Because there is clearly a phenomenon of a central charismatic leader who seeks absolute control of a group of subordinates by separating them from the rest of society and making supernatural threats and promises.

I see the relinquishment of the word "cult" as an appeasement of litigious organizations like the Church of Scientology. I can appreciate that sociologists and anthropologists do not judge the interior "realities" of the groups in order to maintain objectivity; however, this is not the situation for those of us who are expected to coexist with them in society and shrug off the damage they do to us and our fellow humans.

"Cult" may not be an academic or politically correct word, but until there is a better one, I will use it.

I would argue that a central charismatic leader is not the only part of the definition of a cult.

Every group of students in school have a charismatic leader, as people with charisma tend to leader others. Should we call every group in school a cult?

Even the supernatural threats and promises part has nothing to do with cults. A cult could easily have no supernatural element to it.

Nobody here cares about political correctness, but if we aren't approaching something like this academically, we might as well pray to god about it.

"I would argue that a central charismatic leader is not the only part of the definition of a cult."

I did not say the "only part", did I? Or did you just stop reading after "charismatic leader"?


"Every group of students in school have a charismatic leader, as people with charisma tend to leader others. Should we call every group in school a cult?"

Again, you didn't read past "charismatic leader".


"Even the supernatural threats and promises part has nothing to do with cults. A cult could easily have no supernatural element to it."

This is true, because we have witnessed statist versions of this, with the cults of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Marx. But that does not invalidate the example that I am using.

"Nobody here cares about political correctness, but if we aren't approaching something like this academically, we might as well pray to god about it."

Your idea of approaching it academically *is* political correctness, because you would try to control the language that we use to discuss it. Sorry, until you can come up with a replacement term, "cult" will be used. "Marginal religious movement" can be your term. I'll use mine.

"Your idea of approaching it academically *is* political correctness"

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Until I actually try to control your speech or use of the term, you shouldn't accuse me of it.

"Sorry, until you can come up with a replacement term, "cult" will be used."

I couldn't care less what term you use. I'm surprised you think I was trying to change your use.

""Marginal religious movement" can be your term."

It isn't my term, and I've never used it.

"I'll use mine."

Again, I couldn't care less.

Is your skin so thin that you thought I was attacking you and trying to change you? Nobody was replying to your thread, so I thought I would be kind and reply. Clearly you can't handle a discussion, even when it was initiated in pity.

It would surely have been wasted if you hadn't commented. No one else could possibly have said anything as substantial as you.

Well, clearly you didn't. It is a shame you went into persecution complex mode. Good luck with that.

Maybe we should just use the word "religion" ;)

The word "cult" has different meanings in the dictionary and different shades of meaning within those meanings.

However, back when I was a TBM I took a sociology class in which the sociological definition of "cult" was given. As the teacher gave the characteristics of a "cult" I mentally noticed that every one of them fit Mormonism. That was OK by me because, hey, we were THE ONE-AND-ONLY TRUE CHURCH. That's what I'd expect the OAOTC to be like.

Much later in life I was a member of a choir at a Presbyterian Church. I sat through three years of services, announcements and sermons.

Never once did I hear of anyone being interviewed and pronounced "worthy."

Never once did I hear of the names of the leaders of the Presbyterian Church.

Never once did I hear anyone being exhorted to be obedient to any church leaders.

Never once did I hear that the Presbytarian Church was the one true church. In fact I heard announcements for religious happenings in other, non-Presbyterian churches.

Never once did I hear about needing a special "recomend" to be part of any worship service.

Never once did I hear about anyone being expected to spend two years as a full-time recruiter for the Presbyterian church.

Marriages in the Church were conducted in the chapel and the doors were open for anyone to attend.

The annual membership meeting gave a financial breakdown for the previous year.

It was then that I really understood how Mormonism was a cult and the Presbyterian church was not.

Well said.

"That's what I'd expect the OAOTC to be like."

Exactly!

One of the things that kept me in the church was this type of thinking. The very definition of a correct religion is part of Mormon teachings. Clearly, they fit their own description.

That is a smart way to keep people paying tithing.

They stay because it's their choice how they want to interpret situations, words, whatever. No one's casual language usage "keeps" people inprisoned in churches.

Many of them stay (like I did) because they are brainwashed (in my case, not only washed, but dry-cleaned to borrow a quote from "The Manchurian Candidate"). Language is a prime element of such conditioning. I didn't make a conscious, WELL-INFORMED choice. It was 95% made for me by my conditioning that started at birth. That's why it took me until my early 30s to realize the obvious.

ronas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe we should just use the word "religion" ;)


I'll agree with this. It's respectful, and honest. It has no particular connotation that will close down communication.

I know I will turn off- and shut down when my ideas/beliefs are denigrated and put down by pejoratives. I loose respect for the person when they do it purposely to be annoying, or difficult in some way.

