Some thoughts on cults

[skylark1]

I think by 'creeds' here Christian denominations are meant. If recall the story correctly Joseph Smith was trying to decide which church to join when he has a vision telling him that they are all abominations.

I think that in this case creeds means creeds, not denominations. This took place during the time of the Restoration Movement, an early nineteenth century Christian movement that sought to unify Christians. This movement rejected all historical creeds and traditions.


The LDS Church also rejects historical creeds. Here are a few quotes from LDS leaders.

I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.

Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith


The most charitable thing that can be said of them is that they are man made. Neither their authors, the councils which adopted them, nor those who presently accept them, make any claim that revelation or inspiration was present in their formulation and promulgation, although attempts are made to show that the various articles in them conform to the teachings of the scriptures.

Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine
(retrieved fromn LDS site, Light Planet)


We affirm that this divine declaration was a condemnation of the creeds, not of the faithful seekers who believed in them.....

One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postbiblical creeds.

Dallin Oaks, LDS Conference, April 1995, Apostasy and Restoration​

If you read these quotes in context, this will likely be more evident. Specific creed such as the Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed, as well as church councils are mentioned, in these and in other articles. Here are the links:

All About Mormons: Creeds

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/04/apostasy-and-restoration?lang=eng

 

[skylark1]

When people study the sociology of religion the term "cult" is, in fact, used; but it is used sociologically rather than theologically. There are certain distinctive elements which are looked for that define a cult, such as controlling behavior of the members, granting unusually high power, authority, and lack of accountability to its leader or leaders. Those sorts of things. This changes the dynamics a bit, because the actual theology of any given group is somewhat irrelevant; it isn't whatever things a group believes that another group thinks is "weird" that determines what is or isn't a cult, it is instead the potential of harm that a group puts upon its members. Something far more measurable and objective.

I agree with using the sociology definition, rather using the term to mean groups with beliefs that differ from what is traditional or orthodox.

Here is a link to a list about characteristics associated with cults.

Cults 101: Checklist of Cult Characteristics

Along with what you wrote about controlling behavior, and granting high power, authority, and lack of accountability to leaders, here are a few other things that it lists.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.​

Please see the link for the complete list.

 

[Albion]

I can't agree, Skylark, and here's why--

While it is true that the modern definition of "cult" can emphasize either the sociological/psychological aspects of an organization or the theological...

We are here on a religion discussion board and forum, not a sociology board or forum.

While there is indeed a place for the points you presented, the problem, as I see it, is in making it appear that the idea of a cult being defined by the organization's unorthodox (or worse) religious beliefs is mistaken. It certainly is not mistaken, and there is a mountain of literature dealing with the subject.

 

[RDKirk]

I can't agree, Skylark, and here's why--

While it is true that the modern definition of "cult" can emphasize either the sociological/psychological aspects of an organization or the theological...

We are here on a religion discussion board and forum, not a sociology board or forum.

While there is indeed a place for the points you presented, the problem, as I see it, is in making it appear that the idea of a cult being defined by the organization's unorthodox (or worse) religious beliefs is mistaken. It certainly is not mistaken, and there is a mountain of literature dealing with the subject.

Then your disagreement is with the OP, because that's the original proposition of this thread.

 

[Albion]

I think that's incorrect. I've tried to be balanced in my comments and acknowledge that the matter is a bit complicated, however the very beginning of the OP (not to mention the wording of the title) is as follows:

What is a cult anyway?In my younger days I read several books about "cults", Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults is what immediately comes to mind. In the particular tradition of the Evangelical counter-cult culture a cult is more-or-less defined as a religious sect with aberrant or heretical theology.

There is no way that my "thoughts" about cults are not on the topic, as it was presented, even if the conclusion or emphasis of the writer of the OP trended in a somewhat different direction.

 

[skylark1]

Then your disagreement is with the OP, because that's the original proposition of this thread.

I also thought that was the conclusion of the OP.

 

[RDKirk]

There is no way that my "thoughts" about cults are not on the topic, as it was presented, even if the conclusion or emphasis of the writer of the OP trended in a somewhat different direction.

That's rather the definition of "off topic." The thread has been hijacked, but it appears that rescue at this point is impossible.

 

[Albion]

No, no, no.

Let me try again but somewhat differently.

