I recently listened to a few minutes of a podcast that interviews people who leave cults. The interviewer gave an odd introduction saying that normally they don’t interview people who’ve left “mainstream” religious groups because they don’t normally qualify as a cult, but in this case, they were going to go ahead. The woman being interviewed was an ex-Mormon. As the interview began, the woman who left the Church–perhaps through nervousness–made several very flippant comments about the origin of the Church and its doctrines that (to me at least) demonstrated that she really didn’t know much about the Church she was petulantly trashing. If you’re going to trash it as a cult, maybe use the correct name and don’t ridicule it in the first 30 seconds of your explanation. I’ve heard and read many exit stories that fill me with empathy and that don’t leave me disgusted and skeptical of the storyteller’s version. This wasn’t one.
I’ve been reading The Cult of Trump, written by former Moonie Steven Hassan. He talks about what attracted him to the Moonies in the 1970s: he was at a low point, emotionally vulnerable, feeling socially isolated. He adopted the Moonie worldview because he didn’t have a lot of friends at the time and he needed social support. The worldview and fellowshipping made him feel important and special, one of the chosen ones, and he admired Rev. Moon who was charismatic and confident. They taught members mental techniques to stop doubts, and eventually, after years of following Rev. Moon, he realized that his mind had split into two voices: the Moonie voice that dominated, and his real views that he stuffed down because they were unacceptable in the Moonie cult. The cult controlled all aspects of his life, to the alarm of his family and former friends. There was also a strong emphasis on recruiting new cult members, targeting individuals who were vulnerable and on the fringes like he was.
Hassan’s book covers several of the techniques that Trump uses to create his own cult of followers: a dynamic, confident personality, fear-based propaganda that includes misinformation and a stilted worldview, hatred of an enemy (liberals), repetition of simple slogans that are chanted at rallies to unite his followers, the use of physical intimidation, and so on. Trump also uses “mind control” techniques he learned from Normal Vincent Peale, with whom he had an early connection. One technique is expanded on in the popular book The Secret, which instructs readers to tell the universe what they want (as if it’s a sure thing), and it will happen. In this technique, the power of positive statements is supposed to attract those things to the practitioner. I encountered this once on a business trip. One of the women at the local office had agreed to drive me to the airport after my office visit. While we were in the car, she started saying adamantly while staring at the dashboard “I will be the next site director. I will be the next site director.” If not for the fact that I had recently read The Secret, I would have thought she was kidnapping me. It was very disconcerting. It also didn’t work. Saying what you want to be true rather than what is true is an interesting technique to try to control the uncontrollable; it can have a placebo effect like when Stuart Smalley tells the mirror “I’m good enough. I’m smart enough. And doggone it, people like me!” It works better for Trump than it did for her.
Hassan has created what he calls the BITE model to identify a cult. Here are the elements he says are present in cults:
BEHAVIOR CONTROL
- Promote dependence and obedience
- Modify behavior with rewards and punishments
- Dictate where and with whom you live
- Restrict or control sexuality
- Control clothing and hairstyle
- Regulate what and how much you eat and drink
- Deprive you of seven to nine hours of sleep
- Exploit you financially
- Restrict leisure time and activities
- Require you to seek permission for major decisions
INFORMATION CONTROL
- Deliberately withhold and distort information
- Forbid you from speaking with ex-members and critics
- Discourage access to non-cult sources of information
- Divide information into Insider vs. Outsider doctrine
- Generate and use propaganda extensively
- Use information gained in confession sessions against you
- Gaslight to make you doubt your own memory
- Require you to report thoughts, feelings, & activities to superiors
- Encourage you to spy and report on others’ “misconduct”
THOUGHT CONTROL
- Instill Black vs. White, Us vs. Them, & Good vs. Evil thinking
- Change your identity, possibly even your name
- Use loaded language and cliches to stop complex thought
- Induce hypnotic or trance states to indoctrinate
- Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thoughts
- Allow only positive thoughts
- Use excessive meditation, singing, prayer, & chanting to block thoughts
- Reject rational analysis, critical thinking, & doubt
EMOTIONAL CONTROL
- Instill irrational fears (phobias) of questioning or leaving the group
- Label some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, or wrong