It's just not done in polite company! :-)

If mormons don't like the word, there's no need for them to use it.

The day we must use words they like is the day when RfM honors the morg over personal recovery.

Cheryl,

Since I've been debating the other side of this. For the record, I agree using the word cult to describe Mormonism here in the context of this board is very appropriate.

I do use it here on RfM and in conversations with those who want to talk openly abou this subject.

.. a racist, sexist, homophobic "church" with a long and storied history of criminal activity, but what's the difference?

Call it a church a klan or a cult, its still a racist, sexist, homophobic institution with a long and storied history of criminal activity.

When I accidentally stumbled onto RFM back in 1998, I had already been out of the cult for some 25 years. The hardest thing to come to grips with was the fact that I had once belonged to a religious cult.

Folks who are still closely connected to the cult via family and such don't like the cult being referred to as a cult because it is likewise difficult to accept that family members and such belong to a religious cult.

Like it or not, however, they do belong to a religious cult. Searching for and accepting definitions to the contrary might ease the pain but won't alter the facts.

Those who claim to have recovered yet endlessly defend the cult still have a long way to go. They can't see it because denial remains their MO.

Timothy

My case was slightly different. I felt relieved and vindicated the more I learned I had freed myself of a deceptive, homophobic, sexist, racist, criminally inclined cult. As that sunk into my brain, my personal relief and self worth skyrocketed. It takes a smart, insightful, courageous person to see through severe brainwashing and shake off family entaglements to reach freedom.

There's not much pride or recovery involved in leaving a credit union or a supermarket cheese club, or a friendly neighborhood community bible study group.

Definitely one to make me think and introspect a bit.

I have to say I'm missing how I was so damaged, really. What I see in my experience is some people being great some people being jerks within the church. Overall it was a good experience with a strong sense of community. I never/rarely felt personally judged by those around me and felt the church leader legitimately liked me and were doing their best to help me from their perspective of what they believed to be true. I saw people trying their best to live a good moral life and to be kind to others.

I certainly have felt some guilt and stress go away about not being good enough for the Celestial kingdom.

So I suppose I'm in denial that I'm in recovery. I just think of it more of I used to believe in something, now I have more information and I don't. The state of being a pariah in my community and family now that I don't believe is the more difficult part - it's now that I feel isolated, not when I was a TBM. Some things that I was able to be OK with seem crazy now, but overall I'm not seeing where it was so awful.

If I'm in denial, I'd love to see more clearly. Thoughts on what I'm missing?

1. Be honest
2. Work hard

These things served me well as a TBM, and ironically, they're two basic things that led me out of Mormonism.

I wish the TBMs in my life would work harder at being honest about the history & doctrine of their religion.

One of the values of this board for me is to see the wide variety of experiences of those on this board pertaining to their time in the church. Not everyone had the same experience.

You cannot judge the church to be a cult or not by your own personal experiences in it. That is not rational critical assessment. You have to look at the big picture, the churches actions, the justifications for those actions, the aftermath of those actions --with regard to how it affects all of its members. You have to stand back.

The church works for some people. My brother is a straight over achiever who has a "talent" for church. He has shot straight to the top. He gets his self worth from the church and it makes him not only happy, but pompously happy. So does that make it not a cult?

Hardly. It is just another case of the abused becoming the abuser.

There are a lot of recovering mormons on this board that are only a step down from that. They were intellectually in a place where they could find the truth and then strong enough to latch onto it. Their experiences may not have been nearly as bad as so many of us that were damaged. Does that make it not a cult, simply because their experience was closer to that of a normal church?

Again, look at the big picture, not the individual case.

Many of us were damaged beyond belief. And worst of all, because it was a cult, we learned how to damage ourselves. We were taught how to damage ourselves. We learn how to damage others with our judgements. We were all on the track to become the abuser no matter how abused we were.

Does that make it a cult? Yes.

I like Timothy's post, because he pares it down to the big picture--It is a racist homophobic sexist cult. You can tack on all the additives you want after that, but those are enough to seal the deal.

I agree with you RAG. And I don't think ALL religions meet the definition of a cult as some here have asserted. I feel LDS is a cult for those reasons (and other religions not for a lot of reasons Baura mentioned above).

There is a distinct difference between being an LDS member than say, my grandma's participation in her Christian church - tithes are voluntary and not required for good standing, no one claiming they are "the mouthpiece of God" and to OBEY no matter what he says, no secret temple oaths, no regulation undies, no shunning from her community if she has questions or doesn't agree with everything 100%, no one hunting her down and showing up at her door unannounced because she missed church...geez, I could go on and on with the anecdotal reasons and that's not even considering how the LDS fits the definition of a cult perfectly.