No Joke

I think a sect is definable mainly by its separation from mainstream religion. The word (at least in English) does not necessarily imply that there is anything wrong with it. In French, by contrast, the word secte is roughly equivalent to the modern English meaning of cult and has distinctly sinister connotations, whereas the French culte often just means worship.

In my mind, the salient characteristics of a cult are barriers to exit, totalitarian systems of control, social seclusion, suppression of dissenting opinions, and high demands made on its adherents. I would not use these as definitions of a cult, but as characteristics by which one can be recognised. Not every cult has all of these attributes.

My working definition is based on identifying the beneficiaries of the organisation. If an organisation professing to be Christian benefits both its followers and the wider community, then I would call it a church. If it benefits only its followers, and is segregated from the rest of Christianity, I would call it a sect. If it benefits its hierarchy by exploiting its followers, then I call it a cult.

Henry, my dear brother,

If the key to the identification of a cult is the location of authority--i.e. the relatively limited ability to disagree with a figure of authority without fear of sanction or dismissal--then by golly every religious, political, and social group I've ever heard of is just such a beast. If you ratchet that up several notches and say that the penalty for heterodoxy is, say, dispossession, shunning, persecution, or death, well then I'm with you, as these penalties constitute pathological reactions indicative of power-mongering, and are antithetical to any possible wholesome purposes. But then, there's OT Judaism gone the way of the cult, too.

Anyway, I'd appreciate greater clarity about what you think the penalties are, specifically. And I'd like to see you wax on (and off) about the Papal Bull, trials of heresy, persecution of accused witches, mass excommunications of congregations, and any number of other sociological niceties that have occurred in mainstream religious practice. While we're at it, let's talk about extradition, treason, and forgetting to wear a jacket to the golf club restaurant. Bit loose.

Dr. Flake is bang on about the nuances of the term, Shearer. Throwing about newly imagined definitions of the term, especially when these are subjective, as an attempt to rebut the substance of her post, is simply lame.

Nick: grow up. If this were an ecclesiastical assignment outside the charge to "stand as a witness at all times, and in all places," I can think of ten other people who would have posted similarly. Aspersions are what pearls turn into when swine ingest them: not nearly as pretty, and coming out the wrong end.

where is the god damn map?

How can i print this out

Bertrand Russell

Why I am not a christian pp22

Fear,the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

Nick,

I think you're missing something fundamental about the "On Faith" blog setup.

Each week, the moderators for the blog pose a theological question. One week it might be about what to do with fanatics. Another week it might be about when life begins. This week, the question happened to be about cults.

Check the rest of the panelists (from a wide range of religions and beliefs). They are ALL writing about cults this week.

You would have realized this if you had looked at panelist submissions other than just the Mormon ones.

"Where the monotheistic cults come from is that they do not ascribe to Sola Scriptura, that Scripture is enough..."

I.E. The Catholics and Orthodox are cults, even if they represent over 90% of all Christians.

I'm not sure that is a useful definition.

Nick Literski:

It isn't a coincidence that Otterson and Flake address the same topic, but not because of any edict from Temple Square. It's the "On Faith" topic du jour.

You may continue with your regularly scheduled kicking against the pricks, Brother Literski. :P

Oh there is too much trust placed in authority, look at the FEDERAL GOV. seriously the founding fathers of your Government faught hard to make sure you States had the power and no ALL SEEING Entity had too much power...but as America the Republic fell to the weak and continued Power Hungry peusdoDemocracy...we see wire tapping, searches without warrants, people being detained like my brother for 72 hrs without being informed of the charges against him...Katrina releif bungled by the "Giant with huge hands picking up toothpicks" FEMA (Federally Supported) and RELIGION is no diffrent for government is the POWER that is of this world while we are informed of a perfect Kingdom, but that is my crazy rant on why people be (cult) or other fear this OUTSIDE POWER, nothing says lose your freedom like the all WATCHING and all KNOWING AGENCY...all God can know and see all and not leapt to conclusions...

PEACE BE UNTO ALL

_MONK_

Doc you continue to amaze me.

"my tactics for dealing with the problem are problematic"?????

so far my "tactics" have been to try to get an agreed on definition of Cult that is recognized as significant. That is problematic?

