Using Language as a Mask for Intolerance

"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!

Anonymous:

You wrote: "The church does more than its share."

Is there a specific guideline as to what is considered anyones "share" in helping the needy and less fortunate? How do you define "more" than its share? Is there a competition?

The Church must provide full financial disclosure in other countries and does so including their humanitarian contributions. If they provide it in other countries they operate in, why then are the reluctant to provide their financials where they are headquartered, that being the United States?

Are you aware that in many other countries, a couple can not marry in the temple first, but must be married in a public ceremony because it is required by the government of where they reside? After a civil public wedding they are able to go through the temple without having to wait a year?

There unfortunately are many inconsistencies within the Church. If a faithful LDS couple who lived in the US chose a civil marriage over a temple marriage, they would be required to wait at minimum a full year before they could go through the temple, maybe even longer depending on their Bishop and Stake President.

I do encourage everyone to do their homework. Investigate anything you would get involved in. That not only includes a religious denomination but also local groups.

Well, I was wrong! The discussion of LDS church holdings--particularly the broadcasting stations (something I studied in undergraduate college, and though I'm not in the field, I still very much keep track of) has me running back to post on this thread.

The Roman Catholic Church (which I used to belong to) does have a few radio stations in this country. Most are owned by individual parishes (the Catholic Church's version of a Mormon ward) with the Eternal Word Radio and Television Network owned by an order of nuns. All of these stations are run as nonprofit entities, and, for the most part, the programming of these stations is religious in nature. The 4 exceptions I can think of are an NPR outlet combo (two stations) in the McAllen/Harlingen Texas area; a mostly easy-listening station licensed to Laredo, Texas; and two separately run mostly oldies stations--one in Marco Island, Florida and one in Auburn (near Sacramento), California.

Let's compare that with the Mormon church stations. I actually count only three noncommercial Mormon-owned stations, all three are owned by church-owned universities, and two are National Public Radio (NPR) affiliates with mainly classical programming with a few hours blocked off for nonseckular music on Sundays. The third noncommercial station (one of two owned by BYU-Idaho) appears from their website, to be religious-based and student-run. So far so good.

But the LDS church has another much larger group of stations (Bonneville is the holding company) that are commercial outlets, and literally, they're out to make money! A lot of standard commercially-formatted stations are owned, including country, top-40, hot AC, adult contemporary, oldies, news/talk--just about every format is included. And the cities? Salt Lake City, Utah; Phoenix, Arizona; Cincinnati, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; St. Louis, Illinois; and San Francisco, California. About the only commercial format the LDS church won't play is rap. Out of all of their commercial stations, the only one with a sacred music format is KUTR-AM 820 licensed to Taylorville, a Salt Lake City suburb.

The reason I bring all of this up is to bolster the question raised by Just My Thoughts: Why is the LDS church in this business and where are the profits going. The goal of the for-profit stations clearly is not a religious one--in fact, one of the Phoenix outlets sponsored a St. Patrick's Day party in March of this year that served alcohol. As to the latter question, we just don't know. Clearly, some is being set aside to pay webcasting fees (another issue for another time), but the truth is that nobody outside of the church's inner circle really knows where the money is going.

I don't know if "close knit" and "cult" are synonymous, but I would say that Mormons are a "close knit" group bunch, and I think that is a good thing.

HJ,
Thanks for the cite reference. Interesting. I noticed right away that the audit report was very explicit in saying it made no representation as to internal controls--none whatsoever. It basically says, "the numbers here come from books we looked at, and the numbers add up just like it says here that they do." If I were a contributor, I would have the exact opposite of a "warm fuzzy"--because I would want to know about the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls.

I would also feel rather sheepish that my "church" had no show of helping the poor, humantiarian help, building church buildings or schools or libraries or something worthwhile somewhere in the world. But, it's got a lot of investments and not a high debt load--so way to go!

Jim
nice that the church helps the poor.
and i don't begrudge it its Investments.

the major point in this discussion, JMT aside, is whether finances are kept secret or whether they are fully disclosed.

For Unitarians, they are fully disclosed. For Mormons, they are secret.

One can say "I don't care, I trust these people."

However, most people who have studied cults have noted that this is a common cult practice. does not by itself make mormons a cult. but it DOES edge it towards being more "cult-like."

If you accept the 10 characteristics that I noted, then you must logically also accept that a group (Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, etc) can be said to fit the description closely, or not to fit it at all.

My thesis is that Mormons are, in fact, quite "cult-like". People are free in the US to be part of a group that is Cult-like, and again, I think Mormons are good people who are not about to abduct my child. But it IS relatively Cult-like compared to the Unitarians.

Also, I'm not an economist, but the church's investments and business dealings provide thousands of people with employment. This employment allows these people, if they so choose, to further give aid in various ways to others. So in addition to the vast direct donations of money and goods to those in need, through employing others, the church provides a means for its employees to benefit others while at the same time increasing the value of its holdings....

Justmythoughts, you wrote:

"As a member, it would interest me why the Church would require parking lots, radio and tv stations, condo’s, apartments, mall purchases, etc. to name just a minute list of their holdings. I guess I step back and think would the Lord and Savior require these things in which to spread His Gospel. Could you see Jesus spending money on a shopping mall instead of taking those funds and feeding the poor, clothing the homeless, providing housings, immunizations and clean water to third world countries, etc. Maybe you can."

Very simply, it's called investments. If the church invests its assets wisely, it will enable them to accumulate more so they may be able to stretch their money further and reach out to more for "feeding the poor, clothing the homeless, providing housings, immunizations and clean water to third world countries, etc." - as you say. If you had a million dollars, would you just spend the whole lot on feeding the poor, or would you invest it by collecting interest so you can reach further and help others even more? I think the church is wise to invest its money and not spend it so quickly.

To anyone who is so interested in the humanitarian funds of the church, please do your homework before spewing out incorrect facts. I tire when I hear that the church doesn't do these things. The church does more than its share. Read a few threads back where this was brought up and someone had already posted that over the past 3 years the church has donated over $1 Billion to help those in need (I don't remember the exact figure). If you're so interested in what they do, subscribe to the church newsroom emails where each day you will see what the church has done. Or better yet, go help out.

What I find hard to reconcile is that the accusation of "secret" is used to prove that Mormons are culists, and then the accusers QUOTE those secret temple cult rites as proof.

Oh well, I guess if folks will argue about what the word "cult" means, they will also argue about what the word "secret" means.

Here is the place on the Unitarian's website where you can access their national financial reports.

it looks to me to be much more public and extensive than what I can get on the LDS website.

but you're the accountant, so you tell us.

peace
henry

http://www.uua.org/aboutus/finance/25499.shtml

Ghostbuster,
If you get a chance before tonight, I want to take you up on your offer. You have said if I have understood you correctly that the public has a right to look at all of the books and transactions of the church you attend. Please let me know where I'll find them (if on a website, or is it mailed out to people, or does one just knock on the door of whoever is in charge), so I can understand where you're coming from. Please don't take this wrong--I'm only trying to understand what you really mean.

Hi Parker,

You attempt to derail the facts by asking questions to me personallly, as an individual thus, taking focus off the question at hand. This is not about me personally and I don’t play those kinds of games. But thanks anyway. ;-) Nice try!

I will tell you that it is ‘my personal opinion’ that religious, and non/not for profit organizations should be completely transparent. Whenever an organization collects funds from individuals or a group, those funds should be accounted for right down to the penny with full accountability from an independent source and reports made readily and easily available to those who make those donations whether they be in tithes, fast offerings, relief or disaster collections, etc.

I look at it this way. If there is nothing to hide, than transparency is never an issue. If there is something to hide, it can be easily couched in such an annual statement as what comes out every April in General Conference. Now, I am not implying that the Church has misused any funds in any way at all. I am only addressing, that it could be easily accomplished with no accountability process in place of those who are administering the funds collected.

The way the Church functions with its accounting to the membership I feel (and again, this is only my opinion), is very poor at best. As a member, it would interest me why the Church would require parking lots, radio and tv stations, condo’s, apartments, mall purchases, etc. to name just a minute list of their holdings. I guess I step back and think would the Lord and Savior require these things in which to spread His Gospel. Could you see Jesus spending money on a shopping mall instead of taking those funds and feeding the poor, clothing the homeless, providing housings, immunizations and clean water to third world countries, etc. Maybe you can. I can’t. But then again, I couldn’t comprehend why Jim and Tammy Faye Baker built Heritage USA when that money could be better spent on those less fortunate that needed that lift up and a little help to survive.

Silly me. I just think feeding the poor is more important that a shopping mall. But, what do I know!

The Cult-Like Index Competition: Be a Winner!

Comparing Mormons and Unitarians on the attributes noted directly above, where 10=completely cult-like and 1=no similarity, MY ratings yield a mormon average of 7 out of 10, a Unitarian average of 1.1.
So, Mormons are about 7 times more "cult-like" than Unitarians.

Do your own version and post your results. The winner recieves Eternal Salvation.

my detailed rankings (what are yours?)
Mrmns Unitrns
Authoritarianism 7 1
inTolerance of ??s 7 1
No financial disclosure 8 1
Fear of outside world 5 1
Sanctions on leaving 8 1
Former member abuse 6 1
or grievance stories
Record of leader abuses 6 1
Followers not good enuf 5 2
Group leader always rite 9 1
Exclusive truth resides 9 1
w group leader
average 7 1.1

Carol
a humane and sensible post.

the remaining problem, however, is that odious connotations aside, the word *denotes* a number of characteristics: these warning signs (not created to disparage mormons) are generally accepted in sociological circles:
* Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
* No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
* No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
* Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
* There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
* Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
* There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
* Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
* The group/leader is always right.
* The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

It IS important for us humans, either in looking at the groups we are members of or that others belong to, to evaluate where those groups fall on these dimensions.

Take "the leader is always right" for instance. "Follow the Prophet" the mormons say. If Joseph Smith tells us it was a revelation from God, we Mormons have no choice but to believe it.

Is that a good thing? Is it good to believe everything your President/King/Dictator says? Of course not.

And serious adults should examine group membership in a balanced way, evaluating its pros AND cons.

Mormons are good people and their church has largely good effects on them. But: questions like how much we question our leaders are vital to the survival of our species.

John,

Thanks so much for responding to my little cry in the wilderness. I see by your word choice that you have been reading what I've been reading and picked right up on it. Pretty darn astute!

OK, so yes, I have been reading some Ken Wilber, and though I'm not saying that his writings are "gospel" of any sort, some of the ideas he presents are pretty compelling.

The discussion here is pretty illuminating on a number of levels, ha, ha.

We have a number of writers who are trying to label the Mormon church with a pejorative label and the members of that church feel slighted and insulted by it. Since the former persist in using this label, in fact dearly cling to the necessity to do so, it would seem to be that their purpose is to in fact slight and insult.

So, would you agree that their present spiritual "level" actually demands that they marginalize others, because that is pretty much how people see the world when they are at that stage?

"If you are not like me, you are a cult."
"If you are not like me, Almighty God will punish you."

That seems to come from the same place, as far as I can tell.

I don't really think the Mormons should let this label haunt them. According to their history, the word Mormon was itself a pejorative. It was the "N" word of its day. They seem to have embraced it -- largely because they did not feel badly about themselves, I believe. When they embraced the label, their detractors could no longer injure them with their words.

Embracing the word "cult" must be harder than the "M" word because it does not speak to just them, but to others the Mormons themselves may not "like." I think the answer for the Mormons might be to open up their hearts to the other marginalized peoples, feel their humanity as would Jesus Christ, acquire true love for these them, and let the "cult" word just disappear.

Ghostbuster... where have you been?

Glad to see you back. I am looking forward to reveing up some discussions!

Angela, Ghostbuster, and Henry James:
I think you have each asked very valid and fairly deep questions that merit well-thought-out, thorough answers. I don't have time right now. (Others may, which is fine with me, as I'm "too much i' the sun" here right now.) I wanted to let you know that I'll offer my perspective on those questions when I do have time, I assume tonight. Have a great day.

