All Comments (163)

"Whoever tells the truth is chased out of nine villages." - Turkish Proverb

I was chased out of the Mormon cult for telling the truth, pure and simple. The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie. And no, I was not cautioned against sharing facts and information with my fellow members. Nobody held up anything that I had recorded and said to me: "Lyndon, this is a lie, and you will be disciplined for sharing it with others." Not my bishop, not my stake president, not my priesthood leader, not my home teacher, NOBODY. It was only at my disciplinary council that I surmised that WRITTEN information is taboo. The charge was apostasy, which basically meant that I quit believing - but that was not enough, they wanted to FIRE me, find a way to discredit and perform a character assasination on me. All in the name of 'protecting' the members. Protecting them from what? The truth? Facts? Evidence? Boyd K. Packer is responsible for more people leaving the church than any disaffected member. The church should find a way to protect the members from him.

The characteristics of a cult lie in its use of mind control tactics. Mormonism fits the description of a mind control organization to a tee. Therefore, IT IS A CULT. Many of the elements of mind control were evident in my excommunication saga, for example.

To set the record straight: Not once did anyone sit down with me and review the facts, events, and information I had summarized and attempt to answer my questions. There is no attempt at intellectual honesty in Mormonism at the local level. There are apologists on the internet sites, sure. I read their tripe many times - and generally felt insulted that such thin and illogical arguments were offered. I remember thinking, "If this is the best we have to offer the researching member, we are in big trouble."

The LDSS Titanic hit the iceberg in 1985 and has coasted to a dead stop. The percentage of the world population that is LDS shrinks every day. Now we will see the compartments fill with water and people jumping off. Mormonism will be an obscure footnote in history 100 years from now. I only hope that the big guys in SLC will find some humane purpose for the $80 billion in wealth the church has accumulated.

Wow. The media relations director for a cult takes objection to his group being called a "cult". That's huge news. I'm shocked. Totally shocked. This should be on the cover of Newsweek, not hidden in a blog. This is just mind blowing. Totally unexpected in every way.

Wow. The media relations director for a cult takes objection to his group being called a "cult". That's huge news. I'm shocked. Totally shocked. This should be on the cover of Newsweek, not hidden in a blog. This is just mind blowing.

Justmythoughts is right. When tax payers subsidize a group by granting tax exemptions, the least that we can ask for are transparency and accountability.

The Mormon organization used to account for its budget for many decades. That only changed after unwise real estate development became an embarrassment.

It is unfortunate that so many of us are sacrificing so much while our leaders remain unaccountable. What do they have to hide?

I am interested to know why you think Aum Shinrikyo is a cult? What characteristics does it have that justify using that term? Does your own religion share any of those characteristics?

I'm not particularly religious myself, and I agree that "cult" should not be used to mask religious intolerance. That said, you can learn a lot about a religion, from its founder. Polygamy is illegal in America, and Joseph Smith was in and out of jail his entire life, for a sundry of reasons--polygamy being one of them. No religion should be branded as a cult simply due to its popularity or deviation from more traditional beliefs. But when one deviates from law--as in the case of Jim Jones and other "religious"/cultish leaders--that's a different ball of wax.

Gaby,
You can find logical answers to your questions at jefflinday's website. Also, askgramps.org answers many questions from all over the world. I think I'm through trying to answer anyone's questions on these blogs. A sincere seeker has plenty of sources. Enjoy the search, all.

Gaby,

I think the way this forum works is that the commentators respond to an assigned question from WashingtonPost.com's "On Faith" department.

If you go to the top and click on "Main Page" you will see the initial question and all the panelists who responded.

That was news to me too as I had earlier just found the link to this column in my Google News. I didn't really know the other opinions were even there.

The purpose of announcing an excommunication is not to humiliate. It is actually very traumatic for all involved and the Stake President and Bishop probably went home crying. They were apparently life-long friends.

The leaders most certainly, from my experience, would have come to this decision from weighing the interests of ALL people concerned. Whom might those be?

Well, there is Bro. Lamborn. Is he likely to become embittered or have his heart softened?

There is his wife, a faithful member. Nobody would want her to feel humiliated by this announcement.

There are Bro. Lamborns younger children. What effect would the excommunication of their father have on them? What effect would public knowledge of that ex-ing have on them?

There is the rest of the ward, which is repeatedly being subjected to Bro. Lamborns new and improved light and knowledge.

You can be sure that Bro. Lamborn was cautioned about using his church position to preach against the church. After prayerfully weighing all the above it must have been concluded that the embarrassment felt by the family was outweighed by the distress and disturbance he was causing within the ward. He knowingly violated the rules of membership and he fully knew that this would be the consequence. He was not ignorant of this.

