Posted on 05/06/2008 10:06:47 PM PDT by sevenbak
He wrote to me in all innocence, a reader from a Catholic country where Mormon missionaries had only recently begun to gather congregations of believers. "I asked my priest," he said, "and he told me that Mormons are a cult."
Setting aside the obvious riposte ("What did you think your priest would tell you, that Mormonism was true Christianity as restored by God to living prophets?"), I think it's worth considering just what we mean by "cult" and seeing whether it applies to the Mormon Church.
Cult as Bad Word
Anti-Mormons use "cult" the way gay activists use "homophobe"--as an ad hominem epithet hurled to try to silence any persuasive opponent whose ideas can't be countered on their merits.
When used this way, "cult" just means "religion I want you to fear so much you won't listen to them." Or even, "religion I want you to hate so much that you will remove it from the list of churches that deserve constitutional protection."
But just as "homophobe" has a core meaning (someone with a pathological fear of homosexuality to the degree that it interferes with his life), so also with "cult." The only reason it works as name-calling is because there really are religious groups that do--and should--scare us.
There are real examples of what we mean by cults: Jim Jones' group that destroyed itself in mass murder and suicide in Guyana, or those sneaker-wearing folks who killed themselves to join aliens approaching behind a comet. And even though the Branch Davidians may not have been as monstrous as they were depicted in the media, they still clearly fall within what we mean by that word.
What do they have in common?
Charismatic Founder. Cults gather around charismatic individuals who are the sole source of truth to their followers.
Exploitation. The leader enriches himself through the financial contributions of the members, or gathers personal power that he uses to exploit members in other ways to benefit himself. If the group survives the leader's death, it remains a cult if his successors continue that exploitation.
Automatons. The members are discouraged from thinking for themselves, and, insofar as possible, are turned into unquestioning "obedience machines."
Withdrawal and Isolation. Perhaps because exploitation and obedience are easiest to maintain when the ordinary world can't offer its distractions and attractions, cults tend to withdraw physically, seeking ever greater isolation. This is often used as part of the conversion process, to keep the prospective member from hearing counterarguments.
Are All Religions Cults?
It's worth pointing out that there are very few religions of any size or influence that did not begin with a charismatic founder and whose members did not seem, to outsiders, to behave in much the way I've just described. A humble, wise teacher can always be charged with "setting himself up as the sole source of truth" merely because he offers any unusual idea. The gathering of money to help the poor or pay for meetinghouses or publications can be called "exploitation." The natural desire of converts to live according to the teachings of their leader can look like lockstep blind obedience to those who live a different way. And if outsiders persecute the new religion, it is only natural that adherents will want to band together and get away, if only for a few hours at a time, to be able to practice their religion in peace.
All religions have a body of teachings that becomes a lens through which the believers see the world around them. To those who don't believe, the lens seems to be a distortion of reality--though of course, those unbelievers are merely distorting reality their own way, through their own lens. No one sees reality without passing the data through the lens of their own preconceptions.
All religions also form a community, however loosely organized, of like-minded believers who set the standard of correctness. Whether that standard is rigid or relaxed, those who cross it are expelled from the community and are treated as heretics, apostates, or infidels. Severe treatment of heretics can be found from the lowliest cult to the largest church, from the most rigid sect to "open"-minded, post-religious academia.
You have to get fairly close to a new religion in order to see whether it is acting like a cult or like a religion. Most of those who hurl the word "cult," however, do not bother to get close. And those who do are often so grimly determined to attack that they distort all evidence in order to support the charge.
How Does Mormonism Measure Up?
Joseph Smith was a charismatic leader, but he was murdered 156 years ago. Nowadays, we have leaders who, while sometimes gifted at communication, are rarely of the dramatic, movement-founding type. Indeed, I feel safe in saying that the majority in my lifetime have been rather dull and gray, and they are followed far more because of their office than because of any personal charisma.
Exploitation? As for exploitative leadership, this charge is absolutely false and always has been. Joseph Smith passed the money test with flying colors: He died poor and in debt, not because of profligate spending, but because any money that flowed into his hands flowed right back out again in attempts to benefit the saints and build the church.
In the years since, a handful of church offices have become salaried, but the salaries are merely enough to sustain normal family life. The perks of wealth are shunned even by those church leaders who were rich before being called to one of those rare salaried offices. And church leaders constantly struggle to eliminate the sycophancy, the cult of personality, and the general "sucking up" that are bound to arise in any hierarchical organization.
By any honest measure, Mormon church leaders, from Joseph Smith on, have a remarkable record of genuine humility. They really do try to be the servants rather than the masters of the saints. Automatons? Those who have actually lived in a Mormon ward--and especially those who have tried to lead a group of Mormons in any kind of activity--can all affirm one truth: Mormons may well be the most stubborn, independent-minded group of people ever assembled as a religious community.
Joseph Smith received a revelation that established the only style of leadership that actually works in the Mormon church (or, in the long run, anywhere): You can only lead by persuasion, by love, by patience, by your own willingness to learn from those you lead. Every now and then, some local Mormon leader will try to give orders or attempt to manipulate people into doing things his way. But he very quickly learns that the more he does that, the less obedient we Mormons become.
