Mormons claim that what they believe and practice is the same as the first century Christian church which was lost and was restored by Joseph Smith. We disagree and contend that there is no evidence that Mormonism was around in the first century.
I have no real interest in debating with atheists, Jehovah Witnesses, Moonies or any other heretical group. My interest lies in Mormonism. I have all I can do to keep up with an apologetic defense against Mormonism on this site.
Silkworm, do you visit atheists sites trying to win them for the restored gospel of Mormonism? I doubt it. It would be a complete waste of your time if you did.
I once asked a Mormon poster on this site if he would kill or steal if ordered to do so by the Mormon prophet. He said he would do so under such an order. Now is this, at the very least, control?
It tells us about the mind-set of at least this member of the LDS church. Let me tell you, if a Christian leader told me to kill someone or to steal something, I’d tell him to go and do it himself and then I’d report him to the lawful authorities and testify against him in a court of law.
Hilarious. Now the critics are claiming that members of the church are instructed not to associate or be friends with people outside the church. Next, you will try to convince us that the law of gravity has been outlawed and is not longer in force. You guys are amazing. It is truly entertaining to see what is argued here. Anybody read or watch a general conference in the last 50 years? Anybody watch the leadership broadcast open to all members 3 days ago? Do you have any idea what members are encouraged to do in relation to people who are not of our faith? They surely are not instructed to only befriend members of the church. And we are supposed to believe your arguments regarding the Book of Mormon or any other of our faith claims? Unbelievable.
A dissident claims his LDS patients were instructed by church leaders to no longer receive health care from him after he left the church. The critics here believe that claim categorically with no thought. A comment was made recently in the media about global warming and the “flat earth society.” After hearing the arguments here about the church, that “flat earth society” certainly sounds like an appropriate title to the folks who make these arguments here.
falcon- I once read a story about a supposedly great man of God who was commanded to kill his own son. This blind and obviously “controlled” follower actually was willing to follow that direction. Sheesh. Can you believe how gullible some people are?
The critics here are truly standing on the weakest of ground and I think they instinctively know it. That is a major factor in their desire to strike out at and criticize the faith of others. Despite the pseudo-intellectual packaging of their arguments, they are truly followers of others and relying upon the arm of flesh.
The mindset and approach of the critics is absolutely no different than that of the atheists who attack Christianity. No difference whatsoever.
FoF, I would not describe it as an order to not associate with those outside the church, but I would suggest it is the norm. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it really seems to be true. There are a myriad reasons for it, and I just said, its not necessarily bad, but it just is.
I suppose we could make all sorts of conclusions from it, but, personally, I am not sure how beneficial that would be. At some point, its possible to make a mountain out of a molehill, and that particular issue strikes me as one of those points. About the only point worth discussing is that it gives a message of exclusivity to your group in that only LDS and good LDS candidates need apply.
If you guys want (whether commanded to or now) to exclude non-LDS from social situations when there is little or no desire to join, fine, have at it. I’m not going to make a big deal of it.
We are discussing the characteristics of cults and whether or not Mormonism meets the criteria for being a cult. Now whether or not active LDS members are told by their GAs not to associate with those outside the sect is probably not the issue.
My guess is that whether or not former Mormons are shunned by active Mormons appears, at least to me, to be a practice within the LDS clan. As to if Mormons associate with those outside the LDS faith at least, like the other issue, has a load of anecdotal evidence attached to it.
But I don’t think that either of these things is the major reason why Mormonism could be considered a cult.
But just for fun, let’s look at this.
“Three friends of mine, including my best friend are Mormon. I am not currently Mormon but was thinking of converting for awhile and mentioned this to my best friend. I have not spoken to the missionaries in person yet, but have talked to them online about a few beliefs. I have also looked at the good and the bad on sites such as mormon.org, blogs, youtube, websites, etc of people who are very happy with mormonism as well as people who decided to leave the church for various reasons. After looking at a lot of material both positive and negative, I have come to the conclusion that maybe I don’t want to join after all. I believe my best friend has become aware of my decision because he seems to have been avoiding me as of late and I believe this is the reason. Is it common for members to shun investigators who decide the church is not right for them?”
“Most Mormon friends cannot really see you past their religion. If they feel like you have rejected it AT ALL, then they will probably feel like you have rejected them. It is commonly observed that Mormonism overrides personal identity and family relationships, so that same totalism or absolutism especially interferes with friendships with non-members.
So the “shunning” is something that a Mormon apologist would deny, b/c it’s not formally and explicitly condoned or required, but realistically, practically, many exmos have experienced the loss of friendships that had been in place for YEARS simply due to changes in their views about Mormonism.