Secrecy

Those who don't like the sacredness of the Mormon temples would also not like the sacredness (secrecy) of the First Century Christians and the Jews. One of the elements of Early (1st Century) Christianity was Temple worship. St. Cyril of Jersusalem described it in some detail in 350 A.D., http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070037.htm as the Emperor Constantine was attempting to "Hellenise" the Christian Church by expunging the temple rites carried over from the Jews. The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is the only religious organization today which continues temple worship as practiced by the ancient Israelites and the Early Christians.

The Early Christians were reviled, in part, due to their keeping their sacred ceremonies from the eyes and ears of non-Christians. Should they have allowed the heathen to view their ceremonies, which God required to remain secret? See the "Prohibition of Entry to the Temple": http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/jesusdays/temple/index.html

The funny use of the term I've seen was when it was applied to Catholics. The author of the book I was reading was not terribly well versed on reality, belonging to a church about 1% of the size of the Catholic church and talking about how they were a small and isolated cult ...

Parker
I consulted my psycholigist/philosopher brother William on the
"how does one know if it is really the holy ghost who is speaking to one?"

Parker: as i read your response, it is "i have a burning in my chest " kind of answer. You do say " I think the Koran (based on reading done on the On Faith blogs) has some very definite false teachings, nor do I think that the "quasi-inspiration" behind those teachings were in any way inspired nor are they now supported by the Holy Ghost."

I believe you truly THINK that the Koran has false teachings,
and DON"T THINK they are supported by the holy ghost.

I could say EXACTLY the same thing about Mormons and the BoM, and we would NO way, other than how hot our respective chest burnings were, to decide if either of us believed in something that was TRUE.

Again, fine to be a mormon or a pagan because one believes in it and it works for you, but that says nothing about the TRUTH of the beliefs. The old "earth is flat" example: believing it doesn't make it so.

luv
HJ

Parker:

I am sure you don't feel like a cult member. My 50 year old lawyer rich brother who is a mormon doesn't either.

And as i mentioned, being a cult is not a black and white thing, like being a male or a female.

It has been demonstrated above that the Mormon church is much more secretive, both on a local and international level, than *lots of churches* and than ALL non-profits. We have to "trust the brethren". I don't think they cheat. I think they make policy decisions they don't want to explain, just like a GA doesn't respond to letters from a regular member.

I don't think this means one should not be a Mormon. If the church works for you and makes you happy and you don't steal and llie and kiss my wife, it is a fine religion.

BUT: on the accepted dimensions of "cult" it fits them more closely than most churches, for instance my own Unitarian/Buddhist/Pagan church.

And again, MOST religions fit many characteristics of the definition. It is sort of like the definition of an alcoholic as someone who drinks too much. Or the Doctor's definition that it is anyone who drinks more than they do.

luv
henry

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers . . Some accuse the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian theology more closely than other Christian denominations. Perhaps the reason the Evangelical preachers promote this mis-representation is to protect their flock (and their livlihood).

While I understand you feel that others are being intolerant of your religion, doesn't your faith do the same. Why is it that only members of your faith allowed to go in certain temples. Why are outsiders not allowed in certain rituals? Why does your religion teach that all other churches are apostate churches and that yours is the only real one?

It seems to me that you need to rethink about who exactly is being more intolerant.

Parker,

At my local church (and at any church I've ever attended for that matter) we have open books. Every tithe and designated fund that comes in is accounted for to the penny. I know because I've spent some time serving on the council. If I didn't serve on the council, I could still know what comes in, what goes out, and where it goes by simply asking to look at the records.

On the national/international level, I can think of millions of reasons (all green) why ANY non-profit religious organization that relies on charitable giving for its funds should release church-wide financial statements to its members and/or the public. No matter how much integrity an organization has when dealing with finances (and I don't doubt their integrity) there still needs to be financial accountability.

If I faithfully gave 10% of my income to a church, ANY kind of church, and I became aware that the church I supported deliberately hid financial information from church members such as myself, I would immediately cut off any and all financial support until the church decided to be more forthright.

Good standing is a two way street as far as I'm concerned.

Good Morning Everyone,

I see that no one has answered the questions I've addressed in my post. Would really like your comments. Also, I'm not attacking any religion but Jesus said in John 8:31-32; To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Regarding Hebrews 1:1-5; In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father[a]"[b]? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"[c]? 2 Corinithians 3:16-21 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. I'M REALLY NOT SURE WHAT POINT YOUR TRYING TO MAKE; CAN SOMEONE LET ME KNOW WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO W/FALSE PROPHETS...2Corinthians 3:6 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. Galatians 1:6-10; I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Aren't we called to exhort, rebuke, encourage in love and in the spirit of truth. Please I would really like your comments.

Justmythoughts,
I want you to know that by bringing up the subjects of ethics and of internal controls, you bring up subjects that are very prominent in my thinking and awareness. I honestly cannot understand how our federal government can let millions of dollars be spent in waste or fraud (where are the control points and why are they not working?), or how local governments or schools can allow controls to have been so unchecked without separation of duties such that embezzlement can occur. If you're worried about the conspiracy of an Enron-type case, then you haven't done any reading about the leaders of the LDS Church and their personal integrity and fiscal conservatism.

I challenge all of us to champion integrity and the ethical "high ground."

Justmythoughts,
Legitimate question. I don't have the answer to the "big one", but if I did I would want to know:
--What purpose will it serve you personally in knowing?
--What will be the precedence if that information is shared with you?
--Whom will you tell, and why?
--Demonstrate your financial background such that you would even be able to understand how knowing such information would give you "warm fuzzies". (Do you get "warm fuzzies" when you read the financial statements of companies you co-own as a stock-holder or do business with as a stake-holder? Do you get warm fuzzies about city, county, state, and federal fiscal responsibility by thoroughly investigating their financial records, policies, and procedures? How much time do you spend in those processes--which are much more your legitimate concern?)

Please do tell, seriously.

Ensign, 2006 May - www.lds.org

Church Auditing Department Report, 2006

To the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Dear Brethren: As prescribed by revelation in section 120 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Council on the Disposition of the Tithes authorizes the expenditure of Church funds. This council is composed of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. This council approves budgets for Church departments and operations. After receiving the council’s authorization, Church departments are to expend funds consistent with approved budgets and in accordance with Church policies and procedures.

The Church Auditing Department has been granted access to all records and systems necessary to evaluate the adequacy of controls over receipts of funds, expenditures, and safeguarding of Church assets. The Church Auditing Department is independent of all other Church departments and operations, and the staff consists of certified public accountants, certified internal auditors, certified information systems auditors, and other credentialed professionals.

Based upon audits performed, the Church Auditing Department is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2006 have been recorded and administered in accordance with appropriate accounting practices, approved budgets, and Church policies and procedures.

Respectfully submitted,
Church Auditing Department
Robert W. Cantwell
Managing Director

Doesn't this make you feel all warm and fuzzy!

Not I. It tells me absolutely NOTHING! How about some figures. I don't know how you can say that "The Church Auditing Department" can be an independent entity. If the auditing Department is within the churches control, it clearly is not.

**sigh**

HJ,
I think we live basically in different universes on the question of authority. I believe truths underly everything that goes on in our universe, and that a person can find out those truths as they seek sincerely to find them, so long as their desire is to build and uplift and help others. If I listen to someone else as an "authority", I will try to discern "where is the truth--is it within what they are saying?" Perhaps they are looking at "it" from a different perspective than I have--"maybe I have something to learn here." In other words, I get my own "vibes" on the matter, but I also realize that I have a lot to learn and I don't have everyone else's perspective.

That being said, how would it be if a church said, "we know everyone is inspired, so anything goes, folks--be your own guide." That sounds to me like a "house of confusion" and I definitely wouldn't want my children to follow such a formula (since I know I've sometimes followed impressions that were my own desires being reiterated in my mind, and they weren't inspiration and led nowhere).

I've written before about unrighteous dominion which I am strongly against, so I won't bore you with that. I noted earlier the "Scarlet Letter" human nature issue that we all have to overcome, so I won't bore you with that either. (Families have to overcome that all the more.)

Such are my thoughts, Henry. I consider myself so far from the "cult-like" attitudes you described, that they just don't hold any water with me. Peace and good health to you.

HJ,
The "truths" you recognize may number the same as the "truths" I believe in, and you may well indeed have received a confirmation by the Holy Ghost of certain truths that you live by, but we differ in that I only believe that Muslims adhere to truths insofar as those truths are also found in the Bible or are common among mankind generally with such truths as have been discovered for the betterment of mankind. In other words, I think the Koran (based on reading done on the On Faith blogs) has some very definite false teachings, nor do I think that the "quasi-inspiration" behind those teachings were in any way inspired nor are they now supported by the Holy Ghost.

David,
Thanks for your sincere question and your kindness. The Holy Ghost is taught throughout the New Testament. You would feel it the same way Paul and Peter talked about it. I think a person in your case would need to be a very thorough student of the Bible, and be living by the teachings to the best of their ability--then they could expect the guidance of the Holy Ghost in their life. Ghostbuster talked about being so guided in his life.

I actually think you felt something akin to this when you described feeling like Christ would guide people at His pace (I think it was on a Saturday, while your wife was making breakfast for you?). A person feeling the Holy Ghost feels enlightened, renewed, joyful, hopeful, loving, Christ-centered, thankful, peaceful, inspired. But if a person puts roadblocks in their mind on certain subjects, that would be very hard to overcome and I do not think the Holy Ghost could confirm truth in such an area of inquiry for such a person, because God does not work that way in people's lives--against their will.

Again, 'nuf said in one post.

Henry James,
You know that I respect you and respect your opinions, but my perspective is different on several points you made.

I consider my life to have been very blessed by several non-LDS peers I knew as good friends in high school. One girl asked me to a girls' choice dance, which I gladly accepted and enjoyed the evening. So although I understand there is a potential for mistrust of non-LDS during childhood for some LDS children, I didn't feel that mistrust myself and I am ever grateful for those associations. What to mistrust about the "outside world" is those who "lie in wait to deceive." I frankly know very very few of those kind of people, if any personally. Nor do I "fear impending catastrophies, conspiracies, or persecutions." Not at all. Zero.

I am an accountant by profession, so the statements about "independently audited financial statements" have meaning to me. The Church financial dealings are among the most closely audited I have ever heard of, by accredited CPA's and other credentialed professionals. I don't get why people like you think some outside audit company should come in and "audit the books" when we have seen the scandals in recent years among "audited" companies. I would rather know how aggressive the internal audit functions are within a company, what controls are in place, and how devoted the senior officers are to integrity and absolute fiscal responsibility, including following unquestionable accounting principles and practices, both domestically and internationally.

'Nuf said for one post. To be continued...

David
you ask
"I am curious how anyone can recognize how the Holy Ghost can witness to you?"

The answer I have gotten from Mormons on this post is that one gets a burning in one's chest.

Parker: is there another answer?

Parker,

Just curious what you mean by this:

"If you never receive a witness from the Holy Ghost about a living prophet,"

Are you saying that the Holy Ghost will come and tell me that a certain prophet is from God or not? I'm curious how the Holy Ghost would witness to me to know truth. Or as I believe, can I find truth in the Word to discern from truth and falsehood?

But I am curious how anyone can recognize how the Holy Ghost can witness to you?

Thanks

David

Parker
You quote Ross saying mormonism has moved into the mainstream and thus no longer fits the definition of "cult", which is a "deliberately misleading" word in your view.