So yeah, when I say he didn't want to be a member any more it really does excuse the church for excommunicating him!

Like many people though, his pride was a bit wounded. When we were young many of us couldn't decide whether we would prefer to break-up with our girl-friend or to have her break up with us. We hummed and hawed. And then when she broke up with us first we were mad! That %$@*&! How dare she?!

WEll, I just googled Lyndon Lamborn's essay and the questions he would like to ask of his church.

I wonder if Mr. Otterson would like to respond to them. Actually, those answers would interest me quite a bit myself.

How about it, Mr. Otterson???

One of the earlier posters indicated that "cult = small religion,"; and "religion = large cult." Also, I believe Carol commented in an earlier post about what was once considered a "cult" is now the widely practiced religion known as Christianity. There may be some truth to both of these positions.

Earlier this year, I happened to read Chapter 4 from Kevin Phillips' 2006-published book, American Theocracy. It is available free for the reading at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290373, and I encourage all to read it. Mr. Phillips was one of President Richard Nixon's speechwriters during Nixon's first term, and he is now an independent. Some important points from the chapter that relate to the topic in question include:

The growth and expansion of new religions from colonial days to the present and the failure of the intellegencia to recognize that growth;

The growth of religious beliefs from 25% of colonists at the time of the American Revolution to about 65% today (I think this is for church attendance and not necessarily the numbers who say they actually believe in a Supreme Being which, if memory serves, is at about 80% of U.S. citizens);

The role religions play in the drumbeat for war;

The fascination of many Fundamentalist sects with the end times and how that fascination has assisted in dictating White House foreign and domestic policies.

The chapter also contains tidbits about the founding of religions in the U.S., and how Americans and Europeans have followed different tracks when it comes to religion.

I also think that it will become evident to many readers (including myself) that these new religions have political agendas as well. For example, the LDS church does not want anyone prying into its numerous profitable business ventures, the Roman Catholics would like to see school vouchers become a reality, etc.

Happy reading!

John,

I do believe the question is WHY did Lamborn not want to be a member anymore? I'm sure he didn't just get up one day and say, "ya know, I'm not gonna be a mormon anymore". Obviously there was some evidence of falsehood in his findings that led him to not want to be a member anymore, like so many other ex-mormons who find out the real truth.

John
If Lamborn didn't want to be a member any more
why did the Stake President feel compelled to resort to the public humiliation of excommunicating him.

Answer: partly as a warning to other would be dissenters
and with the nice by product of humiliating his wife.

John: you say Lamborn didn't want to be a member anymore as if that excuses the action of the church in ex communicating him.

you may believe excommunication is a peachy thing.
in that case, i am glad i don't belong to your group.

Aex,

This case must have been severe indeed for this course of action to have been taken. I note how Lamborn laments the humiliation that the "stake president" is going to cause his wife when the announcement is made.

Alex,

If you read the article, Lamborn didn't want to be a member anymore. What are you complaining about?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Lyndon+Lamborn%22&btnG=Search

Would a Christlike church kick out other people like Lyndon Lamborn for trying to honestly tell the truth and seek answers to his questions? Brother Otterson has a PR nightmare to deal with.

Seth Old Bean (not as old as i am)
Good to see you again

i agree about the word "cult." in general it is best to just talk about group characteristics in an objective way. the word IS too loaded now.

I have an ex=wife, so i sympathize with your attitude toward ex-mormons. having 170 years of family histgory with the church i have an ingrained instinct to circle the wagons. when people say Momrons believe wierd things, i will generally say that they are no wierder than most other religions, just more recent. My mormon grandfathter was born in 1882, so yes, it is recent to us.

I also agree that Smith and Young were great men. I don't happen to believe that they were Prophets, but they were genuises and spiritual geniuses. But neither you nor i will know "for sure" until we die.

Regardless of what heaven is or isn't like, I think it is valuable for ANY group to discuss the member's relation to authority, the practice of dissent, and other group values and practices. And most of the things on the cult index are not black and white. any group needs SOME obedience and respect for Authority. the hard question is how much.

and my brother being an active and smart mormon i know that lots of mormons have lots of discussions about these issues.

peace and love
HJ

Henry James,

You and I went the rounds a few months back on some other Mormonism issue, though I don't know if you remember.

I'm a lifelong member of the LDS Church. Born and raised in it. I am currently deeply committed to my faith and my Church. I've defended it on several occasions. I actually do believe it is God's one authorized Church on the face of the planet.

That said...