- Teach emotion-stopping techniques to prevent anger, homesickness
- Promote feelings of guilt, shame, & unworthiness
- Shower you with praise and attention (“love bombing”)
- Threaten your friends and family
- Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve
- Teach that there is no happiness or peace outside the group
He admits that many of these are present in other organizations, as well, and his definition of a cult is somewhat broadly applied. He would likely consider The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to qualify (and many other mainstream religions). He also believes that anyone can become a cult member in the right (or wrong) circumstances, which may be true. However, it seems to me that there are personality traits that make one more susceptible. Even if the Church or some of its leaders wanted to instill cult-like devotion, some would resist . Right? There are some people who to me seem more primed to act like a cult, at least when I hear their views expressed at Church. So, is the Church cult-like, or are some of its members prone to make it a cult? As a former cult member, Hassan describes his embarrassment when he realized he had been deceived. Doubtless, this colors his view that the cult bears most of the blame for exerting pressure on its members rather than its members for being too willing to comply, but he acknowledges that being at an emotionally vulnerable time contributed to his willingness to believe what the cult told him.
Hassan’s self-description reminded me of some of the people I taught on my mission, people at the fringe of society. But unlike the Moonies, these weren’t the people local members were jazzed about. There wasn’t a “convert at all costs” mentality among local congregations (unlike among many of the missionaries). They wanted members who were comfortably middle class with jobs and friends, people like themselves. While we know missionary converts are a big push for the Church, without member fellowshipping, these converts are unlikely to stay in the Church for long. So while all Churches seek converts, are they really targeting people who are vulnerable to exploit them? To me, that seems like one area where the cult label fails for mainstream churches. Those on the fringes aren’t our bread and butter converts.
Perhaps cults are like narcissism, another over-diagnosed problem. At this point, it feels like everyone who acts like a selfish jerk is labeled a narcissist. Maybe they are. The psychological definition says that one is only a narcissist when it impedes function, creating negative outcomes in one’s life. The funny thing is that narcissism often gets a desired result for the one who has it (Example A: Trump, Example B: a lot of people’s exes). It’s only harmful to others. Perhaps religious devotion is the same. It works for the devotee, and it obviously works for the Church; it’s only other family members and friends it doesn’t work for (those not similarly devoted or convinced), and possibly society at large (if those beliefs create enemies or anti-social behaviors).
Another area that the Church fails the “cult” test to me is one Bishop Bill pointed out in his recent post. We don’t (currently) have a single charismatic leader who is the focus of cult-like devotion and worship. There are Church members who sound like they are engaging in leader- or prophet-worship, for sure, but they are gushing over something that is relatively mundane and interchangeable, the office more than the man. It feels like a cliche to me, just something people say, more than actual cult-like leader-worship. If you were to ask the average member what that leader said or did that was so wonderful, they would be hard-pressed to attribute something special to a specific leader. Also, our leaders are both an oligarchy and also have very short-term roles in the top job, often well past their prime. They are chosen based on bureaucracy and longevity, not for their personal attractiveness or dynamic speaking. They are pretty dull on the charisma scale. (Steady? Is that a better word than dull? Cult leaders aren’t dull or steady.)
So, is the Mormon Church a cult? If I look back at Hassan’s list, a few things immediately jump out at me. For one, BYU is more of a cult than the Church at large because of the almighty Honor Code Office designed to control things like hairstyle, clothing, and to encourage tattling on others. So here’s my view of these four areas and how the Church stacks up:
Behavior Control (4.5 out of 10):
- Promote dependence and obedience. Some Church leaders are very prone to promote obedience, while also promoting self-reliance (rather than dependence on the organization). I’m not sure how remarkable a focus on obedience is, though, given that most Christian churches promote obedience to commandments (and insert their own authoritative interpretation of what those are). The majority of Church members and some leaders are comfortable substituting Church authority for the gospel and assuming that the Church’s interpretation of doctrine as they understand it is correct.