Also, a totally unwarranted assumption on your part about mybelieving that there is NO justification for ANY trust in any authority.

Of course, there can be Too much trust, and too little. And I doubt if you and I would ever agree on what is Just right, but there is a middle ground. Total obeisance is foolish, total anti-establishmentism is nihilistic and foolish.

You ask, tautologically, "why a ..pathological fear is ...not unhealthy." would you like to rephrase the question without making the most basic of logical errors?

I believe that it is possible to have a xenophobic, unhealthy fear of outsiders. I also believe that attacking said group for that fear will lead to strengthening of that xenophobia. Your tactics for dealing with the problem are problematic.

I believe it is possible for people with authority to abuse it, and almost always happens by human nature. I learned this from "gasp" Joseph Smith in one of the most profound and astute passages I have ever read in any scripture in the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The real question is, can a person hold authority without abusing it. My guess is that your world view says no, that such trust is foolish and dangerous.

So my question is, why is the pathological fear of anyone with "too much" authority not an unhealthy fear of outsiders? Perhaps you are more cultish than you believe.

Doc
I am not sure what you mean when you say
"I didn't mean a single group, just that taking that group dynamic (defined as fearing all outside the group) and attacking it seems rather pointless to me. You are just validating suspicions."

Do you think it is possible for members of a group to have an unhealthy fear of outsiders? I assume you do.

Do you think it is possible for members of a group to give TOO MUCH authority to their leader? I assume you do.

All of the cult characteristics i mentioned are amenable to abuse. Jim Jones is an extreme example, but there are plenty of less extreme examples that are still serious.

BTW if you google "cult characteristics" you will get 2 million references, most of which are either academic or public service non profits who aren't interested in beating up on Mormons or anyone else. They are interested in either academic research or human rights. And to say that the characteristics are either non-existent or benign is delusionary.

PS
I didn't mean a single group, just that taking that group dynamic (defined as fearing all outside the group) and attacking it seems rather pointless to me. You are just validating suspicions.

HJ,
I happen to agree that religion = cult + time, I just strenuously disagree that there is anything wrong with that. However, the fact that I stand on the other side of the fence from you is hardly surprising.

Doc You are making me ill. Just kidding.

You are free to dismiss academic inquiry wholesale, but respected sociologists have studied Cult phenomena systematically and extensively, and the list i cited is a typical list of characteristics.

You are totally deluded if you think the list was made up to favor one group over another or to cast aspersions. It is a serious sociological effort to define a phenomenon. you can disagree with the results.

the mormons do NOT have the same ability to disagree with their prophet.

in other words, the role of an authorithy in a group is an important factor in the health of that group. not trivial. not necessarily argumentative or perjorative.

If you can't think of any use to try to describe cult phenomena, you are not exercising any imaginative ability.

"Cult is what the big congregation calls the little congregation." -the 4400.

HJ,
Why on earth is that list definitive? What phenomena are you trying to describe? Tell what about these things, other than inferring devious motivations and generally slandering a group that already has decided it doesn't trust outsiders, does your list accomplish?

The working definition of a cult to me is a group that has one answer to any question.

Ms Flake ignores reasonable Academic Definitions of "Cult"

she is surely right that there is a political dimension to the acceptability of labeling any group a cult.

However, there are some well accepted characteristics, and the first 10 posts on the Otterson thread lay them out.

"Strong social sanctions against leaving the group" for instance.

Mormonism clearly rates higher on these 12-15 characteristics taken as a group than does, say, Unitarianism.

But by now Mormons have been around too long and are too politically powerful for many of us to get away with calling them a cult.

Susan J is right: a Religion is Just a Cult + time.

Wow. Michael Otterson writes a blog entry on how naughty it is to call anyone a "cult." Within a few days, Kathleen Flake writes a scholarly blog entry on how subjective (but ultimately "naughty") it is to call anyone a "cult." Surely they're both working independently, and not under any sort of ecclesiastical assignment of topics....right?

Canyon Shearer:

**A cult, in what I can best determine to be a pure sense of the word, is a religious group based around special knowledge which is antithetical to accepted doctrine.**

Whose accepted doctrine? Different religious groups have different accepted doctrines.

