T
Tmaque
Guest
As a former LDS I can unequivocally say the LDS Church is NOT a cult in any way, shape, or form. And, to call the LDS Church a cult is bigotry, plain and simple.
- Status
C
Casen
Guest
What’s the point of calling another religion a cult anyway? It doesn’t build friendship or respect and is unlikely to win any converts. What possible benefit is achieved?
J
Jerusha
Guest
Agreed. It is a label, and only a person’s perception. I agree with the argument that the very fundamental difference in the nature of the Trinity makes LDS baptism invalid to Catholics.
I can describe my perceptions of LDS, but to (publically
) place condemnatory labels on that church interferes with communication.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
At this point there have been sixteen votes; eight “yes” and eight “no”. Two former LDS have stated publicly that they do not think it is a cult. I haven’t heard any former LDS publicly denouce LDS as a cult in this thread. In my book, the tally really stands at Yes-zero votes, No-two votes.
The reason this whole topic came up is that someone had called LDS a cult on a different forum that I visited. The comment was unwarrented…particularly coming from someone who was never a Mormon.
Therefore, I thought I would get the opinions of former Mormons (current Mormons don’t really count because they certainly don’t think they are in a cult, although I guess we’ll allow your vote to count BJ
).
The reason this whole topic came up is that someone had called LDS a cult on a different forum that I visited. The comment was unwarrented…particularly coming from someone who was never a Mormon.
Therefore, I thought I would get the opinions of former Mormons (current Mormons don’t really count because they certainly don’t think they are in a cult, although I guess we’ll allow your vote to count BJ
).
H
hermit
Guest
I am not former LDs, but LDS is definitely a cult.
W
Writer
Guest
I looked at the Random House Dictionary definition of cult and it is pretty interesting. Uses the word “fad” and refers to religions which are extremist in nature. Here is a text copy from “Infoplease”.At this point there have been sixteen votes; eight “yes” and eight “no”. Two former LDS have stated publicly that they do not think it is a cult. I haven’t heard any former LDS publicly denouce LDS as a cult in this thread. In my book, the tally really stands at Yes-zero votes, No-two votes.
The reason this whole topic came up is that someone had called LDS a cult on a different forum that I visited. The comment was unwarrented…particularly coming from someone who was never a Mormon.
Therefore, I thought I would get the opinions of former Mormons (current Mormons don’t really count because they certainly don’t think they are in a cult, although I guess we’ll allow your vote to count BJ
*Pronunciation: *(kult), [key]
—n.
**1. **a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
**2. **an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
**3. **the object of such devotion.
**4. **a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
**5. ***Sociol.*a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
**6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. **the members of such a religion or sect.
**8. **any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
I think I liked Random House better, but I think the argument can be made either way–depending on the definitions used. In Sociology class at college, I remeber that it was stressed that a cult needed to be something new. That doesn’t mean, though, that you couldn’t have something viewed as a cult in its beleifs and as a (false) church when examined more objectively. The earlier post hits the nail on the head, however… Calling each other names doesn’t build a lot of bridges. LDS members tend to get on my nerves sometimes, but that doesn’t mean we dismiss them with lables. Just my two cents…
F
flameburns623
Guest
I did not answer because I dislike the term ‘cult’. I am trained in sociology. Aside from it’s use for centuries to describe certain movements WITHN certain churches,the term ‘cult’ was originally used in my discipline as a neutral term to refer to specific forms of new religious movements. Journalists picked up the term and began to apply it particularly to religious movements which were engaged in controversial activities. By it’s association with scandal, the term acquired a negative connotation of being not merely a ‘new’ or ‘different’ expression of relgious belief but one which could jeapardize the physical and/or psycholigical well-being of it’s members. Evangelical Christians snached up the term and began throwing it around as an epithet. It acquired the sense of a movement which was not only ‘new’ or ‘different’ but somehow at least vaguely ‘dangerous’.
Of course–many new religious movements involve false teaching or bad practices which may jeapordize the SPIRITUAL well-being of their adherents. But not every so-called ‘cult’ is an oppressive, all-encompassing system which will place adherents in harm’s way of physical or emotional risks. Not to mention the fact that the term became way over-used in many circles. At least one counter-cult specialist defined the term, in practice, as any movement not part of a person’s original religious heritage, which the person’s family happened to disapprove of. Such an attitude led to the attempted ‘deprogrammings’ of people who converted to mainstream religious faiths. Reportedly, a Catholic family even retained a ‘deprogrammer’ to ‘rescue’ a daughter who had enrolled in a Catholic convent.