- Modify behavior with rewards and punishments. Generally speaking, the punishments and rewards for behavior are mild, things like not getting certain church callings (boo hoo). This was much worse when the Church barred family members from temple weddings to encourage them to pay tithing so they could go to their child’s wedding, and not allowing civil marriages without a year waiting period. That particular policy reeked of cult-like coercion.
- Dictate where and with whom you live. The church doesn’t dictate where we live or with whom (except applying some assumptions to unmarried people who cohabitate). This is literally something cults do, relocating members to Jonestown, Waco or the Spahn Ranch.
- Restrict or control sexuality. The church can’t directly control sexuality, although I don’t doubt it would like to! Aside from having a law of chastity and being opposed to adultery (both of which are common to many religions), there’s very little intrusion into sexuality. Bear in mind that Charles Manson literally orchestrated orgies among his followers, assigning sexual partners and dictating their sexual activities as a way to break down their free will. You’d have to go back to the early days of polygamy to see pressure to marry specific people which would be more cult-like for sure.
- Control clothing and hairstyle. This one is a partial yes for me. It’s a soft maybe on social norms like no facial hair or colored shirts for men in leadership and dresses as a norm for women at Church (even though that’s not what our written guidelines say). But if you include garments, I have to go to a full yes. You must buy them from the Church, and they are worn daily, pretty intrusive, and you have to discuss them every two years with your bishop. That’s totally in cult territory on Hassan’s scale and goes much further than any other mainstream churches except Islam.
- Regulate what and how much you eat and drink. I’m not counting Fast Sunday as it’s very flexible and there’s no real oversight. If you include the Word of Wisdom, though, we get a little closer to cult-like. However, we are less severe than vegans in terms of how restrictive it is. But it’s discussed every two years in a personal interview, so this probably flips it to a yep.
- Deprive you of seven to nine hours of sleep. Only if you consider Early Morning Seminary, so this one’s a no.
- Exploit you financially. Tough to say. Tithing is absolutely a regressive tax, but the Church also gives direct aid to those in need. It feels a bit coercive that you must pay to enter temples and hold callings, so in that regard, partial credit on this one. I believe that happened sort of accidentally when the Church was struggling to stay afloat, and now there’s no way to dial back on it.
- Restrict leisure time and activities. Only because of the number of meetings, but again, I don’t think this is intentional. Nobody is deliberately trying to prevent people from leisure.
- Require you to seek permission for major decisions. Probably not, although there are plenty of members who want to go to the bishop for every little thing.
Information Control (7 out of 9*): To me, this is the area the Church does the worst.
- Deliberately withhold and distort information. This has certainly been a problem in the past, but they are making improvements and trying to do better. I’m giving this at least a partial yes.
- Forbid you from speaking with ex-members and critics. This isn’t expressly forbidden, but certainly discouraged, and critics and ex-members are painted in the worst light possible to make it easier to dismiss their concerns.
- Discourage access to non-cult sources of information. There is a strong tendency to discourage non-Church sources of information in teaching classes, but by the same token, we don’t expressly forbid it either (try telling this to a few Church members, though!).
- Divide information into Insider vs. Outsider doctrine. There is a strong tendency to discourage non-Church sources of information in teaching classes, but by the same token, we don’t expressly forbid it either (try telling this to a few Church members, though!).
- Generate and use propaganda extensively. I’m not sure apologetics and other Church sources count as propaganda, but they often lack nuance and accuracy unless you really want to search. Even the Church’s essays are difficult to find and often paint a rosier picture than you might find if you dig into the footnotes directly.