The following characteristics of cults are pretty well accepted, academically respecatble, and not meant to bludgeon any particular group, for example Mormons. Let's see hwo the Mormons match up to the first few, compared to Unitarians or Secular Humanists, for instance:

* Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

The Mormon general authorities can't be voted out of office, and are NEVER disagreed with and NEVER receive a negative vote when the membership is asked to sustain them. What human being leading an institution is not worthy of ONE negative vote?
* No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
Lately the church SAYS they are tolerant. But let a BYU history professor go against Official History and he is likely to be excommunicated.
* No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Clearly and obviously true.

* Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

Growing up as a Mormon it was deeply ingrained in me that I shouldn't let the "outside world" corrupt me.

* There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Read about any number of Mormons who leave and the ostracism they engender from their families and communities. Compared to Unitarians, say.

* Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

you obviously know how to search the web. there are thousands of similar stories.

These are just five or so of the generally accepted 15 characteristics. Mormons don't fit them "perfectly", but they do fit them notably, and markedly more than Unitarians or members of the United Church of Christ.

Cult DOES have a pretty accepted objective academic definition, and Mormons fit the definition fairly closely on lots of the attibutes.

As I said earlier, the Church is now to old and too established with too much political power for people to get away with calling it a cult.

But it still fits the characteristics pretty closely.

hello david and parker, my esteemed and beloved friends"

Parker: you write "Getting a personal witness from the Holy Ghost is the key, as well as understanding the scriptures by studying them (not an off-shoot version as published by Watchtower), then by living the teachings."

I am sure, Parker, that you lead a good life and are a wonderful person based on your "witness from the Holy Ghost" etc.

You understand, as I have pointed out before (and this probably applies to you and me too David)

that others are just as assured that the Holy Ghost has given them a person witness, and that they are living the scriptures.

Muslims, for instance.

We can't be SURE that Mormon or Islam or Davidian versions of God and the afterlife are accurate. We have to accept or reject them on faith.

You or David won't convince me by the above criteria, and I won't convince you.

To me it is largely irrelevent. If you two are great people, which you are, I don't care what you believe about God or the afterlife. If one is a sadistic bigot, it doesn't matter if they believe in God or Jesus: they are bad people.

Peace

HJ

David,
I don't know if you read what I posted previously, but it answered much of your question about Gordon B Hinckley. You ought to read the Proclamation on the Family. It is clear and unequivocal.

My son encountered respectful, kind Jehovah's Witnesses during his recent mission to Long Beach, and said he thought they reflected many good values. Since they don't testify of Jesus Christ as Savior and Redeemer, I don't think any of them meet the New Testament meaning of a prophet or have the spirit of prophecy. I personally don't like some of their methods, but I guess to each their own.

If you never receive a witness from the Holy Ghost about a living prophet, I would not want you to believe it though I think you could learn from some of these leaders' talks and writings. Getting a personal witness from the Holy Ghost is the key, as well as understanding the scriptures by studying them (not an off-shoot version as published by Watchtower), then by living the teachings.

From what I've discerned, you have a lifestyle that will be a blessing to your family. You have the light and truth that God has guided you to find at this point in your life. I have no idea what He has in store for you in your life in the future. Best to you.

Parker,

Hello my friend. How's it going?

Just a quick response. We haven't talked about prophets yet, out of all the conversations we've had. I just have a question. Gordon Hinckley is regarded as a prophet and leader of the LDS church. What makes him a prophet?

And Jehovah's Witnesses also have a self proclaimed prophet that leads them. I'm sure you would agree that JW's are a false religion. They had a prophet who stated that Jesus' second coming has already happened in 1914. I'm sure we both agree that that is not the case, but nevertheless they still claim to be prophets. Joseph Smith also made false prophecies as well did Brig. Young. So if both organizations have prophets that make false prophecies, then who should I believe? Why aren't JW's the only holders of the truth about Jesus? I mean they claim the same thing LDS does. That they are the only true church, that they have a prophet from God and that all other Christian denominations are false. Why should I believe Mormons over JW's? Especially in light of what Deut 18:20-22 says and how both organizations have or had prophets that made false prophecies?

Note to general reader:
A good article linked from the Rick Ross website can be found here: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon258.html

By the way, that website suggests that the LDS Church has moved into the "mainstream" and thus would no longer fit its list of characteristics of a "cult".

I still think the word is so deliberately misleading and uncommunicative, that if used it is usually meant in a negative light to cast doubt and scorn. It shows more the bias and agenda of the user, and perhaps their desire to mislead and foster mistrust.

Ted,
Wasn't the PBS "documentary" a good piece of journalism? I have to smile at what the person you quoted said (I must have missed that segment), because he was off on his own with his own doctrine--no wonder he left the LDS Church if he did. He was saying what his own brain had concocted. (People can do that.)

Point 1--A prophet's major, main, most important mission is to testify of Jesus Christ and that He lives and loves all humankind, and wants them to change for the better.

Point 2--A modern prophet does not present a doctrinal change or a major doctrinal pronouncement (such as the Proclamation on the Family or the blacks receiving the priesthood) without the consideration of the entire "First Presidency" and the Twelve Apostles as a united "voice".

Point 3--A modern prophet's instructions or words will not contradict the scriptures, so what that person was saying is an untenable idea. LDS who are familiar with scriptures and doctrines of the Church know these things. Just because some kid who hasn't studied goes off on a tangent with an ignorant remark, doesn't mean you have to believe it. I trust that you have better reasoning than that. Why bring up such an absurdity?

This will probably be my last comment as well as the topic seems to be moving away from whether or not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is or isn't a cult. I find myself mostly in agreement with Henry James on this issue, but let me add one more fly to the ointment.

Last spring, PBS ran a two-part documentary titled "The Mormons." During the second part, late 1990's rock star and former Mormon Tal Bachman was quoted as saying (and I am paraphrasing here) that when he was on his 2-year mission for the church, he believed in its truth and the truth of the living prophet so much that if he had been asked to detonate a bomb at someone's door by a church leader, he would have done it. This is a major risk if one is going to believe in the concept of a living prophet (Mormon church), infallible pope (Roman Catholic Church), infallible Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses), etc. The absolute infallibility of one or a small group of people is not a good standard for a democratic society to emulate, and has, as I have pointed out above, in some cases (Jonestown and Waco, being the most recent examples) proved to be very destructive indeed.

As a Follower (as best I can) of the teaching of Christ, I can honestly say I fear not an aethist or agnostic. What I fear is the people who call themselves Christians and attack everyone and everything that they see as 'evil'. I seem to remember Jesus never attacking anyone except the people profiteering from the temple...hum...there is a thought those that were 'selling' the temple as if it were some W*hore were the only people that Jesus specificaly attacked.

And yet I cry everytime I see those ministers making millions off of the people who 'tune' into the FREE word of GOD, I mean what you spend $20 on a Bible and then support some minister for his entire life cause he wants to TEACH you how to interpret it???? I have been to plenty of NON denominational churches that the preacher was some man that worked all week long at a JOB and then got up and preached the values JESUS taught, all the money that people tithed went to PAYING THE BILLS, and supporting feeding the homeless, and supporting a local orphanage. Not builing a $10 million dollar building.

Man's hearts shall be revealed by their actions, that's why most non-believes see the CHRISTIAN movement as a Money generating machine...and if you look at some of the ones abusing what Jesus taught, than I could hardly disagree on those terms. As for those who say morals are only taught through Religious Doctrine...yes 2000 years ago, and during the DARK ages, but now people know what to do, even if they refuse to act like human beings...

Hope you all enjoy the read, I'm leaving the library now!!!

Peace Be Unto All

_MONK_

Friends David, Ghostbuster, and Henry James,
Hi! I sincerely hope all is well with you and your families. So nice to "hear" your voices, and enjoy your different perspectives.

David,
A simple answer about Hebrews 1:1-5 (which, as you would surmise since I love all of Hebrews, I love), is to reflect on what Moses meant when he said, "would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" (Don't you also love that passage--so emphatic and direct!) You have emphasized that God is unchanging, and that He won't contradict Himself, and I am not trying to trap you, but why isn't it reasonable to say today just as Moses said, "Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!" Also, as John said in Revelation 19:10, "I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." It appears to me that God wants us to have these in our day, just as John saw it needful in his day.

You have written many times about how the prophets have prophesied of the mission of Jesus Christ, and I agree with that. I think the Savior is not dishonored by those who today testify that He lives, and who do so by the "spirit of prophecy," and by the Holy Ghost. "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43--note the present tense "give")

I have loved all of JD1's posts. I understand why you might think that Christ by "fulfilling the law and the prophets" was doing away with the need for living prophets, but the Holy Ghost's witness and my reasoning and my experience absolutely assures me otherwise--the pattern is clear throughout the scriptures.

'Hope your wife and kids are well. All the best.

Listen to this Mormon Mission President in France talk to his missionaries and tell me that Mormonism isn't a cult:

http://tinyurl.com/29lq6u

Carol,

May I be so bold as to test the angle from which your questions may be coming?

It "seems" to me (please correct me if I am wrong) that your anxiety over some of the exchanges here stems from the very different stages of moral and spiritual development that are evidenced here. Let me explain (and tell me to kiss off if you know all this!)

All people pass through various stages of moral and spiritual development. It's inescapable. We begin this life self-centered, eventually become aware of others and begin to regard their rights and needs. Eventually we look at the whole of humanity, then the whole of the world, and onward.

Not only do individuals pass through these stages, but nations do and religious movements as well. Mormons would say that we learn "line about line, precept upon precept." They'll speak of lower and higher laws, given by God according to the people's ability to understand and follow.

For instance, in ancient days, when humanity was comparatively young and morally unevolved, the laws given to Moses were pretty precise. Later these were substituted for a higher law. Temples teach a higher law still. When people can't or won't obey, they get knocked back to a lower law.

The nations of the earth have evolved their moral laws as well. History shows that all agrarian economies have, at some point, relied on slavery to survive. If the society advanced, slavery was always abolished. I'm not rationalizing slavery, just pointing out history. Women's rights evolved over time in a similar manner.

Quite often when seeing criticisms of Mormonism, you will see attacks directed at where certain church members and leaders were "at" in their own life's progression, from maybe 150 years ago. That is then compared to our present societal norms as if it were somehow relevant. The policy or incident, if it is factual, is seldom compared to where the rest of society was "at" 150 years ago. You might see a 14-yr-old boy condemned for not having the wisdom of someone's grandmother, as though he should have "arrived" at that point in his young life.

Now, all the people posting on this board are at very different points in their spiritual development. Some see the worth of all of mankind, and as you hinted at earlier, some only see the worth in their own position -- and all others be damned! At least, that is where I think you were going with your "Me Against You" reference.

We needn't be harsh about these different stages because we must all pass through them. If you are no longer in that "Me Against You" stage, well, you once were! We certainly don't condemn our kids because they are immature.

Peace nad all that. :-)

Angela B,

Hello there. I see you are in a heavy debate with Mormons. Most of them on here will recognize me since I've been on their backs for quite some time. Hello Mormon friends! Just wanted to say thanks for the dialogue that you've been having with them. I've been reading along and you are doing a wonderful job speaking the truth. I see you are talking about prophets and the such and there is one specific passage I would like to bring up concerning this. Of course Deut 18:20-22 is the best one concerning false prophets, but I would also like to acknowledge Heb 1:1-5 because it deals with modern day prophets. Heb 1 tells us there is no need for modern day prophets because we now have Jesus. I've brought this up to my LDS friends several times, but haven't gotten an answer yet. Just curious if there is an LDS apologetic for this passage? Take care all.

Oh and hi Henry James. Hope your good buddy. I see your still around. Nice to read your thoughts.

David

Cult = small religion
Religion = large cult

Any questions? Go(o)d.

P Schultz posted this elsewhere on the site and it sums up my point concisely.

Mormonsare about the same as lots of religions and more "cult-like" than a number

but they have size, longevity, and political power so one must be polite to them.

Susan J is right: a Reigion is a Cult plus time, as a general rule.

Apologies for not reading every post as thoroughly as they deserve, but:

• There are pretty standard lists of Cult Characteristics, one or two of which have been referenced here.