The title of the OP and the OP invited "thoughts" on the matter of "cults." That makes my thoughts as appropriate as anyone else's, and they certainly are that, since they reinforce the usual understanding of the meaning of the word. Even the OP even said as much.

What's more I don't even consider myself to have been in "disagreement" with the OP, as you claimed, since I see it as little more than an appeal for an additional dimension of the matter not to be dismissed too readily.

 

[smaneck]

Almost all the well-known "cult watchers" --writers, researchers, lecturers, etc. --have stressed the aberrant doctrines. And that's important because some very strange churches or religions may well be populated by some very nice and sincere people. We'd still want our friends to be aware that they are not 'just another' Christian denomination.

Those people are still using the term 'cult' as a pejorative. If all you are trying to say is that something isn't Christian, just say it isn't Christian. You don't need the word 'cult' to say that. Cults have nothing to do with doctrine. It has to do with charismatic power of their leader. Christianity begins as a cult. So do most religions.

The way evangelical Christians use the term 'cult' has nothing to do with the historic meaning of the term or the way it is used in sociology. In fact if we are looking at it sociologically, the LDS is a perfect example of a cult becoming a 'church' in the Weberian sense. The institutional structure of the Mormon church is a perfect example of the routinization of charisma. The FLDS, however is still a cult in the Weberian sense because of the power wielded by their prophets.

And if you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably shouldn't be throwing the term 'cult' around to begin with.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Those people are still using the term 'cult' as a pejorative. If all you are trying to say is that something isn't Christian, just say it isn't Christian. You don't need the word 'cult' to say that.

Exactly. One is a polite way of expressing one's opinion. The other is simply an insult.

 

[Albion]

Those people are still using the term 'cult' as a pejorative.

It doesn't really matter. Call it "banana" if you wish and there is still a place for differentiating between the range of Christian churches that, despite some squabbles, adhere to the basics of the Christian religion...AND, on the other hand, those churches which retain some of the characteristics of Christianity but have departed from one or more of the real essentials (previously identified here), to the point that they actually constitute new religions.

 

[Norah63]

So now we determine REAL essestials?
Isn't that freedom of religion?

 

[skylark1]

It doesn't really matter. Call it "banana" if you wish and there is still a place for differentiating between the range of Christian churches that, despite some squabbles, adhere to the basics of the Christian religion...AND, on the other hand, those churches which retain some of the characteristics of Christianity but have departed from one or more of the real essentials (previously identified here), to the point that they actually constitute new religions.

Instead of cult, how about using:


Heterodox, unorthodox, heresy, or new religion?

 

[Albion]

Instead of cult, how about using:

Heterodox, unorthodox, heresy, or new religion?

You've put your finger on one of the leading problems with this.

There was no particular word for this kind of religious organization until there was a surge of interest and concern a couple of generations ago. "Cult," which historically had not been an insult and had meant only an organized devotional society of some sort, was used by some commentators...and it stuck. So then came defining the thing.

The main issue is that these religions movements or organizations are not properly described by words like heterodox, unorthodox, or heresy. Those are all perfectly good words and familiar, but they don't describe a church that has abandoned a real essential of the historic faith--something so fundamental that both Catholics and Protestants would immediately reject it as dangerously wrong.

For example, a Protestant is a "heretic" to the Roman Catholic Church for denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but what do you do with some new church that denies the divinity of Christ or has some book of Sacred Writings that it treats as if it were the Bible?--but still claims to be a Christian denomination?

That goes more directly to the non-negotiables of the faith, and it was thought that making the distinction was important to do because ordinary people have a hard time fighting through these terms and doctrinal differences, some of which are supposedly critically important and some are less so.

 

[TasteForTruth]

You've put your finger on one of the leading problems with this.

There was no particular word for this kind of religious organization until there was a surge of interest and concern a couple of generations ago. "Cult," which historically had not been an insult and had meant only an organized devotional society of some sort, was used by some commentators...and it stuck. So then came defining the thing.

The main issue is that these religions movements or organizations are not properly described by words like heterodox, unorthodox, or heresy. Those are all perfectly good words and familiar, but they don't describe a church that has abandoned a real essential of the historic faith--something so fundamental that both Catholics and Protestants would immediately reject it as dangerously wrong.