I don't necessarily dispute a lot of the criticisms of the LDS Church made on so-called "cult index" you were referencing. Believe it or not, several of them are things I actually dislike about my Church and would like to see changed.

I think the word "cult" has so much pejorative baggage attached to it that it can no longer serve as a useful description in polite society. Say the word "cult" and half the people in the room immediately turn their brains off - as comments on both sides here demonstrate.

I also think that listening to an ex-Mormon rag on his former faith is often like listening to the angry rants of someone who just went through an ugly divorce. Sure there's some truth in there, but the person is simply too angry, vindictive, and emotional to be taken seriously by careful men and women. I always take anything that a divorcee says about their ex with a grain of salt, and ex-Mormons are no different.

Now, on the other side. Frankly some of the statements from faithful LDS defending the faith irritate me just as much as the anti-Mormon stuff. There's a real tendency when the LDS Church comes in for criticism, for faithful Mormons to "circle the wagons." We get into a debate posture where everything the "other side" says must be undermined, rebutted, and defended against, no matter where it's coming from and how valid it might be. It's part of the lingering persecution complex my people still carry. It was only a hundred years ago that my people were being massacred, robbed, and dragged out of their homes by mainstream Americans. 100 years ago may seem a long time to short-lived America, but it's like only yesterday for a lot of Mormons.

So whenever the criticisms of the Church start to fly, we all tend to see angry mobs with torches and pitchforks. It doesn't help that a lot of the Church's attackers are so ridiculous, so cartoonish, so blatantly bigoted and hateful. It makes it easy for Mormons to equate these sad little messengers with ANY criticism of the Mormon faith and quickly dismiss it.

But, this feeling of victimhood can also blind us to some of the LDS Church's real problems. There is a real lack of accountability in our hierarchy and it is abused on occasion. There is a knee-jerk impulse toward secrecy exhibited by our institutions. Our membership is often too much in love with authority. We do tend to give our leaders too much of a free pass. Neither are we as self-critical of our doctrines, policies and positions as we ought to be. We do tend to whitewash historical figures like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and turn them into spotless saints, when in reality they were deeply flawed men (just like all men). You don't need to be spotless to be a great man. Joseph Smith was unquestionably one of the most compelling and powerful personalities in US history. And Brigham Young almost as much so. But both were also, at the end of the day, imperfect men like you and me. I see no reason to believe that gold issued forth every time Joseph Smith blew his nose. But you can definitely get that impression after a lifetime of sitting in on Mormon church classes, watching Mormon films, and listening to Mormon sermons.

We Mormons are far too fussy about our image. We are far too agenda-driven in our quest for history. And the truth is often an unfortunate casualty of our actions.

We needn't fear an honest telling of our history, or an honest look at our church.

I happen to believe this is God's Church. But I don't think that status gives our Church special privileges that exempt us from the same rules that govern other human beings.

I say: bring on an honest look at my faith - warts and all! The real majesty of the whole enterprise will win out in the end.

TO LDS MARK and the rest of humanity: Hi, I am catholic and I cherish my catholic faith. I have met God, the whole Trinity, and I have also met satan. The catholic Eucharist is Jesus, just like Jesus said at the Last Supper. The Holy Spirit revealed this to me when He came into my body on 29 Jan 2000 at St. Luke's Church in Ocean City, Md. The bible clearly says do not add or subtract from this, well I am not adding or subtracting from it, seeing as I am mentioned in the bible in quite a few places. When God the Father came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000, He didn't say a word, He did not have to, He is Pure Love, Jesus talked about Dad quite often in the bible and He is the One who told us to call God the Father, Dad. I have also been to hell and spiritual death, some people seem to think that hell is some kind of monolithic place that either God or satan sends you to, well actually it is built by the person going there but Jesus won the keys to hell and spiritual death and He will use them in due time. One of the places in the bible that I am mentioned is when the Old Testament Moses said, "Someone like me will come along", well that is me, the New Testament Moses. satan is not nice but he can try to come across as mister nice guy but as you probable already know he is a deceiver, as well as a liar, and a thief, and a loser. The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. As it says in the bible, the captives shall be released, the dead shall rise; the captives are those is hell and the dead are those in spiritual death whether they are among the breathing or not. God's Plan is for all of His children and all of humanity are His children, Page One; "Let Us make man in our Image and Likeness". Take care, see you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

John:

Your readings of court rulings are quite correct. However, this does not negate the concerns about those groups that blindly follow a single messianic or prophetic leader. I have made references in previous posts to both Jonestown and Waco where people were so willing to blindly follow messianic leaders that massive deaths (through suicide or murder) resulted when scrutiny of these groups occurred. Rick Ross's site contains news stories about several other much smaller groups that suffered the same fate.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a lot of similarities to these tragic groups, the most striking of which is a current "prophet" leader who claims direct revelation from God. The most striking difference between the Mormons and the tragedies I listed above is that at pivotal points, the LDS church made changes to its doctrines to comply with Federal scrutiny