• This lists were not drawn up with the goal of tripping up the Mormon Church. they are pretty well thought out and objective.

• The mormon church comes a lot closer to being described by a lot of these characteristics than does, say, the Unitarian Church.

• So is the Mormon Church a "cult." It probably is populated with too many highly educated, relatively prosperous, law-abiding citizens for it to be Politically Tenable to describe it as such.

BUT, it certainly rates higher in similarity to generally accepted cult characteristics than lots of other groups.

Jim,

Regarding your question does God not speak to Prophets; of course he does but his word also says "test the spirts". Also, they're over 1000 Christian denominations. We need to define our terms. If God spoke to Joseph Smith; I would definitely have to question the sovreignty, ominpresence, omnipotenence of God's word as HE doesn't make mistakes as I stated clearly in my post that Joseph Smith stated God called him and he clearly misinterpreted 600 of his prophecies; is that correct? Check out Deuteronomy 18:20-22; But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

For one: Our good works do not entitle us to heaven; is that correct? How about Ephesians 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
what we really believe; i.e., is this not true of the LDS: you believe that Jesus Christ is a prophet or exalted man or do you believe "God" is a exalted man? Also, do the LDS believe that if they are good people, they can become gods? Also, does the LDS believe the baptism is one of the ways to salvation. I believe, if we are reading the "Holy Bible" baptism is an ordinance and doesn't entitle you to heaven either. Lastly, what does the Bible state in Revelation 22:18-19; I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I'd really like your answers to some of these questions and may The Lord give you spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see.

Jim,

Regarding your question does God not speak to Prophets; of course he does but his word also says "test the spirts". Also, they're over 1000 Christian denominations. We need to define our terms. If God spoke to Joseph Smith; I would definitely have to question the sovreignty, ominpresence, omnipotenence of God's word as HE doesn't make mistakes as I stated clearly in my post that Joseph Smith stated God called him and he clearly misinterpreted 600 of his prophecies; is that correct? Check out Deuteronomy 18:20-22; But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

For one: Our good works do not entitle us to heaven; is that correct? How about Ephesians 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
what we really believe; i.e., is this not true of the LDS: you believe that Jesus Christ is a prophet or exalted man or do you believe "God" is a exalted man? Also, do the LDS believe that if they are good people, they can become gods? Also, does the LDS believe the baptism is one of the ways to salvation. I believe, if we are reading the "Holy Bible" baptism is an ordinance and doesn't entitle you to heaven either. Lastly, what does the Bible state in Revelation 22:18-19; I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I'd really like your answers to some of these questions and may The Lord give you spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see.

Jim,

Regarding your question does God not speak to Prophets; of course he does but his word also says "test the spirts". Also, they're over 1000 Christian denominations. We need to define our terms. If God spoke to Joseph Smith; I would definitely have to question the sovreignty, ominpresence, omnipotenence of God's word as HE doesn't make mistakes as I stated clearly in my post that Joseph Smith stated God called him and he clearly misinterpreted 600 of his prophecies; is that correct? Check out Deuteronomy 18:20-22; But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

For one: Our good works do not entitle us to heaven; is that correct? How about Ephesians 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
what we really believe; i.e., is this not true of the LDS: you believe that Jesus Christ is a prophet or exalted man or do you believe "God" is a exalted man? Also, do the LDS believe that if they are good people, they can become gods? Also, does the LDS believe the baptism is one of the ways to salvation. I believe, if we are reading the "Holy Bible" baptism is an ordinance and doesn't entitle you to heaven either. Lastly, what does the Bible state in Revelation 22:18-19; I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I'd really like your answers to some of these questions and may The Lord give you spiritual ears to hear and eyes to see.

THOMAS BAUM:

The doctrines of man are doctrines that are not received by revelation from God.

After the apostles were all killed off, the now Catholic church realized that God was no longer giving revelations, prophets were not being called and the priesthood had been lost. They then justifiably coined the phrase “the dark ages”.

Many of the Catholic doctrines were generated by “man” in order to gain political control, or power over, the people. Emperor Constantine was prolific at that.

This is why Jacob Hutter, the Lutherans, and Protestants, to name only a few, broke away. They knew the doctrines were "of man", and not God.

The Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ (as he asked us to call it) of latter-day saints are by revelation from God through prophets. If you were to read them, you would know God’s truth.

Mark

John D the First -

Thanks for your response.

You wrote: “Many of the stats you cite are public policy issues not lifestyle issues.”

I wish it was that easy to dismiss the stats I found where it is evident Utahans have much work to do in making this state the haven you created with the stats you cited. Lifestyle issues create public policy issues. They go in tandem. Unfortunately, one creates the other.

The stats I provided were gained from numerous independent sources, which I clearly cited. In most cases if there is no citation within the stat, I most likely gathered it from the stat above. If you can't locate it, let me know and I will look it up again for you and provide the source.

Unlike you, I chose not to go to one source, but to several independent sources. Again, I always look for a balance. I have learned that you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet. I also do not believe in providing links for the ease of all readers. Those that find the information I cited troubling enough to investigate them, will do so. I provided the agency names. I encourage that. When selecting only one website that promotes only the “good” about any one thing, in my opinion, is not necessarily a reliable source. Again, balance is the key.

You wrote: “I am not surprised you can find some negative stats on Utah, but the question is how reflective are these of the LDS lifestyle? I don't necessarily think Utah stats reflect the effects of being active LDS, so you could question me there."

Considering that more than half the states population is LDS, I believe the stats provided from the independent sources is very reflective of the whole. Even if you were to take the numbers and divide them in half they are still very troublesome.

You will find that if you research the county demographics within the state of UT of those who claim to be LDS, you will see that they are in fact, in the majority. The numbers are closer of course in Salt Lake County between the LDS and non-LDS population, and with a more prevalent saturation of LDS in Utah County and other counties by some as much as more than 95%.

You wrote: It also makes sense that the state with the lowest alcohol consumption would have the high rate prescription anti-depressant usage. Instead of self-medicating, they see a professional.

I agree. However, regardless of whether one uses legal or illegal substances to cope with life, it does not negate the problems as to why they are doing so in the first place. Seeing a professional doesn’t make it any better or worse to someone who chooses to self medicate with alcohol, tobacco, or illegal substances. The problems seem to exist in high numbers regardless, again which is troublesome to me. It begs the question? Why? What is the cause of these societal / lifestyle problems within UT? And how can we effect a change? As I said in my earlier post, if we don’t identify and acknowledge the problems, we can not change them for the better.

Springville. I love that little city. I used to live up on Canyon Road. My youngest graduated from Springville High School. These problems I cited for Utahans need to be addressed first at a local level and then a state level. Too bad you’re in California. I think it would be a hoot to serve with you on a City Council.

Nice exchange. Thank you again. If no response, I do hope you check back and read this. I wish you the very best!

Angela B:

You speak as though God never spoke to his people through prophets. What about Moses, Abraham, etc.? What about Peter? Did not God call these men to teach and to lead his people? Why then is it not possible that God would have a prophet today? Are we less important now than those of thousands of years ago?

Sorry about the double post....

Concerning Secrecy:

I have read many comments here from individuals concerned with the idea that Mormon temples are secret -- and not sacred -- as the Mormons here try to explain. I guess I'd like to ask the following and hope that I will offend no gentler sensibilities in the process:

Would you post a video of you and your wife making love on the internet? It's not really a secret that you have sex and we all know how it's done. You're married and not doing anything wrong.
The world is fully fluent in anatomy and there can be no surprises on that score.

If you wouldn't post such a film, is there something sicko you are trying to hide?

Oh, it's special and deeply personal and not something you would parade around publically....

Would you post a video of your neighbor and his wife? Or would that be a violation of something that was sacred to them?

Would you post a video of your neighbor and his wife if they had weeds in their lawn and their car up on blocks in the driveway? Would you get angry if they didn't invite you to come up to their bedroom with them?

I guess I'm not having a hard time grasping that some things should be kept apart from the teeming masses. At my present point, I seriously wonder what kind of people publish websites that trivialize and mock what other people have clearly stated they hold sacred...? Why would anyone continue to do such a thing after they have been told it is hurtful?

To keep unsuspecting innocents out of their malevolent clutches...? Oh.

But it seems to me that the malevolence is coming from the website people, not the temple go-ers.

I can fully understand someone's distress about not seeing their daughter's wedding, but if it really were THE MOST important thing to someone, he/she would have prepared him/herself to participate by following the steps necessary for admittance. Something else was MORE important.

Maybe that something was spiritual integrity or a committment to his/her favorite sins, or maybe it was just pride.

Concerning Secrecy:

I have read many comments here from individuals concerned with the idea that Mormon temples are secret -- and not sacred -- as the Mormons here try to explain. I guess I'd like to ask the following and hope that I will offend no gentler sensibilities in the process:

Would you post a video of you and your wife making love on the internet? It's not really a secret that you have sex and we all know how it's done. You're married and not doing anything wrong.
The world is fully fluent in anatomy and there can be no surprises on that score.

If you wouldn't post such a film, is there something sicko you are trying to hide?

Oh, it's special and deeply personal and not something you would parade around publically....

Would you post a video of your neighbor and his wife? Or would that be a violation of something that was sacred to them?

Would you post a video of your neighbor and his wife if they had weeds in their lawn and their car up on blocks in the driveway? Would you get angry if they didn't invite you to come up to their bedroom with them?

I guess I'm not having a hard time grasping that some things should be kept apart from the teeming masses. At my present point, I seriously wonder what kind of people publish websites that trivialize and mock what other people have clearly stated they hold sacred...? Why would anyone continue to do such a thing after they have been told it is hurtful?

To keep unsuspecting innocents out of their malevolent clutches.... Oh.

But it seems to me that the malevolence is coming from the website people, not the temple go-ers. I can't really imagine stomping on someone's foot after he asked me to stop, even if it meant that he couldn't possibly kick the next guy.

I can fully understand someone's distress about not seeing their daughter's wedding, but if it really were THE MOST important thing to someone, he/she would have prepared him/herself to participate by following the steps necessary for admittance. Something else was MORE important.

Maybe that something was spiritual integrity or a committment to his/her favorite sins, or maybe it was just pride.

Hi Ted,

Thank you for the cordial post. I was done here, but I'd like to provide a brief response.
The ex-Mormon phenomenon is an interesting one. Though I don't think internet ex-Mormons are representative of the majority who leave the church, Mormonism has always engendered some virulent detractors. So I think your point is valid, they may not be representative, but they are there, and I think their presence is significant (I am not quite sure what significance it has, maybe I will investigate it one day). I think the reasons they give for their presence is overall unreliable (i.e. that Mormonism is awful and evil, for example). My guess is that the reason some find the Mormon faith so satisfying is the same reason some find it unbearable. It is a cohesive community with clear boundaries, and high standards of discipline. It makes uncompromising and highly controversial truth claims. Because I am convicted of its truth and goodness, it makes my life beautiful. But I can see how someone who doesn’t share my conviction might find it repulsive—to each their own.

If ex-Mormons are being ostracized, however, their family members are acting contrary to the counsel they are given by church leaders.

Mormons who leave the faith are considered by most Mormon parents as going along the wrong path (I don't think this is too different than parents in most faiths). Here is a common statement I hear quoted regarding wayward children:

“Fathers, if you wish your children to be taught in the principles of the gospel, if you wish them to love the truth and understand it, if you wish them to be obedient to and united with you, love them! … However wayward they might be, … when you speak or talk to them, do it not in anger, do it not harshly, in a condemning spirit. Speak to them kindly. … You can’t drive them; they won’t be driven” (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 316).

Here is another:

“We can and should expect much of our children, but we cannot force them into the Lord’s mold. Our children will not stay with the Church and live the gospel unless they want to. Once their wayward children grow up, the time may come when the parents will need to adjust their present expectations and approach, accepting things as they are rather than continuing in turmoil. We should not expect perfection in our children but, rather, adopt in patience and love the Lord’s eternal view of things.”