Eventually, a more level-headed constituency within Evangelicalism and Catholicism has made some effort to use the term in a more academically-disciplined way. Essentially, though, if it is used in that more-restrictive theological sense, it is a term synonymous with the word ‘heresy’, Unfortunately, even if it is used in a responsible manner, the term ‘cult’ still carries the burden of having a considerable amount of shock-value, which may or may not be deserved in specific circumstances. I see no reason to abandon a perfectly workable and neutral term (‘heresy’) for one which is overlaid (as is the word ‘cult’) with emotionally-charged implications.
Of course–many new religious movements involve false teaching or bad practices which may jeapordize the SPIRITUAL well-being of their adherents. But not every so-called ‘cult’ is an oppressive, all-encompassing system which will place adherents in harm’s way of physical or emotional risks. Not to mention the fact that the term became way over-used in many circles. At least one counter-cult specialist defined the term, in practice, as any movement not part of a person’s original religious heritage, which the person’s family happened to disapprove of. Such an attitude led to the attempted ‘deprogrammings’ of people who converted to mainstream religious faiths. Reportedly, a Catholic family even retained a ‘deprogrammer’ to ‘rescue’ a daughter who had enrolled in a Catholic convent.
Eventually, a more level-headed constituency within Evangelicalism and Catholicism has made some effort to use the term in a more academically-disciplined way. Essentially, though, if it is used in that more-restrictive theological sense, it is a term synonymous with the word ‘heresy’, Unfortunately, even if it is used in a responsible manner, the term ‘cult’ still carries the burden of having a considerable amount of shock-value, which may or may not be deserved in specific circumstances. I see no reason to abandon a perfectly workable and neutral term (‘heresy’) for one which is overlaid (as is the word ‘cult’) with emotionally-charged implications.
T
Tmaque
Guest
I am not a former bigot but you are definitely a bigot.
B
boppysbud
Guest
I was a member of the Mormon organisation for a very brief time, just long enough to find out the “bizzare” stuff that the elders don’t tell you in their lessons like “Mrs.” God, three “gods” “Heavenly father” who is a former human being, people beccoming “gods”. As soon as I stumbled on these hidden doctrines I got out quickly.
They probably still consider me a member since I did not ask for excommunication or name removal.
I will not call them a cult, it seems that there are several meanings attached to that word, making it meaningless.
I will not even say that they are not Christians since Mormons prefer the Webster’s definintion of Christian.
But they way I see it is that Mormons can not be considered Orthodox or main-stream Christians in any way.
Orthodox mainstream Christians beleive in one God (not three) in Trinity. We believe that God has always been God from eterniy, and did not change from human to divine. And that humans will always remain humans.
No I am not a bigot, but I do believe that it matters what we beleive. If Mormons want to beleive in multiple Gods who change from human to divine it is their business, just don’t call it orthodox or mainstream Christian, and don’t claim to be equals peers with orthodox Christianity.
They probably still consider me a member since I did not ask for excommunication or name removal.
I will not call them a cult, it seems that there are several meanings attached to that word, making it meaningless.
I will not even say that they are not Christians since Mormons prefer the Webster’s definintion of Christian.
But they way I see it is that Mormons can not be considered Orthodox or main-stream Christians in any way.
Orthodox mainstream Christians beleive in one God (not three) in Trinity. We believe that God has always been God from eterniy, and did not change from human to divine. And that humans will always remain humans.
No I am not a bigot, but I do believe that it matters what we beleive. If Mormons want to beleive in multiple Gods who change from human to divine it is their business, just don’t call it orthodox or mainstream Christian, and don’t claim to be equals peers with orthodox Christianity.
B
BJRumph
Guest
For Stylt:
If you were really trying to obtain some form of useful information, wouldn’t it be more pertanent to your poll to ask a follow up question or two relating to weather anyone bothered to answer according to your stated definitions, and weather those that voted actually fit the demographic the poll was aimed at, given the responses so far? Instead you make a completely unfounded assumption to draw a completely erroneous conclusion without any apparent attempt to actually find out how your numbers fit the known variables.
I was one of the first to vote, and yet did not voice anything relating to it until now. Did it occur to you that not all who participated, in good faith mind you, saw a need to explain ourselves?
Instead, you use a term which offends a hyper-sensitive group already, and then alienate the others by drawing patently bizarre conclusions based on nothing relating to the poll itself, discounting the efforts of those who fell on the other side of the discussion.
My question is, what was the point? Just trolling?