The two most critical changes were the 1890 reversal on pollygamy and the 1978 reversal of the ban on blacks entering the Mormon priesthood. In both cases, the prophet leading the church claimed divine revelation. In both cases, the church was facing massive Federal scrutiny for its beliefs and behaviors. In the case of pollygamy, the LDS church was facing the threat of bankruptcy if it failed to end the practice. In the case of blacks entering the priesthood, the church's two universities were being threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status. Both of these actions allowed the church to continue as a U.S.-based entity.

Parker
as a PS
there was a recent case in California which you may know about where the LDS church was sued in an attempt to force certain financial disclosures, and the church won in the court.

Just goes to show that even though I am always correct in my opinions, a judge who is presumably also a reasonable person might hold an opinion different than mine.

I wouldn't recommend it, but it seems to be allowed in this dad-blamed country.

peace
HJ

This was posted by another blogger on On Faith as a response to the same cult question:

J. Brent Walker, Executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee, ordained minister.

The Church Down the Street

Dean Kelley, religious liberty executive for the National Council of Churches for more than three decades, used to say that a cult is what you called the church down the street! My religion is never a cult; it’s a term we use for someone else’s.

To employ the pejorative term “cult,” instead of “religion” or “church,” sets up a false and prejudicial dichotomy between good and bad religion. Indeed, my Baptist forbears — in London, Amsterdam, Boston, and Culpeper, Va. — would have been tagged a “cult” by popular religionists of their day. Heaven forbid we should repeat that error today.

It is true that only beliefs rooted in “religion” are protected by the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Understandably, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to draw hard and fast lines in defining “religion” — opting instead to include those on the margins and avoid the undesirable entanglement between church and state that inevitably results by too cramped a definition. The Court has been clear that religious beliefs don’t have to be popular, logical, consistent or reasonable to receive First Amendment protection. The only issue for the secular courts is whether religious beliefs are sincerely held.

In trying to trace the contours of “religion,” lower federal courts often have looked to three factors: (1) Does the belief system address fundamental and ultimate questions of life? (2) Is it comprehensive and pervasive in one’s own life? (3) Are there observable, formal and outward signs of a spiritual reality? Although laudable, this attempt to fashion a flexible definition of religion really is not much help. (If you have been to a Bruce Springsteen concert, you’ll know this definition could describe the Church of St. Bruce!) Even a generous attempt to police the boundaries of “religion” makes for dicey decisions.

Moreover, bountiful political pressure militates against a robust and broad application of protections afforded by the Free Exercise Clause. A recent First Amendment Center poll reveals that 28 percent of those surveyed opined that religious freedom was never meant to be enjoyed by groups the “majority of people consider extreme or on the fringe.” A bare majority (only 56 percent) thinks such religious groups should be able to worship as they please.

Judges and other government policymakers have a difficult enough job trying to parse these tough issues and stand up to political pressure that would limit religious freedom. We don’t need to complicate the process and prejudice the outcome ahead of time by using inflammatory language like “cults.”

If it is “religion” — broadly understood and sincerely held — then full-orbed protection under the Free Exercise Clause should be afforded.

And that goes for the church down the street, too.

Steven and Ted C

Steven: the point is not that the Prophet knows *Everything*. the point is that a leader such as Ted fears Claims to know some things for certain because God has told them to him (or through similar means).

That is why this discussion is important: because the level of trust we invest in our authorities is vital to the health and survival of our societies.

The point is easy to see in a Leader claiming God's direction in going into a disastrous war.

It is not so obvious but similarly troubling when the Person who speaks for God reveals that, say, Blacks are an inferior race.

Ted C:

I just happened to read a conference address (April 2007) in which the Mormon prophet said, quote, "I confess that I do not know everything, but of some things I am certain. Of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning."

I think you are ascribing qualities to the president of the Church that he clearly does not claim to possess. I'm not sure how you came to this belief concerning prophets -- that prophets know everything, see everything, tell the future, etc.

I can't think of a Biblical or B of M prophet who ever made such a claim.

HJ,
I stand corrected. I appreciate your clarification of your position, and understand the motive of wanting to "level the playing field" with respect to non-profits. I am familiar with some denominations in Georgia that I suspect would vigorously oppose such a disclosure requirement, and I suspect there would be similar opposition throughout the country. But I do think your position is reasonable from your perspective. Thanks for clarifying.