Basically your “friend”–who is your friend to the extent that within Mormonism he can be–experiences pain and confusion when attempting to interact with someone who has made clear his or her doubts about Mormonism. It is interesting that few Mormons can conduct functional and meaningful relationships with those outside the church, especially after those people have described reservations about the church.”
And one more answer:
“Yes – it’s common. When I quit going to church, pretty much everyone LDS who had been my friend at church, quit being my friend. Oh, sure, they would be “friendly” enough if they bumped into me. Only a couple of people talked down to me and only one turned and walked away from me, instead of speaking to me. But the rest, even the ones who had been my best friends, didn’t bother to ask why I wasn’t at church and pretty much quit calling me to do things. If you don’t fall in with their religious beliefs, they see you as not as spiritual or good as they are and they have no use for you. They will only be nice to you in a fake way in the future, in order to try again to bring you into the church. In fairness, Mormons are so busy 20-30 hours a week with church obligations from personal scripture study to actual church work and attendance and they just have no TIME for people that they don’t trip over at church. They also have most of their social events around the church, so socializing outside of church events is a puzzle to them. Unless it’s something church-approved, like a playgroup for young moms and their kids. Actually socializing with non-LDS is rare because they have no time and no skills in friendshipping.
Sorry your friend is being such a creep but he’s probably just been programmed to see non-LDS as potential converts or nothing. You chose nothing. But it was the right choice. Better to lose this friend now than 20 years from now, find out you have only Mormon friends and all your Mormon friends are as false as he is.”
http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Being-shunned-common-if-you-decide-to-not-join-Mormonism
So while something might not be a pronouncement from SLC, practices can develop that become “law”. Actually that’s something that is taken into consideration in general civil law suits and that is “what has the common practice been”. You hear so much about this from former members that it’s more than an Urban Legend.
Here’s one more example:
The model for sharing the gospel has traditionally meant making friends with people who you think would make good prospects. A few years ago the model changed to sharing the gospel with people you already know. I read that this is not the case, but I wanted to throw that out there.
Shunning is very common. Many times people will be all friendly to someone until they either join or not and then their job of fellowshipping is done. For a perfect example of this, go ahead and let on that you want to join. Then go to church and see how many people touch your shoulder and shake your hand while smiling brightly.
After about three weeks start asking questions in the foyer about some of the stuff you have read and see how quickly the hand of welcome is withdrawn.
Parents and siblings do this too. When a member of the family chooses to leave the church- not just go inactive but actually leave the church they can expect hostility and shunning. Some parents even go so far as to ignore their own Grandkids and GreatGrandkids.
If you’ve been a member for a long time and leave, you can expect a serious round of harassment and love bombing from people you don’t usually hear from or talk to, followed by complete silence, people avoiding you on the street, and rumors of infidelity or weakness, being offended or sin of a grievous nature, all geared toward making the rest of the membership afraid of you and to reassure them that the church is true but you were too prideful to repent.
You may out of desperation even consider going back just so you won’t be shunned by mom and dad, friends and neighbors, but if you did return you would always be regarded with suspicion or caution. You’ll never give a prayer or speak up in class without a scrutinizing ear trained on you looking for any deviation or hint of subversion.
falcon- you are identifying human nature as something peculiar to LDS. And as your necessary corollary, you are denying that these traits are fundamental to human nature. The other group that does such a thing is the secularists and atheists. As I said before, the critics here share much in common with the atheists.
Please try to show us how the behavior you describe is found only in Latter-day Saints.
I might as well start claiming that adultery is a behavior found in Evangelical Christians.
Thanks.
Just wanted to clarify to FaithofFathers that I was not claiming that “Mormons are told not to associate with or be friends with” non-merbers. Clearly, we are friends, so I don’t believe this. I am not all that familiar with Mormonism so was inquiring whether there would be repurcussions for her in terms of her temple entrance interview because of in-depth discussions we’ve had about our respective faiths. I should mention that she has initiated these discussions (to her credit!)
I was reading this article as it relates to our current discussion. It’s written by a Mormon man who gives a LDS perspective. I was rather enjoying the article until I came to the final paragraph:
“We need to do all we can to dispel the label of the “Utah Mormon” or the self-righteous member, no matter where we live, no matter whether we are a majority or a minority. We owe it to others and ultimately to our own salvation. What we hold sacred and are blessed with is not a guaranteed free ride to heaven … we still have to earn it. Let’s share what we have with others and befriend them in the process regardless the outcome.”
Boy did I do a head snap with the second to last sentence. That pretty much summarizes Mormonism. It’s like, “We’re Mormons. We do salvation the old fashion way. WE EARN IT!”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865551101/Reader-Voices-Loving-neighbors-regardless-of-religion.html?pg=1
Here’s another good one written by someone who is non-Mormon but lives in Utah.
http://www.ldsliving.com/story/68027-commentary-to-mormons-is-shunning-something-we-still-do-in-2012