For example, a Protestant is a "heretic" to the Roman Catholic Church for denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but what do you do with some new church that denies the divinity of Christ or has some book of Sacred Writings that it treats as if it were the Bible?--but still claims to be a Christian denomination?

That goes more directly to the non-negotiables of the faith, and it was thought that making the distinction was important to do because ordinary people have a hard time fighting through these terms and doctrinal differences, some of which are supposedly critically important and some are less so.

Are you, then, in favor of renaming this sub-forum "Christianity and Cults"? Because that is what your position suggests would be an appropriate title for it.

 

[skylark1]

You've put your finger on one of the leading problems with this.

There was no particular word for this kind of religious organization until there was a surge of interest and concern a couple of generations ago. "Cult," which historically had not been an insult and had meant only an organized devotional society of some sort, was used by some commentators...and it stuck. So then came defining the thing.

The main issue is that these religions movements or organizations are not properly described by words like heterodox, unorthodox, or heresy. Those are all perfectly good words and familiar, but they don't describe a church that has abandoned a real essential of the historic faith--something so fundamental that both Catholics and Protestants would immediately reject it as dangerously wrong.

For example, a Protestant is a "heretic" to the Roman Catholic Church for denying the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but what do you do with some new church that denies the divinity of Christ or has some book of Sacred Writings that it treats as if it were the Bible?--but still claims to be a Christian denomination?

The term unorthodox Christian should work for what you describe.

Unorthodox: contrary to what is usual, traditional, or accepted; not orthodox

That goes more directly to the non-negotiables of the faith, and it was thought that making the distinction was important to do because ordinary people have a hard time fighting through these terms and doctrinal differences, some of which are supposedly critically important and some are less so.

What do you mean by your words that I bolded? Do you think that ordinary people have difficult time understanding the term unorthodox or heresy?

 

[Albion]

That would be nice if 'unorthodox' did the trick, but it doesn't. That's why some other word had to be employed. It's unorthodox to not believe in any sacraments (as per the Quakers, let's say) but that's not a departure of the magnitude we're discussing. And when it comes to using the word in a casual, non-theological way to mean, more or less, "Bohemian" or "free thinker" it's even less helpful. And again, this isn't MY choice. I'm only explaining the thinking in the field.

By that phrase that you bolded I meant exactly what I was explaining. There is a need for such a term precisely because people are confused when they consider the huge number of different Christian denominations and try to figure out what the differences are and which really matter vs. which are optional or just minor in importance. The attempt -- on the part of the researchers into cultism -- was for them to be able to sort out the differences and know which churches had really crossed the line into being non-Christian.

 

[Booko]

What you have described is the new CWR, where nigh unto every thread will be hijacked by critics of the LDS religion and turned into a bash-Mormonism extravaganza. Get used to it. It only took 5 posts in this thread. That's impressive, but by no means a record.

Well then I'm sorry I returned after being out of town for a while, and perhaps I will reconsider where I spend my time.

I can pretty much guarantee everything I read in those exchanges is just a rehash from stuff I read online before there was an Internet to read it on. It will only be more boring now, from having seen it for several decades since.

As for the OP, there are several possible definitions:

1. A religious group that in insular, separates members from outsiders, is authoritarian and frequently involves abuse of members' finances, revolves around a charismatic figure (who all too frequently seems to use power for sex with whomever he wishes), and otherwises abuses people in order to remain in existence.

2. "Any religion I don't agree with."

3. The more traditional definition of cult which smaneck earlier mentioned.

If a defintion of "cult" revolves around some point of orthodoxy of one particular religion, that is definition of #2. And a pretty good sign I can ignore whatever is said after.

 

[MissVeronica]

Threads that expose all religions as cults typically get little attention. Chalk it up to the pride of man getting in the way of man admitting that he calls the other guy's religion a cult on the basis of his pride. One of those vicious-cycle, double-standard-like things...

Funny though look at all the atrocities committed by other religion. I don't recall christianity talking about anything but Love... . So I guess I know which side of the fence I am on. And how can a metal object God be worshipped.

For the life of me I just don't get it, why intelligent people would think this.
Exodus 20:3
"You shall have no other gods before Me. 4"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Funny though look at all the atrocities committed by other religion. I don't recall christianity talking about anything but Love... .

Careful up there on that high horse, it looks like a long way down.