I have read nearly all of the posts on the topic thus far, and many have left me disturbed on a number of fronts, many of which I have touched upon in previous posts. Yet I have as of yet failed to take on what I perceive to be the most disturbing issue of all: the idea that one person can know all, see all, tell the future, and should be absolutely obeyed, no matter what the cost to the follower. I do not care if the leadership is biblically-based, quoran-based, or anything else-based. Such leaders, even with the best intentions, are anti-democratic, and they do not prepare their followers to grow up and think for themselves. This is not Jeffersonian democracy! This is Machiavelli's Divine right of kings and woe to whoever challenges those kings for thinking for themselves. Current U.S. president George W. Bush (though he is not a Mormon) subscribes to this phillosophy. I do not and will not subscribe to it. It destroys creativity and cheapens the worth of the individual.

parker
to clarify
i don't think the church should have to publish YOUR tithing amount, or anyone else's.

I think they should file the same kind of 990 form that non-profits file.

that WOULD include disclosing compensation to the top paid employees, as non-church non profits do. but that is 5 people.

Parker, my friend.

a couple of additional points.

First, this is far from the most important issue to me. I don't think Mormons are doing crooked things behind the scenes, and I also think it's pretty clear how the church uses its assets without looking at the books.

And I do believe that my position would be the same if the Mormon Church did not exist. That is, I believe that in a democracy any organization that is tax-exempt should have their finances openly available for the public to see. I also believe that political candidates should, as they do, have to publish lists of their contributors.

I am the CEO of a non profit that does so, and have been board president of agencies that also do, so I am pretty intimately familiar with the issues involved.

Again, since no churches are required to do so, I don't think Mormons should be singled out. And I do have fairly complete trust in the honesty of the church leaders where money is concerned, as oppoesed to what I thought of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, for instance.\

Cheers,
HJ

HJ,
Now that the dust has settled and everyone has gone, I can be a little more candid with you since you questioned where an accountant was coming from with such a position on such a question as public financial reporting. Your position actually makes me question whether you have read much on these types of issues, or whether you have had a falling out with the attornies who are descendents of Willard Richards such that you don't talk much together. If you had, you would realize that we live in litigation-enveloped society; therefore, as the LDS Church through its carefulness and, as far as I'm concerned, brilliance in adapting to the nature of the risks in such a society and minimizing those risks, takes legal steps to do so, I as a tithe-payer am very grateful for their foresight and protection of my donations from some slick-minded attorney. As far as I'm concerned, you people have no idea what you're talking about and are barking up the wrong tree. Enjoy the barking, my friend.

Ghostbuster.

You always make me laugh. I agree some days it is just feels better to exist than to explore.

I don't have much to say on financial transparency. I think you and I are on the same page.

I am sure we will cross paths shortly on the next question posted on the site.

I am looking forward to it.

Parker
thanks for your thoughts in comparison to Ghostbuster.

I can certainly see how that works for you. My father was a stake president and my GG Grandfather was a 2nd Counselor to the Prophet, so I think i can see both the inside and outside perspective.

The outside perspective includes those citizens who think that any tax exempt organization should file open returns, for instance, as all non church non profits do. Trust but verify, as my Hero Ronald Reagan said.

In other words, I think the government should mandate the same kind of financial reporting for churches as for museums, whether the Church thinks they should do it or not.

I am not a dictator, so such a change would have to be democratically instituted, unless we find an activist Judge like Alito to rule on it.

Peace and Love
HJ

LUCY
I appreciate your being so sweet to an old dead man like me, but I must warn you that I was probably gay, and I am engaged to marry Sister Mary Lisa when I get to the CK.

I certainly agree with you that flinging the C-word at groups is not polite or civil. And i would not refer to Mormons as a Cult in polite conversation.

I would again say that in the context of a discussion of Faith and Religion such as we are engaged in here, it is legitimate to
a. differentiate between "religion" and "cult"
b. evaluate whether "cult" has any useful meaning other than as an epithet, and
c. examine the history of the usage of the word Cult. for example as has been noted, Christianity in the first century was widely characterized as a cult. Was that legitimate or not? And if not, why not? If the word only has meaning as an epithet/insult, we should clarify that.

IMO, a number of serious, non bigoted academics have studied what is known as the Cult Phenomenon. Most of us would call the Jonestown suicide group a cult, for instance. And it is legitimate to look at the characteristics and practices of those groups. And since they often have characteristics that are overlapping with some Religious Characteristics, it is legitimate to compare and contrast. When is a group a "dangerous cult", and when it is just a religion that happens to pay strong allegiance to the Pope rather than Jim Jones.