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7d42dbdcc370c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____

Also I agree...be skeptical of salesmen (though I do not consider myself a salesman, I understand the analogy). Both sides are trying to sell you a specific perspective on the LDS church (both believe in their product). I hope you will be skeptical of both. The stats I cited were from an independent source; check it out. Check out some non-Mormon scholars like Fenella Cannell, Douglass Davis, or Jan Ships if you want to learn about Mormonism from a non-invested source.

On the Temple...

I consider the temple to be private place for very sacred rites. I don't see it as being about secrecy but privacy. The Temple is place apart, much like the temples of the Old Testament were. People who were not of the covenant were not allowed in those either.

It seems in our culture privacy is not something people feel inclined to respect. Fair enough, but you can't blame those of us who want our most sacred moments to be private for doing what we can to guard our privacy. But privacy does not always entail conspiracy: in this case it entails sanctity. It is similar to private moments I share with those close to me that I don’t want aired for public consumption.

Signing off,

Best to you my friend,

John

Ted C.,

I understand the scenario you describe where people will not change beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence. These tend to be beliefs with survival value attached to them. We see this routinely on this board, when many posters here will not change mistaken beliefs about Mormons even after they have been kindly corrected; they have a pre-existing belief that Mormons go to hell and that speaks to basic survival issues. "What would happen to me if I changed my mind? Fire?! Brimstone?! Aaagghhh!"

I think you'll find that the reason educated Mormons do not fall away from their faith is that they are not finding the contradictions you assume to be there. I can pretty much predict that posters here will jump in about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon, and yad, yada, yada, but Mormons who really understand DNA evidence, etc. have already done so. And they are fine with it....

I think the reason you have such difficulty with this is that you insist upon misunderstanding Mormonism and maybe even the science (I don't know your profession so will not assume). It's that survival thing.

Peace and all that.

Ted C.,

I understand the scenario you describe where people will not change beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence. These tend to be beliefs with survival value attached to them. We see this routinely on this board, when many posters here will not change mistaken beliefs about Mormons even after they have been kindly corrected; they have a pre-existing belief that Mormons go to hell and that speaks to basic survival issues. "What would happen to me if I changed my mind? Fire?! Brimstone?! Aaagghhh!"

I think you'll find that the reason educated Mormons do not fall away from their faith is that they are not finding the contradictions you assume to be there. I can pretty much predict that posters here will jump in about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon, and yad, yada, yada, but Mormons who really understand DNA evidence, etc. have already done so. And they are fine with it....

I think the reason you have such difficulty with this is that you insist upon misunderstanding Mormonism and maybe even the science (I don't know your profession so will not assume). It's that survival thing.

Peace and all that.

Ted C.,

I understand the scenario you describe where people will not change beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence. These tend to be beliefs with survival value attached to them. We see this routinely on this board, when many posters here will not change mistaken beliefs about Mormons even after they have been kindly corrected; they have a pre-existing belief that Mormons go to hell and that speaks to basic survival issues. "What would happen to me if I changed my mind? Fire?! Brimstone?! Aaagghhh!"

I think you'll find that the reason educated Mormons do not fall away from their faith is that they are not finding the contradictions you assume to be there. I can pretty much predict that posters here will jump in about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon, and yad, yada, yada, but Mormons who really understand DNA evidence, etc. have already done so. And they are fine with it....

I think the reason you have such difficulty with this is that you insist upon misunderstanding Mormonism and maybe even the science (I don't know your profession so will not assume). It's that survival thing.

Peace and all that.

This is one opinion that I must speak on. First, Jesus Christ is not an exalted man nor a prophet; He is God in the flesh. Holy Scripture from the KJV/NIV/NASB, etc (old testament and new testament) John 10:30 states: I and the father are one; Also, Jesus was begotten by God; definition of begotten: natural offspring. Joseph Smith claimed to have been given revelation from God to join no other church for they were all wrong, yet The Mormon scriptures state that Latter day Saints shall give heed unto all his (the prophets) words and commandments...For his word ye shall receive as if from mine (God's) own mouth. What an abomination. A clear case of idolatry. Joseph Smith also made over 600 corrections to the Book of Mormons. Jeremiah 16-20 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep saying to those who despise me, 'The LORD says: You will have peace.' And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, 'No harm will come to you.' But which of them has stood in the council of the LORD to see or to hear his word? Who has listened and heard his word? John 8:24 Itold you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins.". Also, in the bible it doesn't state marry as many women as you like it states in Genesis, Matthew, Mark and Ephesians; it clearly states a man will leave his mother and father and they will become one flesh; not 2 or 3 or 100. Lastly, none of us are good people; God's word states: 90 percent of people in this world lie regularly and the only ones who are saved are those who put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ are truly God's children not those who trust in their own goodness as Psalms and Proverbs both state: not one does good not even one. Those who create their own Gods and make themselves or created images GODS are headed for eternity separated from the "true living" God as they've broken the 1st, 2nd and 3rd commandment. Any religion that distorts and/or changes God's word to reflect their own feelings, emotions or rules to exalt themselves are considered a cult and all of the above do that very thing.

This is one opinion that I must speak on. First, Jesus Christ is not an exalted man nor a prophet; He is God in the flesh. Holy Scripture from the KJV/NIV/NASB, etc (old testatment and new testament) John 10:30 states: I and the father are one; Also, Jesus was begotten by God; definition of begotten: natural offspring. Joseph Smith claimed to have been given revelation from God to join no other church for they were all wrong, yet The Mormom scriptures state that Latter day Saints shall give heed unto all his (the prophets) words and commandments...For his wordc ye shall receive as if from mine (God's) own mouth. What an abodmination. A clear case of idolatry. Joseph Smith also made over 600 corrections to the Book of Mormons. Jeremiah 16-20 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep saying to those who despise me, 'The LORD says: You will have peace.' And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts they say, 'No harm will come to you.' But which of them has stood in the council of the LORD to see or to hear his word? Who has listened and heard his word? John 8:24 Itold you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins.". Also, in the bible it doesn't state marry as many woman as you like it states in Genesis, Matthew, Mark and Ephesians; it clearly states a man will leave his mother and father and they will become one flesh; not 2 or 3 or 100. Lastly, none of us are good people; God's word states: 90 percent of people in this world lie regularly and the only ones who are saved are those who put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ are truly God's children not those who trust in their own goodness as Psalms and Proverbs both state: not one does good not even one. Those who create their own Gods and make themselves or created images GODS are headed for eternity separated from the "true living" God as they've broken the 1st, 2nd and 3rd commandment. Any religion that distorts and/or changes God's word to reflect their own feelings, emotions or rules to exalt themselves are considered a cult and all of the above do that very thing.

With the "ptfft" i.e Moroni and Joe Smith as the "spiritual" guides/founders, what does one conclude about Mormonism???

A cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the "warmongering, womanizing, "holey not holy hallucinator" aka Mohammed what does one conclude about Islam?

A cult based on the oil profits, terror, fear of the sword, stoning, hand chopping and suicide bombers.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate peasant, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/Christianity?

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, the sin of myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", water purification, indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

With "avenging pwtfft"s, and the mostly mythical OT and its "fortune tellers" what does one conclude about Judaism?

A cult based on the support of its rich members, the fear of Hell, the promise of a messiah and the return to the mythical promised land conquered previously by mythical OT characters.

JD1-

First an apology. I referred to you in my post above as John D. It could just as easily be Jeff D., Jerry D., or anything else (it doesn't even have to do with the initials you posted).

Second, your point about relying only on Ex-Mormons has some validity. It is fair to say that these people have a bone to pick with their former church (many believe that their church leaders lied to them). At the same time, I have not found (and I have looked) similar message boards for former Roman Catholics. And while I have heard a lack of faith among this group, I have as yet to hear of any "love bombing" or any other form of ostracization of former Catholics by current church members. In addition, the LDS church doesn't do itself any favors by holding items "secret/sacred", such as the temple marriage ceremony as noted in previous posts.

Concerning negativity: One of the many things I've learned through education, experience, and observation is to be skeptical of salesmen. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. With the statistics you have graciously provided and the posts from other active LDS members on the topic, the LDS church sounds like the American dream come true: happy families, marriages that last forever, people who hold on to their beliefs despite the advances of science (I still think that last one is not a good claim to make--especially if you are trying to defend the church from being considered a cult), etc. These are the claims of salesmen and should be scrutinized accordingly.

Rob Adams,

Long time, no see. I miss our conversations. I am reminded that I need to read one of those books you referred me to.

As to your point, I suppose I agree with you about secrecy, especially LDS financial accountability. Then again who are we kidding, this is a post-modern world. Who can keep a secret these days? Certainly not any church organization with a large number of detractors.

GB

Note to the general reader:
Several above comments have dealt with the issue of excommunication. I have felt that to at least bring some balance to this type of discussion, I'd offer a couple of observations.

Former members are aware that exaltation is a high standard yet viewed as an achievable goal, through the Savior's atonement and repentance. What does it mean to be exalted? For one thing, it means to have the kind of faith that the Savior spoke of and Paul spoke of, the faith of a grain of mustard seed or the faith that can move a mountain. How do you get there? You don't do it by blind obedience, of course--you have to gain knowledge and understanding, an ability to discern truth from error because faith cannot be used in an erroneous course of action.

I personally view excommunication as a logical step if a person moved so far off course that they jeopardize the growth in faith and understanding of others by teaching contrary to scriptures or by exemplifying a lifestyle that contradicts the scriptures. When the Savior spoke against any who "shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me" (Matthew 18:6), he was not speaking idle words or condoning the behavior that would by its nature lead others astray.

As to the "Scarlet Letter" type of behavior in how people who have left the LDS Church may be treated or feel they have been treated, that is something that is human nature just as Hawthorne perceived, so it is something we all need to work on, and unfortunately, feelings will probably be hurt along the way. But we might just as well hold it against human nature rather than against the LDS Church that such behavior happens. We're here on earth to grow, no question about it.

Peace to all.

Just my Thoughts,

Friend, you should not be disappointed, for the majority here wish to paint Mormonism all horrible, I am here to balance it out. You really think there isn't enough negativity and prejudice reinforcement on this site? You are lecturing me on balance, have you posted anything positive on this site about the Mormon community? This is not the forum for any real discussion; it is a polemical shouting match. Your posts represent one unnuanced side of the polemic (I can count on posters like you to make sure the public is quite aware of them). Utah has its problems. (I'm a Californian myself.) But it has its strengths. It was my goal to point out the strengths that might cause someone to think "Well gee wiz maybe Mormons aren't all bad."

Many of the stats you cite are public policy issues not lifestyle issues. With this I have no quarrel with you. I think Utah politics are too conservative myself.

As for lifestyle issues:

I am not surprised you can find some negative stats on Utah, but the question is how reflective are these of the LDS lifestyle? I don't necessarily think Utah stats reflect the effects of being active LDS, so you could question me there. For example

-Teens and adults who are active in the LDS church are less likely to commit suicide than the national average (which differs markedly from your stat). See the link I posted earlier.

-Active Latter Day Saints are not any more likely to suffer from bankruptcy than the national population.

See here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858323/posts

It also makes sense that the state with the lowest alcohol consumption would have the high rate prescription anti-depressant usage. Instead of self-medicating, they see a professional.

But in this case, as in many others, the Mormon stat contradicts the Utah stat (Mormon women are less depressed than general population), see here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-04-02-mormon-depression_x.htm

I don't know about all of your statistics, you provided no links for me check your sources, so I have nothing more to say on them.

I cited a neutral website that provided a summary of Mormon statistical outliers. It has no reason to try and be "faith promoting." From the site, it appears that the ways in which Mormons are outliers are largely positive, though I am sure one could find some negative stats if one looked hard enough.