- Use information gained in confession sessions against you. As for using information people confess against them, there are rape victims who have been treated as seductresses as a byproduct of leader roulette, and the Church apparently doesn’t care enough about the problem to fix it, but I think that’s a patriarchal blind spot rather than an attempt to control people through confessions. However, many BYU bishops absolutely do this to students, forcing them to confess to the HCO which can put their academic standing in jeopardy.
- Gaslight to make you doubt your own memory. I think this one is mixed, so a qualified yes. It’s a PR tactic to claim that nothing has changed when in fact it has. For example, the priesthood race ban was taught as doctrine until it was downgraded to policy and “we don’t know why it happened” and “we don’t allow racist attitudes.” When E. Oaks said that women secretly had the priesthood in their callings without being ordained and that it’s always been like that, well, that’s the first time anybody ever said that, but suddenly members were claiming they knew it all along. Right.
- Require you to report thoughts, feelings, & activities to superiors. Kind of a yes, particularly with the youth interviews. We establish the bishop as the arbiter of worthiness (a Judge in Israel) and allow him to ask all sorts of questions, although there is a guide that bishops are told to follow rather than freewheeling and fishing. It’s not as controlling as Picard being interrogated by the Cardassians (“There are 4 lights!”), but it’s not zero either.
- Encourage you to spy and report on others’ “misconduct.” As far as encouraging people to tattle on others, that’s one that certain members simply eat up with a spoon, whether the Church is encouraging it or not. In a Facebook group I’m in for Relief Society Presidencies, so many of the comments are “Tell the bishop! He needs to know about that!” or “That’s the bishop’s decision. Not your problem!” On that point, though, I can’t tell whether that’s the Church, or just awful people. I suspect the latter. Any bishop who really wants you in his office reporting every little thing and requiring every mundane decision to cross his desk is not a good bishop. From such flee.
Thought Control (2 out of 8): This one is the least culty area for the Church, IMO.
- Instill Black vs. White, Us vs. Them, & Good vs. Evil thinking. The Church, like most conservative Christian faiths, is certainly prone to black & white thinking and putting things in terms of good vs. evil, but so many members also find this appealing, I’m not sure which is the cause: the members’ desire for easy answers, or the Church’s desire to reduce decisions to polar opposites (either it’s all true or it’s all false!).
- Change your identity, possibly even your name. Nah. I don’t think the “new name” from the temple qualifies as a real identity or name change because it’s not used in this way, in case anyone’s considering going there.
- Use loaded language and cliches to stop complex thought. No. (BTW, Trump is a master at this one). The only thing I can think of is the Primary song “Follow the prophet,” which is one culty-ass song for sure, but still, the issue is the catchiness, like a jingle.
- Induce hypnotic or trance states to indoctrinate. Definite no. General Conference is hardly hypnotic, perhaps boring. If you go back to the Kirtland Temple rites, some of that stuff really qualifies on this one, though. We just don’t do any of that stuff anymore.
- Teach thought-stopping techniques to prevent critical thoughts. Not really. The only thought-stopping technique I could think of was singing a hymn to avoid sexual impulses, or possibly being encouraged to read scripture and pray when faced with doubts. Still, those are standard Christian tropes, not particularly intrusive in one’s mental processes. Individual members prone to scrupulosity will doubtless have bigger issues with this, but I’m not sure it’s intentional on the Church’s part.
- Allow only positive thoughts. I don’t see this. There is a focus on the positive in the Church, but not as extreme as the mind-control techniques used in cults; people are allowed to grieve or be sad, and we talk about depression as a real thing that might require professional help (not just happy thoughts). There are some issues culturally in all Christian faiths to show others how happy people are (even if they aren’t), but that feels like normal social pressure and not the requirement of a cult. The fact that people call Utah County “Happy Valley” does sound a bit culty in light of this one, but I don’t think that’s an overall church culture thing.
- Use excessive meditation, singing, prayer, & chanting to block thoughts. Nope.