Far from being robots, most of us Mormons are, by inclination and by doctrine, determined to make up our own minds about everything. It's a core doctrine of Mormonism that each member of the church is personally and individually responsible for their own relationship with God.
Isolation? As for the cultish trait of isolating converts from any other influence, or brainwashing them till they can't think for themselves, our method of teaching would-be proselytes is the opposite. We usually teach them in their own homes. Our missionaries come for a little while and then leave them to themselves to read, ponder, and pray. We counter the attacks of anti-Mormons by telling the truth about our beliefs and practices, not by trying to cut off contact with our opponents.
Far from becoming isolated, a new convert to Mormonism is taught to be more respectful and loving to parents, spouse, children, and other family members and friends. They usually do better at their careers and education, and if withdrawal takes place it is because their new Mormon lifestyle and beliefs are rejected by their family or friends.
Kettles and Pots
On all these points, I daresay that the Mormon church is less cult-like than many of the religions that delight in calling us one.
Indeed, calling Mormonism a cult is usually an attempt to get people to behave like robots, blindly obeying the command that they reject Mormonism without any independent thought. Kettles, as they say, calling the pot black.
Here's the simplest statement I can make: If Mormonism were a cult, I would know it, and I would not be in it.
“Mixed marriages” is what non-Mormons call marriages between religions.
This is a disingenuous analogy, which you only posit when it's your religion under scrutiny. When you are posting that Mormonism has a more correct view of theology, are you simply the Chevy dealer talking bad about Ford? Or do you really have the truth?
If you think you really have the truth, then it's not just the Ford dealer vs. the Chevy dealer, it's truth vs. false.
The term “cult” has been colored so that its popular meaning has no resemblance to the original.
Mind you, I have my own opinion about the validity of Mormonism...but I am not here to throw stones.
“Pass me the bottle.”
“My guns loaded, is yours?”
“You stay here and hold’m off. I've just received a vision to slip out this here window and light out for the territories. Good luck boys!”
Is it only articles critical of Mormonism, or that investigate the theology of the LDS that are moved to the News forum?
Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.
Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Followers feel they can never be “good enough”.
The group/leader is always right.
The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
I was reading a book on polygamy and found an Orson Card family had migrated to Canada after the Mormon church banned polygamy. I was wondering if he was related.
“Father, Son and Holy Ghost make 3. “
The Three are one. Jesus said “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father”
Theosis is indeed ancient, Biblical, and true.
But theosis is not the belief that the God of Israel started out as a man like us.
Theosis is also not the belief that we can become what he now is.
If you believe either of those two propositions, then you're promoting something other than the authentic doctrine of theosis.
Theosis is the belief that the redeemed and glorified souls of Christians, by grace (not mere human effort), merge with the one God, partaking of his nature and being perfectly united with him. We do not become "gods" except perhaps in a loose, figurative sense, because Scripture is very clear that there is only one God. (cf Isaiah 43 and 44). In fact, a strong argument can be made from logic that there can be only one God, and that he is not and never was a created being.
Most Christians don't even know their own Church Fathers believed this stuff prior to the Nicean councils of the 4th century.
Since you're making blanket statements about what "most Christians" don't know, I'll respond by saying that most Mormons don't even know that (a) what they believe is not theosis but a mid-19th Century American Gnostic heresy; and (b) Catholics and Orthodox absolutely still believe in theosis the way the Fathers taught it.
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. --Ephesians 1:4-6
Isn’t Larry King married to a Mormon?
BWHAHAHAHA
And for the record, yes they are.
Card purposely picks and chooses the quotes from the ECF which he believes make his case for the “progression to godhood” doctrines of the LDS. But the church fathers never taught such heresy. They taught that there is but one true eternal God, from whom we receive communicable attributes only, like love, immortality, and holiness to those whom he provides redemption. But God is NEVER referred to as an exalted man in any of their writings. God NEVER imparts to man his unique characteristics of eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence to the resurrected believer.
Really now.
More fascinating to me: Pat Buchanan’s sister, Bay Buchanan, who has been head of the presidential campaigns of both him and Tom Tancredo, is a Mormon.
Well said. An corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, neither can a good tree bring forth evil fruit.
Voice of reason, thanks.
Conceit this is, but hardly "Mormon." (Indeed, the Book of Mormon condemns in the strongest terms those who adopt such an attitude: Alma 31:16-19, Alma 31:27-35).
Warned President Gordon B. Hinckley:
Of the specific conceit which the critics claim they are taught, President Hinckley said:
It's hard to see how looking for "strengths and...virtues" in non-members to help an LDS member's own life constitutes ignoring or deprecating all non-believers.
President Hinckley further said:
He denounced bad feelings and behavior toward non-Mormons:
Members and non-members have the same status before God. This does not support the idea that members are somehow to "hold themselves aloof."
The attitude attributed by the critics to the Church is an abhorrent one. Members of the Church, of course, do not always live up to these high standards. But, there can be no doubt as to what the standards are:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.