The Others:
Yes, the term “cult” is, in its general useage, is meant to offend; however, Stylt did make the appropriate measure of defining exactly what he meant by the term. It is wholly irrelevant what Webster, or anyone else for that matter, says the term means; the poll defined its terms, and sould be responded to in full consideration of that fact. So, for example, according to Boppy’s post, he should have voted “yes”, because his opinion of the LDS church fully fits the definition presented in the poll (poses as a “christian church”, withholding its non-christian teachings until later, eventually leading its adherents, degree by degree, further away from the true Christian path.) Instead, he did not because of his attemt to avoid polemics, and by ignoring the definitions of the poll itself (though as a poll, there should be no real reason for needing to explain ones response).
I only voted because, in the initial posting, the correct protocols were in place; but now seeing how the originator has treated it, and developed it through followup postings, it just seems to me to be more wasted time with a question that was not really honest to begin with.
If you were really trying to obtain some form of useful information, wouldn’t it be more pertanent to your poll to ask a follow up question or two relating to weather anyone bothered to answer according to your stated definitions, and weather those that voted actually fit the demographic the poll was aimed at, given the responses so far? Instead you make a completely unfounded assumption to draw a completely erroneous conclusion without any apparent attempt to actually find out how your numbers fit the known variables.
I was one of the first to vote, and yet did not voice anything relating to it until now. Did it occur to you that not all who participated, in good faith mind you, saw a need to explain ourselves?
Instead, you use a term which offends a hyper-sensitive group already, and then alienate the others by drawing patently bizarre conclusions based on nothing relating to the poll itself, discounting the efforts of those who fell on the other side of the discussion.
My question is, what was the point? Just trolling?
The Others:
Yes, the term “cult” is, in its general useage, is meant to offend; however, Stylt did make the appropriate measure of defining exactly what he meant by the term. It is wholly irrelevant what Webster, or anyone else for that matter, says the term means; the poll defined its terms, and sould be responded to in full consideration of that fact. So, for example, according to Boppy’s post, he should have voted “yes”, because his opinion of the LDS church fully fits the definition presented in the poll (poses as a “christian church”, withholding its non-christian teachings until later, eventually leading its adherents, degree by degree, further away from the true Christian path.) Instead, he did not because of his attemt to avoid polemics, and by ignoring the definitions of the poll itself (though as a poll, there should be no real reason for needing to explain ones response).
I only voted because, in the initial posting, the correct protocols were in place; but now seeing how the originator has treated it, and developed it through followup postings, it just seems to me to be more wasted time with a question that was not really honest to begin with.
H
hermit
Guest
You can resort to childish name calling if you wish, but in the taxonomy of Christian Churches, LDS is listed as a cult.
T
Tmaque
Guest
Well, then the author of that publication is bigoted.
FACT: The modern LDS Church exhibits none of the characteristics of a cult. Therefore, it’s not a cult. If the modern LDS Church is a cult then so is the Catholic Church.
B
BJ_Colbert
Guest
So you are saying you do not like the term bigot applied to you, but LDS should embrace the term cult and love it. I say you sound like a bigot.
Does the term cult apply to any religious organization that disagrees with the Catholic Church?
Isn’t the term cult meant to offend the LDS in this thread? I can’t imagine that it was meant as an endearing term to make friends and spread love and understanding amongst the LDS and the Catholic posters.
This and other threads were not meant as serious questions, but only to cultivate hate and misunderstanding, of a group of people who do not follow the same beliefs as you do.
What is the definition of Bigot?
Are people who condem another religion bigots? Are people who condem another race bigots. Are Ku Klux Klansmen bigots? Are a few of the Catholics in this forum bigots? How many would say yes?
Notice I did not condem the whole RCC, only about 5-6 persons in this forum.
Try to develop Christian attitudes towards others who do not think the same as you do. It would be a pretty boring world if we all acted and thought the same as everyone else in the world. Exchanging ideas with one another can be done without condemnation of the other side. Just learn and be respectful of each other.
When you write something apply the same term to yourself and think if you would like it applied to you. If not then don’t write it. Clean up your thoughts and only ask fair questions for the purpose of learning not ridiculing.
Now, lets all go to Mass and learn about Jesus and come home and try to be better Christians. What would Jesus say?
BJ
S
stillsearching
Guest
Actually, as a Roman Catholic, I can clearly state that the Catholic Church contains many cults. There is Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe. there is the Divine Mercy, and the Sacred Heart. By the general definition of cult used by the Church back in the fifties, we also have the Carmelites, Franciscans, Benedictines, Dominicans, Jesuites. We have the Tertiary members of the above and the Legion of Mary.