Well Mr. or Mrs. Thoughts, I thanks for the exchange. I have to get back to life and will not be able to respond. I too think we need to look at problems and address them. Perhaps if we were on the Springville City Counsel together (or something like that) we could tackle them.

Best to you!

Jd1

Hello Ted,

It is interesting how statistics that I think reflect nothing but positive things about the Mormon community can be re-spun to better conform with one’s prejudices (not saying you did this on purpose, but I think that’s just human nature). A few points:

One:

You suggest that Mormons have a lower divorce rate because women are bogged down in abusive relationships, similar manner to the Taliban. This comparison is part of a long tradition of orientalizing Mormons—associating them with the most different, exotic and despised groups possible (at least most despised by westerners). This just makes me sad. What can I say except that my experience with my Mormon family and many others does not bear this out.

On one thing I might concede, faithful Mormons are generally very committed to family, marriage and fidelity—perhaps more so than romantic love.

In this we are countercultural, but I think it is a good thing. It helps people get past difficult times, which is essential for a marriage to last (its not always roses). Even marriages that are considered bad at one time have an 80% chance of being good if people stick with it (according to one study http://www.smartmarriages.com/does.divorce.html) Despite it not being a top priority (if Mormons were to choose between romance or fidelity, they will likely choose fidelity), romance in Mormon marriages is advocated by church leaders and had by church members.

FYI, on subjective measures Mormons report slightly higher marital satisfaction than non-Mormons. See here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445(198802)50%3A1%3C53%3AQOFLSS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Two:

You seem to depend primarily on ex-Mormon detractors for your information on Mormon culture. I do not think this is a very valid source if you want a clear picture of what it is like to be Mormon. Ex-Mormons (especially those who post on recovery boards) are most likely to have experienced some of the most negative aspects of the culture, so their reports unreliably skew Mormon culture towards the darker side. People who left the church and still experience very positive relationships with friends and family (from my experience the majority) are not going to go to recovery sites and talking about how great their families are.

I don’t depend on detractors to tell me about any movement (Muslim, Christian, Scientology etc.) because their reports are likely to put a negative spin on almost everything and not voice any nuanced or positive aspects of a culture (I am not saying they are being deceptive, I trust they are giving heartfelt testimony; but I think because of their inevitable negative bias their testimony will likely tell us more about people who leave a movement, than about the movement itself). Just compare descriptions of Mormon culture written by a passionate ex-Mormon to something written by non-Mormon, peer-reviewed scholars like Jan Ships and Douglass Davis.

Three

Your point about how education has positive effect on LDS belief and practices seems a very strained attempt to twist a piece of data to fit one’s prejudices. Ever think that maybe Mormonism as believed by the majority of LDS is not as stupid and crazy as most assume it is? Just a thought.

Best to you!

Jd1

John D the First ... I must say I am a bit dissapointed in your post. Not surprised, just dissapointed. Why? You may ask? Because I noticed that everything you selected to share with us as far as your statistics were nothing but favorable. Not one negative in the bunch. I understand why you would only post the positives. If it is not faith promoting, it holds no importance. We are taught this in the church from a very early age.

However, real life has a balance to it. We take the good with the bad and vice versa. Looking at one without the other gives a skewed view of reality, and is not highly advisable. As the statistics you posted were quite impressive, please allow me to provide a little balance to your post.

~ Utah’s per capita income of $24,977 ranked fourth lowest in the nation. Only Mississippi, West Virginia and Arkansas ranked lower according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

~ Public Education: $4,890 per-pupil spending for Utah only behind Mississippi.

~ Utah scored second-worst for its teacher-to-pupil ratio.

~ 15.2% of Utahns faced food insecurity. Meaning they go to bed hungry according to the USDA.

~ Only 58.4% of pregnant women in Utah received adequate prenatal care. Only North Dakota ranked worse according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

~ Utah has one of the worst records in the nation for testing for newborn diseases according to KSL News.

~ Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that Utah ranked fourth-worst among reporting states for the ratio of children to assessment workers, 1:243.

~ Utah had the seventh-highest rate of reported sexual abuse.

~ Utah provided future preventive services to only 3.3% of those children reporting abuse, ranking it fourth worst in the nation.

~ Utah remains among the top 10 methamphetamine-producing states and according to U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah reigns supreme for its prevalence of “speed cookeries.”

~ Utah tops the nation in prescriptions for antidepressants nearly twice the national rate.

~ According to the Deseret Morning News, Utah women are murdered by their male intimate partners at 21% above the national average. Add to that Utah’s tragic distinction as the forcible rape capital of the nation.

~ The National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center estimated that 20.6% of Utah women had been victims of rape, more than in any other state.

~ According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research Utah women earn 70.3 cents to every dollar earned by a Utah man.

~ Utah ranks first in personal bankruptcies, first in early-payment mortgage defaults and fifth in overall mortgage fraud.

~ Utah's teen suicide rate is three times the national average.

~ Utah males committed suicide four times as often as females. However, more females attempt suicide than males according to the Utah Department of Health.

~ Utah had the 7th highest suicide rate in the nation according to the Utah Department of Health.

~ Suicide rates in Utah are higher than the U.S. rate in every age group according to the Utah Department of Health.

So in my eyes, it doesn't matter how educated they are, how healthy they are, how married they are, how many children they have, how religious they are, and if they eat more jello.

What concerns me is if they go to bed hungry, are being raped and abused, losing their homes, cannot make a decent living for their families, and are depressed and killing themselves.

In the scheme of life, I think these things are what are important. How can we change this? What is the cause? How can we as Utah citizens in our communities change these things?

If Utahans are as educated as you stated, surely, putting our minds together, we can find a solution. To change something, we have to acknowledge their is a problem. What this says to me is ... all is not well in Zion and it is time to wake up and find some long term solutions to ease the suffering of many in this state.

What say you?

Rob Adams,
After I had posted above, I noticed your sincere observation and question. Almost all of what you would learn about if you attended an LDS temple ceremony is available for study in the Pearl of Great Price, "The Holy Temple", Doctrine and Covenants section 89, and passages in the Old Testament. In the temple, members are again reminded of the importance of making covenants with Jesus Christ so that they are strengthened in their resolve to live His gospel, and of the eternal nature of life included in the plan of salvation established by God for all of His children (all humankind), through Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer and the Prince of Peace.

I find myself disagreeing with the idea that a cult is a religion that you don't like or disagree with. I am not very fond of Southern Baptists and some of the other fundamentalist religions, but these groups do not really fit the definition of a cult--whatever I may think of them--because a current leader or "prophet" is not worshiped or idolized. Mormons, on the other hand, do idolize their current prophet (whoever he may happen to be). The current one is pretty harmless (except he tends to deny negative aspects of LDS history and he also tends to give nonbiblical commandments such as how many earrings either sex should wear), but that could always change. When talking about cults, one should always keep in mind the tragedies of Jonestown (1978) and Waco (1994) and how they came about.

Some of the statistics John D. brings up raise troubling issues. Temple-wed Mormons may stay married longer than others in this society, but former Mormon bishop of Calgary Bob Mccue has noted on his website that that description probably applies to Taliban marriages as well, yet we really don't see a rush of people wishing to get on the Taliban bandwagon in this country. The point is that shorter marriage spans may well be a necessary byproduct of modern U.S. society and its emphasis on romantic love and personal fulfillment--both of which I think are ultimately good things.

Another demographic that troubles me is the large attendance numbers at LDS church services cited by John D. Although not universal, I have seen many postings from ex-Mormons of family members and Mormon bishops ostracizing members who decide to go inactive. I have never seen my former church (Roman Catholic) do this, and I have not heard of this behavior in any mainline Protestant churches either.

The most troubling statistic (at least in my mind) that John D. puts forth is the one that indicates that Mormons tend to become more devout, despite modern science and lifestyles. Mr. D. views that as being something that doesn't make Mormonism a cult. Actually, those statistics show that we tend to believe what we want to believe whether or not the factual information supports our views--and that could ultimately hamper our long-term development as human beings.

Finally, Mormonism may or may not be a cult, but it certainly has cultish behaviors, and, for what
it's worth, I still do not recommend that people join it.

Ken and JD1,
Thanks for your balanced comments. Isn't it interesting how someone using the internet in today's world can assume a position of authority and appear to be just that, yet if a serious reader will use their own sense of judgement and their own ability to study the issues, they will find that the person who was a supposed "authority" was actually masking their own disdain for sincere inquiry and research.

Serious readers ought to look up the word "cult" in Webster's Dictionary, then decide if the above purported "lists" aren't rather someone's personal agenda. Do your own thinking!

Temple rites will probably never be understood by people outside of the LDS church, because they entail a realm of religious practice that is in its very nature (not performed in "underwear, by the way--performed in lovely yet simple and modest white clothing that could be worn out on the street, with an outer sacred vesture) too sacred to be watched by onlookers--yet I havent' read of massive diatribes against the Catholic Church for meeting secretly in the Vatican to choose a new pope.

Note to the general unfamiliar reader: The LDS Church has twelve living apostles and a "first presidency" who are all seasoned and respected leaders, and who unitedly make decisions to conduct top-level affairs of the church. They are not "yes-men", from what I have heard and experienced first-hand. Wouldn't you seriously wish all churches had such a system of decision-making in which subjects are discussed using all the collective wisdom of very bright minds--a heart surgeon, a physicist, successful businessmen, prominent educators, among them. I am so grateful for the collective impact of their leadership as well as for the different perspectives they offer in talks at General Conferences of the LDS Church. These are issues that impact my family. My family is greatly blessed by listening.

Anyone in the world can listen to their upcoming talks during the first weekend of October coming up soon. Listen, and decide for yourself (www.lds.org). You need not think you will feel "brain-washed" because the messages are about Christian themes such as love, forgiveness, strengthening marriages, teaching youth and children, service to others, being peacemakers.

Jim.

From everything I have read/heard I would consider LDS to have secrets. If that is not so then that wuold be a good thing.

I don't think there is anything to sacred to be discussed casually by all people. Whether people understand it or not is not the point. Otherwise who decides when someone is 'ready' to hear a certain message?

To each his own I guess.

peace

Surprise, surprise – Anti-Mormons couldn’t wait to rush their computers. But please, please, spare us the 62 year old canard of “When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done”. When some dufus – not a Church leader -- wrote that in a home teaching message in 1945 it was immediately condemned by the President of the Church, George Albert Smith, who added that this statement had embarrassed the General Authorities of the Church. “No tolerance for critical inquiry"? Ahem. Has this writer ever been in a high priests group meeting? Give us a break. In the church I was born in, people go and hear a sermon and just go home. No tolerance? The world has been flooded with books, journals and articles on Mormonism of every kind. But, sorry, no list of banned books here. Our family stored a year's supply of food – and never were we told it was for a “world catastrophe”; but when I lost my job the food sure tasted good to our little kids. When I compare those who became Mormons in my extended family with those who did not – there is no comparison in terms of successful marriages, happy families, higher education attainment, civic involvement, health and general well being. Lighten up, antis!

Carol ... I don't know if I fall under the group you referred to as "similar", but I would like to respectively respond to you.

You ask what religion they belong to? My question back would be - does it really matter?

To become "a better person, more tolerant, more kind, and more forgiving" - does not require a belief in a certain religious dogma in which to implement these wonderful traits in our lives. These are not exclusive to any one religion. A church can not make someone "better". Change comes from within each of us! Not a building, a book or through another individual.

In my opinion, all of these fall under the category of 'love'. If we learn to love without conditions, this world would be a better place. Again, the simplicity of it is overwhelming.

How to do that in our daily lives does not require the instruction or guidelines from a priest, pastor, bishop, or prophet, etc.

Loving unconditionally is just that. Without condition. No expectations. Just pure love for someone else. When we accomplish that, everthing else you mentioned falls naturally into place.