- Reject rational analysis, critical thinking, & doubt. Somewhat yes. There is less trust in intellectual and scholarly sources than I’d like to see, but still, that’s not to the level of cult-like control, just intellectual laziness justified by a belief that an unscholarly lay clergy is somehow better. The Church even runs accredited universities which is only possible when non-church scholarship standards prevail.
Emotional Control (6 out of 8): This particular area is one where the Church doesn’t seem to stack up that well, but some of it is doubtless on the members. Do the members create the culture, or does the culture create the members?
- Instill irrational fears (phobias) of questioning or leaving the group. This one really stands out as a yes, and while that’s true of all religious groups, Mormonism creates a bigger sunk cost and has a higher bar to exit than most, since our rites and ordinances don’t convey between sects like many Christian rites do in other faiths. (Parenthetically, this is another way BYU is like a cult, because the CES-taught required religion classes don’t count toward theology degrees at other universities, and the grades still follow you on your transcripts, creating a greater sunk cost, 14 wasted credit hours’ worth, to leave).
- Label some emotions as evil, worldly, sinful, or wrong. Probably a yes, but really just on par with other churches. Churches are in the anti-sin business, so calling things sins is kind of par for the course.
- Teach emotion-stopping techniques to prevent anger, homesickness. No. I don’t think we really do this at all in any organized intentional way. If so, Holland wouldn’t have been ranting on about taffy-pulling.
- Promote feelings of guilt, shame, & unworthiness. I would say yes, but on par with other Christian churches. After all, this is kind of the gist of the atonement, that we aren’t worthy, that we need a savior.
- Shower you with praise and attention (“love bombing”). Yep. This is definitely a technique used for those who are “inactive” in the church, and there’s a real concerted effort. It’s utterly transparent when someone has been deemed a “project.” I suspect this is a technique used by most Evangelical churches, and used less by churches that don’t track attendance or participation as closely.
- Threaten your friends and family. Not in any real menacing way, certainly not temporally threatening them. Like all churches, there’s the ever-present worry about the salvation of non-adherents. Most cults deal in real live threats against those who leave and against their family and friends. There is nothing on par with that in the current Church. You’d have to go back to the Danites to find that type of behavior. Nobody is going to threaten violence to your family if you don’t pay tithing, for example. If you were in the Manson Family, totally different ball of wax.
- Shun you if you disobey or disbelieve. I think this is a mostly yes, once they quit love-bombing you, that is. However, it’s certainly to a lesser degree than in full-throated cults. People acknowledge you exist. There’s not a norm of kicking people out of our lives over it, although some families are over the top.
- Teach that there is no happiness or peace outside the group. A big time yes to this.
Conclusion
Perhaps no group is a perfect 100% match against Hassan’s BITE model (well, except the Moonies which was his first and most intimate encounter with a cult), but from what I can see the Church isn’t much cultier than most other churches, although in its early days it would have been a lot closer. The bigger danger I see is when we intentionally foster a cult-like culture among the membership or when we don’t counter these attitudes as they emerge among our fellow Church members. The attitudes in the Church that really need an anti-cult gut check are:
- Black & white thinking
- Promoting blind obedience to leader or Church commands as opposed to moral reasoning or personal revelation (that can vary by individual)
- Policing others’ behavior, either through social disapproval or tattling to bishops
- Caving in to dress and grooming norms
- Not considering outside sources; deriding non-LDS sources as foolish or wrong
- Deferring to bishops in making personal life decisions
- Not paying attention when changes occur in doctrine or the Church’s party line, allowing PR to claim that nothing has changed when it actually has
- Speaking ill of those who have left or considering them foolish, unhappy or having lost the spirit
- Love-bombing those considered “inactive” to bring them back
- Using testimony bearing to “argue” with critical thinking or thinking this is normal, effective behavior
- Ignoring the validity of people’s feelings and thoughts or labeling doubts as wrong or sinful
In short, any group can become a cult under the right conditions. The more we lean into the above list, the more we act like a cult. People who naturally do these things (or are more autocratic) also promote these types of things within the Church. We should be able to recognize and resist those impulses. The Church should stand or fall on the merits of its doctrines, not through compulsion, emotional manipulation, and exploitation of people’s vulnerabilities.