Unfortunately, the LDS only have one cult. And they disagree and argue about it’s existence.
But then the LDS seem to argue and disagree about everything to do with their religion.
S
stillsearching
Guest
Oh and Todd- I also forgot about these Catholic cults: the cult of St. Bridget, St. Patrick, St. Francis, (no I mentioned him), St. Simon Stock, St. Augustine, Padre Pio, St. Catherine, St. Rose of Lima, St. Martine de Torres…
There are also the cults the Church decided were no longer active like St. Christopher. Lots of those.
I mean if you are looking for a cult to join, we’ve got thousands.
That is why we refer to the “cult” of the saint.
S
stillsearching
Guest
And then we have the cult of St. Dymphna- she’s for those who are afraid the Pope is mentally ill, like B.J.
The cult of St. Damien- for those who prefer to work with lepers.
the cult of St. Vincent de Paul- for those who like to give to the poor.
Personally- I belong to the cult of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. We’ve got it all- apparitions, visions, miracle statues (the Divine Infant Jesus of Prague), miracle oils, holy underwear, and loud, abrasive prophets- St. Elijah. We’ve got martyrs too- Blessed Titus Brandsma- he was killed at Dachau, and St. Benedicta- she was killed at Auschwitz.
We have candles and incense and ritual prayers and very, very charismatic leaders. Many of our more charismatic leaders are extremely handsome as well. I’ve belonged to this cult as an associate for over 15 years and I am thoroughly indoctrinated. Soon, when I finish RCIA, I will be fully inculted.Our cult is better than everybody else’s Catholic cult because we have more cult stuff. (Yes, Virginia, we really do have Holy Underwear, just like the LDS)
The cult of St. Damien- for those who prefer to work with lepers.
the cult of St. Vincent de Paul- for those who like to give to the poor.
Personally- I belong to the cult of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. We’ve got it all- apparitions, visions, miracle statues (the Divine Infant Jesus of Prague), miracle oils, holy underwear, and loud, abrasive prophets- St. Elijah. We’ve got martyrs too- Blessed Titus Brandsma- he was killed at Dachau, and St. Benedicta- she was killed at Auschwitz.
We have candles and incense and ritual prayers and very, very charismatic leaders. Many of our more charismatic leaders are extremely handsome as well. I’ve belonged to this cult as an associate for over 15 years and I am thoroughly indoctrinated. Soon, when I finish RCIA, I will be fully inculted.Our cult is better than everybody else’s Catholic cult because we have more cult stuff. (Yes, Virginia, we really do have Holy Underwear, just like the LDS)
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
You ask a fair question. I have indeed realized that the wrong people are answering the poll. I really wanted only former members to respond. That hasn’t really been adhered to very well.
This was not my intent although I guess I can see how you came to this conclusion. I wanted to allow more definitions of “cult” so as to make it clearer as to what a cult is, but now I see that perhaps I should have just stuck with the definition as I defined it and asked others to refrain from stating there own definition.
I must ask you to forgive me, but this forum is not something I monitor constantly. I responded to this forum when I was able to find the time to respond.
Again I am confused. I am really not sure what conclusions I have come to that you are referring to. Up to this point I have made no such conclusions one way or the other.
I am certainly not trolling. The point of this whole exersize is to gain a better understanding of what former LDS think of their former religion.
If many former LDS members considered LDS a “cult” (by the definition I listed in my initial post). I should be doing everything in my power to persuade a very good friend of mine who is LDS to leave a religion that is leading him to hell. That’s the point of my post. If the conclusion is that LDS is not a “cult” (by the definition I listed in my initial post), then I should be about as concerned for him being in a faith that is in error like other faiths that are not Catholic.
I probably should have made it a public poll. The question was an honest one. You’ll need to take my word on it, but not knowing me, there is no way to confirm that one way or the other.I only voted because, in the initial posting, the correct protocols were in place; but now seeing how the originator has treated it, and developed it through followup postings, it just seems to me to be more wasted time with a question that was not really honest to begin with.
I’ll request the thread to be closed so as not to give the wrong impression as to my intentions. I am hoping that requesting closure of the thread will be seen as a goof faith gesture of my honest intent.
The reason for the closure being that the conversation is degrading…not into constructive critisism amoungst former LDS members, but critisism from all angles…which is not the direction I wanted this thread to take.
T
Therese_Martin
Guest
Notice:
This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.
This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.
- Status