Using Personality Cults and Being Used

The author is not as aware of JW's literature or culture as he feels he is because if he was, he never would have said that JW's "adhere to many of the same emphasis on material possessions as a sign of divine favor that some call 'the Gospel of Prosperity.'"

JW's are consistenetly encouraged by internal literature to live 'simple' lives and focus on 'kingdom pursuits' mainly preaching, and practicing what they preach.

Didn't Jesus say no one gets into the Kingdom of Heaven except by HIm? Didn't he frame his proselyting in purely personal terms, saying it was He who came with the sword of His gospel to separate Jewish parents from Jewish children and brothers from sisters? Isn't that organizing a disruptive cult "around a personality"? Didn't His Mediterranean contemporaries look upon His followers as a minor personality-driven sect among many that flourished at the time, within or outside of Judaism? As Christopher Hitchens says, either Jesus was nuts or he actually WAS the Son of God, the claim is so extravagantly personal. Or else he was misquoted by those who preserved his teachings. Ockham's Razor favors the latter, of course.

The great paradox of Mormonism is that something founded by a pathetic con-artist fake like Joseph Smith (vz. Angel Moroni and those lost Golden Plates) has grown into a huge formal religion that actually does a lot of good for its members and communities. Maybe people are constantly looking for father figures in which to place their trust, give their alms, sacrifice their young and order their lives? This they find in most established religions as well as spontaneously occurring cults that spring up and eventually, in Darwinian style, aspire to the status or religion.

Happens over and over. Are humans biologically hardwired for this sort of hokum? Or does it have tangible Darwinian-fitness survival value for individuals and communities to think this way?

And Judaism is called _Jud_iasm, for Pete's sake. Clearly, they worship Jud. (Nevermind those Hin-performing Hindus.) All cults and religions are equally about personality; I couldn't imagine that one religion might be different in that regard, and therefore more liable to an exploitative relationship with its adherents.

"The sociological explanation of cults includes the notion that it is “organized around a personality.” Religion is a much wider category."

Christianity is called _Christ_ianity, for Pete's sake. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy.

"Mormons today should be respected as sincerely religious folk, but one ought not fail to notice the heavy emphasis upon material success that has made the LDS church a major corporation involved in a host of multi-million dollar businesses."

And wasn't the Watergate Complex in Washington built with Vatican money?

Three basics are:1.Embrace & follow the word of God which instils life in every believer in God.2.Having the power of God by enabling Holy Spirit that indwells &seals us forever to keep following Jesus Christ.3.To know &realize our Heavenly Abba as the Real Source of all of us !

The criticism and misreprestntation I hear put forth by many evangelists and catholics which criticizes the LDS church for its claim to possess the fullness of restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not much different than that which came forth from the mouths of the Pharisees and Sadducees 2000 years ago.

Think of what is at stake here. If it is true, that God has restored His church, than this is a HUGE deal and every Christian should make an earnest effort to discover for themselves through the power of the Holy Ghost if it is true. If not, then no harm no foul.

Those skeptics of the LDS church ought to hedge their bets though and at least offer Mormons a little respect, just in case they happen to be right.

Also, your JW history is pretty inaccurate. There was no "warring" between Rutherford and Russell. Russell died in 1916. Rutherford saved the then fledging church from oblivion. It is really Rutherford, not Russell, who created the Jehovah's Witnesses and made them into who they are today. You are giving far too much credit to Russell -- a man whose theology is unrecognizable to a modern JW.

And, oh.. Yes, though, it really is important, not what someone necessarily thinks they have going on, but what they *do* with it.

Like with America: General Washington *could* have been king.

He *chose* not to.

An 'evil cult conspiracy' Harry Potter quote comes to mind:

Something like, "It's not our abilities, but our *choices* that define who we are."

Now, no, these books have nothing to do with anyone indoctrinating anyone to Wicca or Paganism or anything like that... But that's one thing you wouldn't find a Wiccan disagreeing with.

See, A Catholic said it, right up there in this column. :)

Not to go making relative theological judgements on this point, but both the LDS and JWs continue to use cult-like tactics and coercions, and it really has nothing to do with Francis of Assisi, ....a figure used in Catholicism to absolve a lot of things being done by real, live people to this day.

When Christians look at other sects and cults, ....even evaluate their own sects' histories, too often they look for theological justifications, when really, much of this is about *organizations.*

The storied St. Francis bucking authority *then* and becoming revered for it hardly matters theologically when one would have a similarly hard time doing the same thing *now.*

Catholicism may be so large and ingrained it doesn't *need* certain kinds of enforcement, but it doesn't necessarily make the Church better or worse than smaller organizations in terms of 'how cultlike.'

Close enough, I'd say, considering how the abuse things go, even after finally coming out.

Compare tow the media treats it if a kid gets molested by a Christian family within a block of someone who read about Wicca or thought a pentacle looked cool. :)

That said, when most Christians go scorning Mormons, they usually focus on their heterodoxy about Christianity, and actually kind of envy their organizational structure.

In some ways, with all these religions, you've got to look at what they do, not with the believers, but with those that *don't* agree.

And they all have their horror stories coming out, believe me.

"But in relation to cult, I arrive at a simple conclusion. It is not the presence of strong leaders that matters, but rather how that gift is used. Francis of Assisi had a much potential as these others to create a religious movement around his own personality, but he refused to do so. Instead, he left a legacy – admired by all and followed by some – to “preach the Gospel at all times, and – when necessary – to use words. That for me is “real religion.”"