William is a real SOB, by the way, so I hate to be too nice to him, but I will give him your regards.

and best to you from me
HJ

To the general reader:
The thought has occurred to me while mowing my dad's lawn this morning that there is good reason for someone like Ghostbuster to be adamant about accountability to the people. If a religion is drawn from the people with a "priesthood of all believers," the feeling of accountability to God will be somewhat secondary. In the LDS religion, priesthood is from God and accountability is primarily toward God. This is felt at every level of Church leadership including among the youth. Stweardship is from God, Primary accountability is to God. This is second nature to my thinking, so I wouldn't feel the kind of impetus Ghostbuster feels as to accountability to men.

So, Ghostbuster, I grant you where you are coming from and agree with it for your organization. I don't agree with it for ours: "Let not the right hand know what the left hand doeth" and accountability to God are paramount in guiding the LDS tithing and leadership model. Also, there is no paid ministry at the pastoral level, with General Authorities receiving a living allowance not a competitive paycheck, so all of the thinking is different. Your site talked about determining CEO pay levels. I served years ago as an LDS bishop (pastor), many hours per week, glad to do it with no pay and no regrets about that. We just have different experiences, different cultures with respect to how a church organization functions, so we would think profoundly differently.

Carol thank YOU for your thoughtful words.

I think my post above suggesting we get rid of the word "cult" and talk about group characteristics in a reasonable and respectful way responds to a lot of your good points. And I don't think Mormons are dangerous: my father and mother and brother were/are active mormons, and i was one for 20 years. And I am more dangerous now that I am not one.

If we look at the "list as dimensions on which groups can vary, we might erase some of the perjoratives. And no group/person is perfect, except me now that i am dead. And Yes, where we rate any group on any dimension is *somewhat* subjective in most cases. That's why we have a democracy. Well, Catholics and Mormons don't, but America supposedly does.

I don't read the list as implying that putting away food (or money) is unreasonable. Again, my very reasonable relief society president mother did.

Re "good enough": yes, all of us humans are imperfect and feel inferior. But some groups hammer home the members' inferiority in an unhealthy way, in the subjective opinion of many. I personally don't think the Mormons are bad on this count. I think Fundamentalist Christians often are, but they probably think I am.

Re Grievances: you are right. Grievances may be unreasonable. No one item on this list is a Yes/No all-or-nothing criterion. However, if the grievance is shown to be legitimate by a reasonable standard (members were given shock treatment against their will) and lots of people have it, one might want to pay attention.

Re questions: Organizations can make legitimate and varying decisions about how they handle them. There are lots of organizations i would never be a member of cause they spend all their time endlessly debating undecidable questions.

Again, the level of obedience to authority and the means of handling whatever dissent arises are important characteristics of groups, and a legitimate basis of evaluation for both insiders and outsiders. If what Mormons or Catholics are doing within their groups is freely chosen and doesn't hurt me, I am happy if the mormons are happy. If the Church is a force against what I consider fair treatment of homosexuals like myself when I was alive (if I had been engaged in that kind of activity)
then the church DOES affect me, and I will speak out on those issues.

Peace and Love to You, and thanks for a humane and concerned post.

HJ

HJ,

While I sometimes find interest in your comments, I have to disagree a bit with your last one. I concur that there should be questions which differentiate religions, but keeping it within some "user-defined" meaning of the word cult, as given above - is debatable. I feel there should be more questions which are less argumentative, and from all religious parties combined, but as others have stated, let's keep the cult word out of it. It does boil down to who's side are you on and puts a rather "in-your-face" tone to it. We all know it can be done in a much more non-argumentative fashion. I don't mind questions regarding my religion and I've answered them, when asked, to the best of my ability. But to call someone a cult, through means of someone's made-up definition, is a bit nonsensical. Let's keep it to Webster to define the term, not some street walker who decided it was up to them to redefine the term and place it up on their website...

Your dearest Lucy.

PS - tell brother William hello for me

Henry James:

Thank you for responding!

I am in agreement that words are more than their connotations, and it would be a great thing if we would all agree upon their meanings. There would be much less room for misunderstanding. However, aside from dictionaries and etymologies of English, I find no authority behind the list you cite that "denotes" a cult, but I will accept that that it what it means to you. I persoanlly find that the criticisms within it seem all very subjective.

The cult list hints that it is unreasonable and paranoid for Mormons to put aside a supply of food and clothing for a rainy day -- yet the advocates of this list probably contribute to their IRAs and 401Ks religiously. They likely have fire and flood insurance -- probably liability insurance and collision on their cars.