Sick, Anonymous, Ted, and similar:

What religion do you belong to...? I'd really like to know.

My goal in life is to become a better person, more tolerant, more kind, more forgiving. Upon reading your comments, I am quite certain that if I follow the same path that you have chosen, my friends and family would never recognize that Jesus was ever any part of my life whatsoever.

I'm searching for a church with the power to make me better. I'm looking for one that has risen above the spiritually immature "Me Against You" mentality.

Please respond.

Mike O.,

How ever did you arrange so may posts that illustrate so effectively the truth of your statement that "'Cult' should never be applied as a means of masking our own intolerance for competing faiths that simply differ from our own"?

Good job, man!

Drawing on Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, the new website at http://www.mormoncult.org/ defines a cult as "a system of religious belief and worship," thus clearly indicting the Mormon church! And the Baptists, and the Lutherans, and all the rest of them!

TO LDS MARK: You wrote, "Our faith is the same as most Christian faiths, follows the same bible, but without the “doctrine of man” so to speak, clouding the issue." May I ask, what is the '"doctrine of man" so to speak'? Thank You. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I am life long member of the Church and I don't feel hampered in my thinking in the slightest and feel perfectly comfortably interacting with secular institutions. The church has done nothing but good in my life and the lives of those close to me.

Cults, from what I understand, depend on isolation of members from modern discourse in order to keep them 'faithful.' It should be surprising therefore that the more exposure Mormons have to secular and modern ideas and concepts through secular education, the more devout they are likely to be.

See here:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-673X(198409)26:1%3C43:SHEAR%3E2.0.CO;2-H

The trend is quite the opposite for the wider Christian world, Protestant fundamentalism in particular.

Here is one definition of a cult:

"They are claimed to be harmful to their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values. Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with those two people." J. Gordon Melton.

Is Mormonism harmful to its members?

Let's look at some demographics:

"Based on a large variety of factors, Utah was ranked as the #1 best state in which to raise children in the 1996 rankings by the Children's Right's Council."

"Utah remained No. 1 in the nation for fewest one-parent families."

"The latest federal health figures (1997) rank Utah as having the fewest births to unwed mothers. 16% of all births in Utah were to unmarried mothers. The national average was over 30%. The next lowest state after Utah was Idaho, with 20%. (Idaho is the second most Latter-day Saint state, with approx. 1/3 of the population belonging to the Church.)"

"LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women."

"Utah has the lowest child poverty rate in the country."

"Utah as having the lowest rates of smoking, alcohol use, lung cancer."

"The National Institute of Mental Health ranked Utah as the second-lowest U.S. state in new inpatient admissions to state mental hospitals."

"Active Latter-day Saints Seven Times Less Likely to Commit Suicide"

"National demographic studies indicate that couples in which both partners are Latter-day Saints (and who marry in a Latter-day Saint temple) have the lowest divorce rate among all U.S. social and religious groups studied. "

This one is worth repeating:

"As Latter-day Saints become more educated, they are more likely to be active Church participants, a trend opposite what is found in most denominations "

But here's the scary one:

"Salt Lake City has long been ranked number one among U.S. cities in Jell-O consumption"

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

With the exception of the last statistic, it appears that the LDS church does a great deal of good for its members.

But…the church may fit the following definition of a cult for many posters here:

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

Best to you all!

Jd1

Sick Of Otterson's Lies:

Brigham Young DID NOT order the massacre at Mountain Meadows. In fact his order to let the settelers pass arrived after the massacre occured, too late.

please keep your facts strait.

mark

Rob A:

I do not consider anything in the LDS Church to be secret. There are things that are sacred though- sacred enough that they are not discussed outside of our temples.

To me, this makes perfect sense. God teaches us as we are prepared and ready to receive His truth. You would not teach calculus to a kindergartner- he/she is not prepared to understand it. So you begin with elementary mathematics, move to algebra, geometry, etc. In the same way, a merciful God knows that with knowledge comes accountability. So, God teaches us "line by line, precept upon precept." He does not give us more than we are able to understand. So, we do not casually discuss the most sacred things, but again, it is not secretive. God wants to give us all of his truth, but only as we are ready for it.

I don't know that I can say if the LDS is a cult or not but I would find it perplexing that there would be any need for secrecy when it comes to the word or worship of God.

Regarding consecration, having attended the temple and made covenants does not preclude one from public service. As you might recall, Ezra Taft Benson was a cabinet member. Many senators, governors, etc. are LDS and have made these covenants. We are not required to fully live consecration now. There is no conflict between Romney's making of covenants and running for office. He has made it very clear that his candidacy and religion are separate. He does not have an agenda to promote Mormonism. As he has explained, do all candidates for office have to explain their religious beliefs and why they believe what they do? No. Because someone is religious, does it mean that he/she is not fit for public service?

Rewrite the OT, NT and Koran in historical terms leaving out the embellishments, myths and fortune telling and there would be no religious cults.

!What a great article!!! The mere fact that someone's religious beliefs or understanding of the Bible are not the same as mine does not justify calling that person a cult member.

How about a group who electroshocks gays to "cure" them? Is this not "...violent behavior toward society.."? Would this not be a "cult"?

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

JustMyThoughts has made an interesting point.

Even as a mormon living in Utah I often wondered how a judge in Utah (known to be a faithful mormon) could sit on the bench in cases dealing with the church ... knowing full well that that judge had made oaths in the temple that all of his talents would be dedicated to the "building up of the church". The judges never seemed to have much problem with that, and, of course, in Utah, the church usually has its way in court.

Today, the nation considers putting a faithful mormon in the highest office in America. Let the people consider well the oath taken by that man to his god and his church in the most sacred place for any mormon -- god's temple. When push comes to shove that man's cult values will weigh more on him than American interests.

Jim ... one more thing. You also said "The LDS Church has nothing to do with Mitt Romney's candidacy for president."

I respectively beg to differ.

Mitt Romney has been through the temple. In doing so he has taken upon himself specific covenants. One of which concerns me greatly being that of the Law of Consecration.

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

Mitt cannot serve two entities. One being the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the other being the American people. By doing so he would violate his temple oath.

If this part of the temple ceremony was that an individual consecrated themselves, their time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed them with, or may bless them with, back to God Almighty, then yes, Mitt running for President would not be an issue. But it doesn't. Mitt in the White House as our President would be required by the church to do everything in his power to the building up of the LDS church.

I believe in the separation of church and state. Religion doesn't belong in the White House.

Look at the mess Bush has gotten our country into all because he thinks God personally spoke to him.

The LDS church or any other faith based denomination doesn't belong in politics.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_temple7.php

Here you go. It is not really sacred, but secret.

http://www.

concernedchristians.

org/nocomparison_temple7.php

Regarding Jim's comment:
"come unto Christ" as long as, "be excluded if they have not previously participated in temple ordinances or if they do not deem themselves worthy"
"come unto Christ" is apparently conditional, based on "nonmembers" being excluded from Christ and "his" temple if you don't agree with mormonism.

Thanks for excluding me from seeing my own daughter get married, thanks a lot mormon church. You have taken away what was to be my daughter's happiest day of her life because my wife and I are not mormon. She cried all day and they were not happy tears. Thanks a lot for converting my daughter! You devastated her mother as well. What a Christian thing to do! You're about as Christian as the blacks only waterfountains of yesteryear. If this is what your waterfountains have in them, you can save the exclusive drink all to your mormon selves.

Jim:

How the LDS church handles weddings is very pertinent to this conversation. I have attended several weddings in both Catholic and Protestant churches during my lifetime, and I have yet to come across any that practice such secrecy as yours. During the 1990's, I was invited to a Mormon wedding reception. I was somewhat perplexed because I had not been invited to the wedding ceremony itself--until my mom told me that Mormons get married in their underwear (it wasn't until much later when I looked it up on the Internet that I learned about the temple garments). Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the reception (I am totally blind, and transportation is always an issue), but I later learned from a Catholic cousin who actually did attend a few that they were very spartan affairs and not endowed with the gaiety and celebration of the many wedding receptions I have attended.

I mentioned temple garments above. These are things the LDS church does not want outsiders to know about--and it points out even more the church's penchant for secrecy. Frankly, keeping things hidden--whether it be the marriage ceremony or the wearing of temple garments or the temple endowment ceremony itself (yes, I've read about that on the Internet, too) conspire to make the LDS church look like a cult in the eyes of many. Also, actively discouraging members from reading books that may make them question their faith (yes, I've visited the ex-Mormon forums as well as the church's official website) encourages same-way thinking and is in opposition to participative democracy which requires the free availability of information to all so that intelligent decisions can be made.

Ted C:

You are correct in that members of the LDS Church believe in marriage not just for time but for eternity. This blessing is available to all worthy members of the church who choose to be married in an LDS temple in a sacred ceremony. And yes, family that are not LDS are not allowed to participate in these ceremonies, but it is not because of fear of outsiders. Even members of the church, including family members, may be excluded if they have not previously participated in temple ordinances or if they do not deem themselves worthy to enter into the sacred temples. The goal of the church is to invite all mankind to come unto Christ, and all of the activities of the church are designed with this as the goal.

I have never been Mormon, but I live in Mormon territory (Arizona). I was raised a Roman Catholic, but now I consider myself an agnostic.

The ACLU may well side with Mr. Otterson on this one (freedom to worship whom and how one chooses), but I find myself remembering a recent interview that aired on NPR with Richard Lyman Bushman (he wrote a book about founder Joseph Smith) and the letters from listeners read the following week on that topic. The second one should be of most concern as the writer notes that she and her husband were unable to attend their daughter's wedding, because it was held in a Mormon temple (the daughter had converted), and no outsiders--not even the bride's parents--were allowed to witness the wedding. This alone speaks volumes to me of how scared this group is of the outside world and its ideas--and why people should think twice before deciding to join it.

Weedeater -

The funny thing about your comment is that the cult list I posted is not specific to Mormonism. It's a general list of warning signs common to many destructive groups, not just the Mormon one. The list was published by cult expert Rick Ross who doesn't target the Mormon church any more than any other group, though he does list the Mormon church among the many cults described on his website.

So, it could hardly be "a transparent laundry list of grievances by people who are feeling rather sore." However, it's a testament to the accuracy of the list that you thought Ross was talking about your group.

Jim ... Quantog is correct.

I was in Florida at the time - 1977 to be exact. I believe if memory serves me correctly the month was July. The Relief Society was organized within our stake and others to attend the ERA Convention that was being held in Orlando FL. The Church rented a bus that left from the Stake Center to the Convention center and then back. I believe we paid something like $12 a person to help pay for the bus and our ticket into the convention.

We were given instructions to visit each of the booths and take as many brochures that we could without being conspicuous about it. Their reasoning ... the more we took, the less they would have to give out to those who were attending that were sincerely interested in supporting the ERA movement.

I was told by those with church authority before the bus rolled, that the ERA movement was the last thing we as women would want. That it would in fact lessen our rights instead of strengthening them, that it would weaken the "family unit" and that we should fight against this movement any way we could. We sang hymns all the way there. Like little mormon warriors out to stop the big bad ERA movement sweeping our country.

So when the bus landed we spread out to do as much damage as we could. Just like we were instructed to do. I remember getting back on that bus feeling horrible. Words can't even describe.

I met wonderful women with a sincere cause. Beautiful souls trying to educate women ... empowering women with a sincerety about them that was gold. Something rang inside of me that day. I can't describe it. I knew what I was being asked to do by my church leaders was not right ... at least not right for me.

I climbed back on the bus and as all the women dumped their big purses of all the literature they had confiscated, there grew a hush among all of us. The ride home was not one of joy with hymns in harmony, but a quiet solitude. We didn't really speak about it. I suppose many others felt the same as I did that day.

You are lucky you have never experienced such a thing. It happened then and it happens now. The church does get involved politically.

Look at California and the money the church gave to stop same sex marriage. You mention the promotion of righteous values and truth. Those are all subjective and can not be quantified based on belief.