- Do you think the Church qualifies as a cult using the BITE model? Do you think it is similar to other churches? Do you think the model is useful? How would you rate the Church?
- Do Church members create the culture or does the Church create the culture? (If the answer is both, which holds more sway?)
- Is the term cult overused in your experience? Do you think people are referring to specific people’s behaviors (and applying them to the whole) or are they accurately reflecting how the Church is?
Discuss.
*Coincidental Borg reference, but in this particular case it is totally on point!
Wheat & Tares 
#8 under Information Control: I think you meant “ Kardashians”
Behavior Control #4: Restrict or control sexuality. The church can’t directly control sexuality, although I don’t doubt it would like to! Aside from having a law of chastity and being opposed to adultery (both of which are common to many religions), there’s very little intrusion into sexuality.
I totally disagree. As a gay Mormon, if I do not remain celibate I cannot enter the temple and participate in the highest form of covenant making, a hallmark of celestial exaltation. However, as with heterosexual members, the church does not provide me a way to express my sexuality in a meaningful, acceptable, approved relationship. In essence, I am damned if I do and damned if I don’t.
If this isn’t classified as controlling the sexuality of one specific minority group, then I don’t know what you would call it.
I think the church pretty much started out like 90% cult, but time and societal pressure has forced us to tame down on some cult like practices if we wanted to survive as a church. Our church is about a hundred years older than say the Church of Scientology which “church” I believe is a cult, but like us they may evolve into a much more tolerable organization in a 100 years. On the punishment and rewards, the church still holds strong on this one, ie., excommunication if you teach or do stuff they don’t like, if you marry outside of temple and never do get there you will only reach status of angel and won’t be sealed to family, etc., etc. And, I believe it is the church and it’s leaders who create the culture for sure, and it is time and societal pressure, ( societal, meaning a conglomerate of all the cultures, belief systems etc. that surround us) that influences our leaders to either reinforce or change behavior and culture within our church.
I was born and raised in the Church over 65 years ago. I was excommunicated for apostasy March 30, 2016 (coming up on my 4th anniversary). My last “calling” was that of First Assistant to the High Priest Group Leader, with one responsibility being over group instruction. I have also been a popular Gospel Doctrine Instructor for several years. I only say this to show I was fully indoctrinated yet managed to get myself excommunicated. Exactly how is another story.
I agree with what you’ve presented. We may differ slightly on some points but you’ve done am excellent job of analysis, especially with regard to the BITE model and its application to the Church. I think members can safely consider what you’ve presented without engaging too much cognitive dissonance or displaying too much confirmation bias! 😁
As a high school student, I was attracted to and excelled in the social sciences, but one of the things that ultimately drove me away was the subjectivity of it all (money was admittedly a close second). I’ll admit is was more objective than I thought it would be going in, but there just wasn’t always a meniscus to measure at, or a significant digit to round to. I think defining cults emphasizes this problem more than many other aspects of sociology.
I mentioned this on one of Bishop Bill’s post a few weeks ago that my father, though not strictly a journalist, interviewed many different people over the years. One was a sociological historian of some sort who wasn’t a member if I recall (I was old enough to care about what he was saying but not enough to care to remember his name). According to this guy the Church didn’t technically meet the definition of a cult from day one. Thirty years later, however, I suppose it could by different standards.