According to your definition, every religion is a cult to those who don't practice it. So Christianity is a cult to non-Christians, Judaism is a cult to Gentiles, Pagainsm is a cult to non-Pagans, Hindism is a cult to non-Hindus, Buddhism is a cult to non-Buddhists, and all religions are cults to atheists.

Wow, it is as if you didn't read the article, nor get what was being said. You actually make yourself a great case in point to what she was saying. "There are none so blind as he who cannot see."

The word cult has been watered down and washed out. It no longer has a firm definition and thus calling Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses (Henceforth referred to as JW's) cult-worshippers is at best a fuzzy definition. A cult, in what I can best determine to be a pure sense of the word, is a religious group based around special knowledge which is antithetical to accepted doctrine.

Where the monotheistic cults come from is that they do not ascribe to Sola Scriptura, that Scripture is enough, in otherwords, there is nothing more we need in order to know God and salvation than His word. Manuel II Palaiologos said in 1391, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that is new, there you will find only things evil and inhuman," ask any Mormon missionary, what is the most important thing you can tell me? You will hear, "God has once again called prophets on this earth." The JW's are convinced that the name of God has been hidden by the devil and that they have found it. All these religions are founded on the belief that God has no control over His Word or salvation, that they are building the church.

But they are not building the church, Jesus Christ is building the church, as evidenced by His profound statement, "I will build my church."

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about the cults is that they believe they have a monopoly on the truth, that unless you are a Mormon, or a JW, or a Catholic, you are doomed to Hell. The problem with these religions is that they condemn billions of previously redeemed believers to Hell, especially true in the johnny-come-lately cults of Mormonism and the JW's. The JW's will allow anyone to come to their Kingdom Hall, but if you were a JW and went apostate, you have secured your fate in Hell.

In answer to your question, Kathleen, the anabaptist denomination of Mennonites and Amish are not a cult because they have not magically found new revelation from God, or taught the exact opposite of what God has told us from Genesis to Revelation. While I disagree with much of their lifestyle, especially the anabaptist part and the Arminian part, they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, born-again into the family of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone known by scripture alone for the glory of God alone.

The truth is, knowing God's name is not going to help you, believing that we have new prophets to tell us how the Bible is wrong is not going to help you, calling out to your father in Roma is not going to help you.

Perhaps the greatest method for determining if a cult is a cult is by looking at their understanding of Jesus Christ. There are many Jesuses in the world, only one of them is God incarnate, has the power to save, and will judge your soul. This Jesus is not the angel Michael, He is not the brother of satan, or the son of a transcendent God-bearing virgin. None of these Jesuses have any power to save, because they are all figments of the imagination, created for the sole purpose of elevating men to god-status or dragging God down to man-status.

In Mormonism we are all on our way to be gods, as God once was, so is man, as God is, so shall man be.....this is called idolatry and coveting, it earned Adam and Eve curses which we feel today, and which will doom Mormons to Hell. JW's drag God down to man-level, claiming that He can't preserve His word, and if He can't even do a measly thing as preserve His word, He has no business judging me. And Catholics and Muslims have fallen for the second oldest trick in the book, that you can work your way out of your punishment.

The truth is that there is only one Saviour, the true Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, born of a normal god-fearing virgin Jewess, where He lived a perfect, sinless life, tempted by not succumbing. He laid His life down by allowing Himself to be tried on a false charge and He was beaten for your iniquites; He was hung on a cross where the sins of the world were placed upon Him, and He died in our place so that we can be forgiven. On the third-day He lifted Himself up from the grave, He defeated death, and He will reign forever more as the God and Judge of the Universe.

He demands that you repent of your sins, forsake your unrighteousness and thirst after holiness. Place your full trust in Him to save you. When you have done this, you will know you have because you will be transformed, as a caterpillar is transformed into a butterfly, you will be given a new heart and you will know you have been forgiven, not because you have any special knowledge of God or have any merits of your own, but because God is good and made a way for you to be saved.

With this view, if the Mormons are correct, I will see the lowest Heaven, if the Catholics are correct, I will spend a great deal of time in purgatory, if the Muslims are correct, I am on my way to Paradise, and if the JW's or atheistic agnostics are correct, I will simply be annihilated.

But if I am correct, all of these will have their place in the lake of fire, because Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me."

Please make sure you are on the narrow path to life, because wide is the path and easy is the way that leads to destruction, and many will find it.