The former is unreasonable. The latter is reasonable. Do you think that if there reasonably might be a flood you might also reasonably need food?

The cult list finds it notable that Mormons struggle with feeling "good enough" yet then forget that adage from psychology (Alfred Adler quoted here): "Just to be human is to feel inferior."

According to the cult list, a Mormon's very humanity is cause for suspicion. Non-cult people are free to go work on their struggling self-esteem and that's just fine.

The cult list warns that former members of a cult have similar patterns of grievances. Former employees of a reputable company might have a similar patten of grievances too. (We had to be on time! Did you notice how we all had to do what the boss told us to do! They are sooo controlling. Grrr!)

Former members of a "cult" might also have a similar pattern of psychopathology. And I do wonder about that, because instead of persistently parading about their many wounds, I think healthy people would just "let go" and be done.

Well, I don't why I'm bothering to dissect the list one by one, so I'll stop. It is not my objective on this board to say that everyone who does not think like I do is wrong.

Regarding questions, though: I do think that there eventually comes a time when people's questions really indicate that they are no longer interested in belonging to the organization. I have no doubt that sincere questions (with a desire to hear the answers) are respected. I know enough Mormons to discern that much.

But if the Mormons are flying a plane headed to Dallas, I can imagine that perseverence about why they are not headed to Chicago could eventually get tedious to even the most patient of Church leaders. I'm not convinced that that makes them dangerous.

Financial Accontability

my departed accountant friend Parker writes
"Statements as were cited by HJ do not demonstrate any accountability when I look at them--do they to you?"

Is parker's position that no conceivable financial statements demonstrate accountability (a strange position for an accountant to take).?

If the Griswold church published a certified financial statement verifying that all of the church's income was donated to candidates from the Democrat party running for office,
would that not induce some accountability on behalf of the leaders of the Griswold Church once their members and the IRS read the statement?

I am staggered that Parker can't imagine any benefits to meaningful financial accountability, whether he thinks the Unitarians have achieved it or not.

Steven and Skeptical's Artificial Constructs

Steven opines:
This "cult" list is a completely artificial construct designed to make bigots feel virtuous about themselves.

Let's try a thought experiment. Forget the word "cult" ever existed. Assume you are a human being attempting to understand group behavior. One basic way to do so is to distinguish one group from another. How might they differ?

Size? Years of existence? Clearly.
Obedience to the leader versus tolerance of dissent from what the leader says? Clearly.
Goals, aims, philosophy, and personal history/credibility of the founder? Clearly.
Secrecy of group practices? A reasonable criterion

A person deciding which group he wants to be part of would quite reasonably look at these factors in deciding to join the group or not.

Mormonism, Judaism, Unitarianism, Secular Humanism can all be evaluated on these criteria (five Jews = ten opinions, as we Jews say).

One needn't be a bigot to take these factors into consideration. Mormonism, or Unitarianism, might be just right for you based on their match to the criteria/list I cited earlier.

A modest point: it is a healthy debate within a group (say a group comprised of citizens of the USA) as to whether they will unquestionably believe everything their president says, whether his name is Clinton or Bush).

It is a reasonable question to debate whether the Mormon Church (or any other) should be more open with their financial records, for instance.

So if we throw out the C-word, this discussion of group characteristics has some valuable elements that need not descend into bigotry.

For Ken on following the prophet. Goto http://library.lds.org and do a "follow the prophet" search to find 426 matches in the church's own archives. And keep in mind the questions that any person must pass in order to have permission to attend their child's wedding.

Skeptical Non-Believer

Amen, brother.

This "cult" list is a completely artificial construct designed to make bigots feel virtuous about themselves.

They could just as easily construct a list about the "N" word and demonstrate that people of African ancestry do actually fit the list and therefore ought not to complain about it.

Does anybody remember the Mormon myth called the '17 points of the true church?' It basically was a list created to make the Mormon church look like it was completely based on the Bible and that no other church could be true.

The story was completely made up.

My point is, it is just as unsound and fallacious to define the Mormon church as a cult by using some list of cult requirements written by an 'expert' as it is to prove the church is right by using the 17 points. The list doesn't at all define the church as a cult and those who use that list are just as guilty of poor thinking as those Mormons who believe in the 17 points of the true church.

Mr. Adams,

Recently, I've been haunting some old Otterson blogs. I've been enjoying the amiable conversation I've stumbled upon.

Perhaps I've also been hiding from you?

Lord knows it's easier to hide out as a creature of "condition". Our conversations tend to disturb portions of my psyche that are best left on auto-pilot.

Anyways, I don't have much else to say about financial transparency so if you got something on your mind, just say "when". I'll stop back here Monday or Tuesday to comment.