Is there anything in Joseph Smith's writings which lead you to conclude that his ultimate mission was not to, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and - when necessary to use words?"

One may disagree with his theology and/or methodology, but I see no difference in your conclusion between the two.

Smith was not perfect and certainly had his faults as did the good Saint Francis, however, Smith's devotion was to his God and the Gospel of Christ as he believed it. His "words" bear that out.

"But in relation to cult, I arrive at a simple conclusion. It is not the presence of strong leaders that matters, but rather how that gift is used. Francis of Assisi had a much potential as these others to create a religious movement around his own personality, but he refused to do so. Instead, he left a legacy – admired by all and followed by some – to “preach the Gospel at all times, and – when necessary – to use words. That for me is “real religion.”"

Is there anything in Joseph Smith's writings which lead you to conclude that his ultimate mission was not to, "Preach the Gospel at all times, and - when necessary to use words?"

One may disagree with his theology and/or methodology, but I see no difference in your conclusion between the two.

Smith was not perfect and certainly had his faults as did the good Saint Francis, however, Smith's devotion was to his God and the Gospel of Christ as he believed it. His "words" bear that out.

The validity of the LDS Church does not revolve around the strength of personality of leadership, but in the strength of conviction to the "Word."

all religions, regardless of size,exist on belief. Belief is "an emotional identification with a concept. A concept is a thought concieved in the mind. Therefore, all religions from catholic and mormon to David Korish (correct spelling,Korish,unknown)is a cult. Take a good look at thier history.

Dear Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

I am wondering what it might take to persaude you to do some genuine research and reading about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Your discussion of Francis of Assisi and your current position as director of research indicates you indeed do have the skills to do so and yet this post as well as your post on Mormons some months ago continues to earn you the award for the most illinformed on the topic IMHO.

I recall many posters gave you similar feedback previously as well.

Why not do some homework before you write so publicly? Aren't you harming your credibility as a researcher as much as those you misrepresent?

You wrote "As I understand it, Mr. Smith is an unlikely candidate for canonization – even by Latter-day Saints, many of whom prefer Brigham Young’s leadership."

Mr. Arroyo, Joseph Smith's revelations are canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants -- one of four books of Scripture that Latter-day Saints study and revere as the word of God which includes the Bible and the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, only 1 revelation by Brigham Young has been canonized. Casual perusing of LDS scripture easily reveals this.

Your emphasis on LDS financial wealth and success and offering eachother assistance or some of the same among the JWs for that matter, seems to me reminiscant of how Jews have also been so weakly accused. That you subsequently label both of these groups as engaged in "Religious entrepreneurship" as opposed to following the biblical edict to take the gospel to the world seems to me as little more than a bias of your own personal preference.

Perhaps next time instead of abstaining "from casting too harsh a light on the lives of the founders of the Church of Latter-day Saints (Joseph Smith) or either of the two warring leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses" which you have again failed to do in my opinion, I hope you will abstain from imparting misinformation and an imbalanced character analysis. If this is really something you are unwilling to do, perhaps you would instead do well to abstain from posting altogether on things you for whatever reason still haven't taken the time to understand...

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is wrong about how mormons view Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. He is wrong about how we view money and material success. In general I find the tone of the entire argument to be wrong.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is wrong about how mormons view Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. He is wrong about how we view money and material success. In general I find the tone of the entire argument to be wrong.

Let me guess Steven-Arroyo is catholic and supposedly he wants us all to believe he doesn’t view both the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons founders in a harsh light. I find that hard to believe considering he continued to back handedly comment about how each group does this or that while Francis of Assisi is a saint. Oh yeah the Catholic Church already made him a saint.

I suppose the founders of the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons both don’t care that they won’t be canonized by him or his church. I doubt his opinion as biased as they are, aren’t truly worth the paper he writes them on. I think most people can rightly prove that the Catholic Church along with Francis of Assisi were as much a cult as any other organization. They have the inquisition the crusades the now debunked principle of purgatory, and the most impressive resume of denouncing heretics of every race color or creed. I personally love how Francis of Assisi showed to the world how humble his was with his abstinence of worldly possession, of authority in his own church, and self mutilation, but let us not forget what the lord said in the bible of showing your works to the world. I suppose this is the true test of why Francis of Assisi didn’t become a founder of a new religion he was too busy getting praise from the church he already belonged too. Isn’t it great that when he died the same praise that he sought in life was given to him in death with the title of saint?

All you need to know about the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they say "Jesus had his return to power" aka his second coming in the year 1914.

What do you think?

Debunking the Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda:
A) They are at your door to recruit you for enslavement to their watchtower corporation,they will say that "we are just here to share a message from the Bible" this is deception right off.

B) The 'message' is their false Gospel that Jesus had his second coming already in 1914.The problem with this,is it's not just a cute fairy tale,Jesus warned of the false prophets who would claim "..look he is here in the wilderness,or see here he is at the temple"

C) Their anti-blood transfusion ban has killed hundreds if not thousands
D) once they recruit you they will "love bomb" you in cult fashion to also recruit your family & friends or cut them off. There are many more dangers,Jehovah's Witnesses got a bad rap for good and valid reasons.
----
Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation
http://www.freeminds.org

How unsurprising that Stevens-Arroyo still builds up the importance of his particular religion in his own mind by denegrating others.