To have righteous values means you will do no harm to another being or yourself. Please think about the simplicity and beauty in that. To live it ... it requires no formal or cannonized doctrine of any kind from any faith. Truth works the same way.

I spent over twenty years as a Latter Day Saint. During that time I did everything the church required of me: I was a faithful priesthood holder, I went on a mission, I married in the temple, I paid a full tithe on my gross income, I accepted all my callings without question and I sacrificed much.

A few years ago, I began to do some serious research and what I discovered made me realize that I had been living a lie. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which I had loved so much and for which I would have given my life, had lied to me.

I began to see the church for what it really was, A cult. It's not a pejorative term if it is true.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hides behind the name of Jesus Christ to teach some doctrines that are the antithesis of what Christ taught: the doctrine of blood atonement, polygamy, works based salvation and many more.

It's leadership lie to their members and treat them with disdain. There is no accountability offered and there must never be any questioning of leaders.

I have lived mormonism, and I know that Mike Otterson, like so many others high up in the organization, would not think twice to practice all kinds of deception to perpetuate the lie, a lie that they do very well from. They know it's a lie and they still foist it on the unsuspecting public.

The term cult correctly identifies the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

I spent over twenty years as a Latter Day Saint. During that time I did everything the church required of me: I was a faithful priesthood holder, I went on a mission, I married in the temple, I paid a full tithe on my gross income, I accepted all my callings without question and I sacrificed much.

A few years ago, I began to do some serious research and what I discovered made me realize that I had been living a lie. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which I had loved so much and for which I would have given my life, had lied to me.

I began to see the church for what it really was, A cult. It's not a pejorative term if it is true.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hides behind the name of Jesus Christ to teach some doctrines that are the antithesis of what Christ taught: the doctrine of blood atonement, polygamy, works based salvation and many more.

It's leadership lie to their members and treat them with disdain. There is no accountability offered and there must never be any questioning of leaders.

I have lived mormonism, and I know that Mike Otterson, like so many others high up in the organization, would not think twice to practice all kinds of deception to perpetuate the lie, a lie that they do very well from. They know it's a lie and they still foist it on the unsuspecting public.

The term cult correctly identifies the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Qantog: wow, those are some pretty outlandish claims to say the least. The LDS Church has nothing to do with Mitt Romney's candidacy for president. In my 20+ years as an adult with active involvement in the LDS Church, I don't recall any instances of power being used inappropriately. When one has a position of influence, one is morally obligated to use that influence to promote righteous values and truth, and that has always been my experience. I am sorry for those that have experienced otherwise.

The listing of cult indeed seems custom made by those who have an ax to grind with the church, as do the testimonials.

Followers feel like they can never be good enough?? Please, do tell what rigorous thought process enabled someone to define "cult" with it. And exactly how many followers have to feel this way. This is a hazard of morality and human nature. While the miracle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power to change and become better, I seriously doubt that any Christian group can honestly say none of their congregations ever felt that way.

Refuses to disclose financial records-

I suppose non public corporations are all cults too.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world-

I find your fear of the Church unreasonable, but then perhaps you just left one cult to join another?

This list is lame. It is a transparent laundry list of grievances by people who are feeling rather sore.

Any thoughtful study of true Mormon history identifies the LDS Church as a cult. Perjorative term or not. A recent illustrtation of the mean-spirited tenacity with which the Mormon Church attacks dissidents would be the spiritual execution of Sonia Johnson for having the courage to stand up to church hiearchy in an effort to disrupt their all out war on the Equal Rights Amendment. Read Johnson's great book "From Housewife to Heretic" to understand how the Mormon Church organized campaigns across the country to rob not only Mormon women but all women of equal rights. It's painful and astonishing to learn how a corporation masquerading as a religion so effectively destroyed civil rights in America. That's what can happen when you have blind, lockstep obedience of your membership. This is a very dangerous organization that is currently making a headlong run for the White House. Money is their weapon and power is their God.

LDSmark said

"If Joseph Smith were a charlatan, the faith he started would have fallen apart a long time ago."

Thats ridiculous , The LDSchucrh believes Catholicism is the great apostasy . But it must be true since its lasted 2000 years by his definition ..

Joseph Smiths religion has actually dissapperaed so he was a charlatan afterall .The LDS church has been shaped by law and society into what it is today and not by any revelation. Joseph Smith wouldn't recognise it .

I've been a member of the mormon church for over four decades and I can testify that to the best of my knowledge and experience the church fits ALL of the qualifications of "cult" as listed in a previous post.

What strikes me as rather odd about church spokesmen and authorities (church leaders), when they need to "teach" an object leason how nicely an example pops up from "a person sitting next to them on a plane".

We've had that standard of truth Elder Paul H. Dunn (ex-Apostle for the mormons) with his jet passenger encounters. We've had another current Apostle with his unbelievable encounter with Mick Jagger on a plane (Mr. Jagger, of course, being the perfect example of evil in this world), and now we have the spokesman for the church and his little object leason from an airline encounter. Gees, these corporate execs sure seem to have a limited "missionary field" to work with (fellow passengers on airline flights).

Signs of a "Cult" ... Do any of the following signs accurately describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day-Saints?

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

Yes. Members are taught that ... "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done."

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

Yes. Let's start with many who were witnesses to the Book of Mormon - Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Jacob Whitmer, John Whitmer and Hiram Page.

Too lengthy the list of those souls that fell at the hands of Brigham Young for questioning him.

In recent years the September Six comes to mind which included D.Michael Quinn, Paul Toscano, Avraham Gileadi, Lavina Fielding Anderson, Maxine Hanks and Lynne Kanavel Whitesides. More individuals included David Wright, Micheal Barrett, Brent Metcalf, Janice Allred, Shane LeGrande Whelen, Rhonda Whelen, Thomas Murphy, Ed Ashment, Grant H. Palmer, Simon Southerton.

The Church attempted to silence their voices of inquiry. These are just a handful out of too many to count. There have been many who have paid a high price for questioning the church authorities or doctrine and as truth spreads, there will be many more!

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

YES. The LDS Church does not disclose to their members, to the media, or to anyone else their finances in any way shape or form. There is absolutely NO accountability.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

YES. Members are encouraged to store two [2] years of food for each family member in case of a world catastrophe. The persecution complex of members has already been identified in Otterson's comments. You are either "for" them, or you are considered "against" them. There is no room for questioning or inquiry. The persecution complex runs deep in this faith from Smith to date.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

YES. The party line of the church is that if a member leaves the faith they "must have been offended", or "they left because they couldn't live the strict guidelines of the gospel" or my favorites, "they must have sinned" or "want to sin". When a member leaves the church members are often quoted as saying "they have lost the spirit". Members who leave are considered "evil" and are shunned by other members as well as family as if they were a cancer.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

YES. Check out the online forums for exmormon's who have left of their own accord and told their story. The stories are very similar in nature.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

YES. Throughout the years since the beginning of the church.

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

YES. Striving for "pefection" is the goal of any faithful LDS member. When a member fails in this, it becomes a double bind. Always the members fault for not praying enough, fasting enough, going to church enough, not reading their scriptures enough. The list is endless, but in the end, it is always the members fault for never meeting the mark.

9. The group/leader is always right.

YES. This is part of that double-bind. Your Bishop, Stake President, Branch President, Apostles and Prophet are always right. Members are to heed their guidance as they are taught they these positions hold with them "spiritual discernment" which superceeds the rational thinking of any member.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

YES. Again, a double-bind because members are also taught that they too can receive "personal revelation". However, if that "personal revelation" differs from the "spiritual discernment" of their leaders, then the "spiritual discernment" trumps their "personal revelation". At that point, discussion is stifled and the church authority will always rule supreme.

So ... holding the LDS Faith up to the word 'CULT' and signs of a 'CULT' with all 10 signs being a clear and consise YES ... as my daddy use to say - If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... it's a duck!

I have no axe to grind Mr. Otterson. I am a 6th generational mormon, born and raised. I think it is high time the church started telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Let the truth begin with you Brother Otterson!

A commenter named MAKUROSU gives a list of 10 characteristics found in cults. I can confirm in my church experiences that my church fits all 10 of these characteristics. I'm a High Priest in the Oakton Virginia Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I've tried for years to seek official answers on some of the difficult issues facing the church. On not one of these issues has any church official I've dealt with strived to be accountable to honestly address them.

Brother Otterson,

Thank you handling the misnomer of "cult" so tactfully. I am a lifelong member of the LDS Church, and the first reaction when others use such references is to respond with similar rhetoric. I nearly succumbed to this temptation upon reading someone's malicious comments on another thread here. Your message is a great reminder for all that we can express differing opinions and beliefs, but our words will reveal if we truly care about tolerance, understanding, and dialogue.

* Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

Anyone ever heard of a Mormon leader being accountable to their congregation? It's well-documented in email dialogues I've had with my Bishops and a Stake President of mine what happened when I raised some questions. They absolutely refuse to be accountable. All my questions were ignored.

* No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

The missionaries are forbidden by our Bishop from contacting my children aged 12 and 10 to hear the discussions. That's because I've advised the Bishop that I'll expect the missionaries to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

* No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

When has the LDS church ever in the past 5 decades released to their membership their consolidated financial summary statements? Anyone independent of the church audit these statements?

* Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

The word Latter-day in the church's name says it all.

* There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

This sounds like what my mom says to me about my inactivity in the LDS church.

* Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

* There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Lots of "anti Mormon" literature out there.

* Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

That's how I felt during all my mission and during the 4+ years I served in a Branch Presidency or Bishopric.

* The group/leader is always right.

When the Brethren speak the debate is over.

* The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

That's for sure in Mormonism. In fact you can only go through the temple IF you agree that only one person on earth is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.

It's an appeal to the reader's ignorance to say that the word "cult" is a purely pejorative term. Not all cult experts have agendas beyond helping people free themselves from controlling organizations, and they often use the word "cult." Two such cult experts, Rick Ross and Stephen Hassan, both specifically cite the Mormon Church as a cult. Rick Ross even says in his FAQ that cult apologists often claim that the word "cult" is a pejorative term!

http://www.rickross.com/faq.html

Cults are known by their characteristics. Here's a list of "warning signs":

* Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
* No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
* No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
* Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
* There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
* Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
* There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
* Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
* The group/leader is always right.
* The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html

Sound familiar, Mr. Otterson?

What about referring to people, organizations, and events as "so-called"?

You know: "so-called" intellectuals, "so-called" Mountain Meadows Massacre.

What about that, Mr Otterson? How about extending the same courtesies to others that you and most other Mormons rudely demand for yourselves.

It's also important to remember who started the war with other religions: Joseph Smith. Until you edit out the "their creeds were an abomination" part of his story, you can expect to receive the same vitriol in return.

"If Joseph Smith were a charlatan, the faith he started would have fallen apart a long time ago."

This is an absurd statement. Islam, for example, has existed for nearly 1300 years. One might argue that "If Mohammed were a charlatan, the faith he started would have fallen apart a long time ago."

Interesting approach to being called a cult, I will have to keep that one in mind.

The way I look at it is that lies and deceit are soon revealed and need defense to remain in the limelight. Truth, on the other hand needs no defense.

If Joseph Smith were a charlatan, the faith he started would have fallen apart a long time ago.

If you look at the Lutherans, Protestants, and even the Hutterites (to name only a few), they realized that the Roman Catholic doctrines had problems and they broke away seeking the truth.

The big difference is, the LDS church didn’t break away, the founders were actually given the truth by God himself.

Our faith is the same as most Christian faiths, follows the same bible, but without the “doctrine of man” so to speak, clouding the issue.

Therefore I find no need to defend the LDS faith, only to share the truth with those who haven’t been exposed to it. Nor do I find the need to attack other faiths. I am comfortable in mine and hope that some day, all people will get the opportunity to experience what I have.

mark