Regards as always

Here is another example I ran across. It is more detailed.

http://www.intervarsity.org/aboutus/docs/2006_InterVarsity_Audited_Report.pdf

There is plenty more info out there, but I don't see a need to belabor the point.

I'm glad to hear about the earmarked donations. I still think that you and other members of your church ought to seriously consider petitioning your church leadership for more transparent financial disclosure.

I'm wondering if there are any current LDS members following this discussion who think this is an issue that could use some reform. If so, please chime in.

Give my best to your son overseas Parker.

-GB

Ghostbuster,
Thanks for sharing the cite. I didn't find detailed financial statement examples, but it showed Evangelicals serious intent to practice high standards of accountability. The LDS Church is organized so differently in terms of sub-organizations (I looked at a list of organizations that "left" by letting their membership expire or for other reasons, on one of the sub-links), that I don't think reasonable comparisons can be made.

As to ear-marking donations, that can and does happen for some specific LDS humanitarian or building projects, but not with tithing donations, nor would I expect them to based on passages in the Old and New Testaments. There are interesting breakdowns of summary dollars and service hours and types of humanitarian projects participated in during 2006 on a link from the lds.org website, for those interested.

Thanks again, Ghostbuster, for sharing your perspective. You bring a kindness to the blogosphere that is refreshing, and I've learned from and enjoyed that. Adieu, in peace.

Yes: Thank You for the tip!

Parker: I'll try this again.

Let me give a simple example. At the end of the year our local church has an annual business meeting. At this meeting, all the money that came in, went out, or passed through the church is explained and documented. Let’s say that $5,000 was designated for a general category like missions. The financial statements will show how that $5,000 was distributed to various missions. No names are given. No one knows who gave how much to what. It just the numbers.

I originally posted financial info about several churches or religious non-profits I have given to, but the software running these boards apparently doesn't like us listing multiple links so here is just one for you to browse through...

http://www.ecfa.org/

I've gotten that if there are too many http links in the message....

"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."

What? Has anyone else (other than Jacob of course) ever gotten a message like that?

Angela,
I'm sorry, but after re-reading your post I don't follow your train of thought, so I think you're doing the best you can to follow Christ as you know Him to be, and I assume you're happy with how your life is going. Great!

Ghostbuster,
Are you saying I should be able to know what everyone else has donated to the Church? Or just be able to look at all the numbers with the names removed? Or just see a summary financial statement like HJ cited and think that is disclosing something meaningful to anybody? I frankly don't understand why it's your business if people who are blessed by living the law of tithing choose to do so without demanding to look at all the books? Why can't that be their choice without somebody like you second-guessing the issue? Statements as were cited by HJ do not demonstrate any accountability when I look at them--do they to you? I still need a bigger definition of what you mean--not that it would change my view in the least.

HJ,
Like I said before, we live in different universes. I look at truth as something that is learnable, understandable, and livable, to the point of some day exercising faith, love, and agency in ways that are to us right now fairly inconceivable. I think that there are untapped energy fields and energy sources in the universe. But the only way to obtain the use of those sources and to exercise that type of faith, love, and agency is to come to an understanding through the Good Shepherd and the Holy Ghost, because the Way is too nuanced and deliberately barred (because the flow of that faith has to be from within the person, not contrived or forced or improvised) for imposters or those who just want to "do their own thing."

Adieu, and much happiness to you all.

Regarding Malls and Parking Lots:

There are many well-meaning people on this earth who would love to help the poor if they had more means to do so. Many of these people vote in such a way as to force others who do have means to take over this feeling of obligation for them -- and then feel pretty good about themselves for being more compassionate than others. The policies they enact often perpetuate misery.

The philanthropists of this world, on the other hand, recognize that they have the means to instigate meaningful improvements, unfettered by government ineptitude. Their wealth-producing businesses allow them the luxury of giving and giving and giving, rather than quickly exhausting their resources.

Church investments grow in such a way that it allows us to continue our massive international humanitarian endeavors, and I'm all for that.

Mondo Cool:

You make an hysterical point. They do indeed rant about secrets, which "secrets" they then quote verbatim.... :-)

So what are they complaining about exactly?

Carol,

I think you make a great observation. We Mormons are the ones who allow our buttons to be pushed by the "cult" word and by those who use it. If we did not feel a certain enmity towards those we ourselves consider "marginal" we would not allow ourselves to be offended -- even though the offense is very much intented.

I think you offer a lovely solution.

I'd like to address your other points but am getting ready to take my sons on an overnighter this weekend. I hope to continue this thread when I get back!