I do think it’s overused, and I suppose there are aspects that would make it qualify more according to the BITE method, or less according to others. I actually think we do better than other churches in many aspects. My sister served a mission in the South. She felt people deferred to their pastors as much or more often as LDS do their Bishops, and for more trivial things. Many were in a panic when “The Da Vinci Code” hit theaters, and some were literally running down the street to talk to their pastor. In the Church, I think we’ve seen a movement in the opposite direction, if anything. I see more leaders and even more regular members discouraging visits with the Bishop for all but the most serious matters, and a greater emphasis on reasoning, studying things out on our own, prayer, and personal revelation. When it comes to mortality, I think the Gospel is essentially designed to improve agency. Although it’s kind of a mixed bag, I think the Church ultimately also succeeds in those regards when the teachings are properly understood and applied. I’ve found that true in my own life, and that alone dissuades me from associating it with the word.
p: not a Star Trek fan?
Skdadyl: I agree that control over sexuality is stronger for homosexual members than it is for heterosexual members, in that a homosexual engaging in heterosexual behaviors would be acceptable (against their sexual orientation), but not OK to have an equivalent sex life according to doctrine. It’s less controlling still than my Manson example (who directed sexual activities and partners regardless of orientation), but it certainly meets the Quaker standard–if we want to call Quakers a cult–in that they originally believed all members should strive for celibacy. It’s more intrusive by far than Buddhism (Law of Chastity there amounts to “do not harm others”). So, yes, it’s an intolerable situation for LGBT, but on par with the majority of conservative Christian churches. It’s on equal cult footing with Catholicism and only a hair better than Evangelicalism (in that we “officially” now reject conversion therapy).
I think when using the label cult, we have to distinguish between teachings and other forms of control. All control exists on a continuum. If I tell my kids over and over not to do something, but they know I will mostly ignore it if they do it, it’s a fairly weak form of control. If the new BYU rules were applied broadly across the church, the rules are still potentially stricter for homosexuals (there is still no sanctioned sexual relationship), but it certainly changes the environment. Few heterosexuals are excommunicated for sex outside of marriage (but they may be barred from the temple), and from the examples I know of, this is often the case for LGB members. Any member can run afoul of a bad bishop hell-bent on cleansing the Church, but I don’t think those are the norm outside of BYU bishops.
Not trying to take anything away from what is an interesting discussion among compelling thinkers. Still, aren’t there inherent concerns in a debate over exactly how culty the Mormon church is?
Great post. I’m on the fence with this one. On the one hand, the term “cult” really is overused and it’s a cheap way to insult a group of people/religion that may or may not actually be a cult. So there’s that. I think it’s also a subjective thing. I don’t treat the church as a cult (don’t offer slavish obedience, don’t sacrifice valuable parts of myself in order to “fit in”, don’t sacrifice relationships in order to be a more righteous member, etc.) so to me, church isn’t a cult. However, some of what I see, especially from leadership, is at least cult-like in my opinion. The aforementioned emphasis on obedience, the lies told about church history/leaders, the way the members freak out if someone in their family leaves the church, the emphasis on the importance of eternal families/temple sealings as a way to emotionally blackmail people into staying in the fold, staying married no matter what (even in cases where people would be better off splitting), etc. Those are definitely cultish aspects of the Mormon religion. And I also think doublespeak, somewhat related to your thought control category, is a hallmark of a cult. We’re told “you can find out the truth for yourself” and “use your free agency to make your own decisions”, but the flip side of that, of course, is that if you come to believe in or accept any truth that isn’t Mormon Doctrinal Truth, you’re ostracized. If you study reliable scholarly sources written by people who actually know what they’re talking about, you’re an apostate. If you talk too much about the actually quite radical teachings of Jesus and not enough about correlation, programs, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, etc., you’re marked as an outsider.
All of the above makes me feel we may not necessarily be a cult, but we definitely have cult-like tendencies. And the leader-worship that’s always been a hallmark of this church doesn’t help things either.
The “single charismatic leader” of Mormonism is Joseph Smith, and although he is dead, we still grant him infallible status. This is, of course, a shallow view of Joseph that even he would not have encouraged.
Angela C: The church may not directly control the sexuality/behaviors of the LGBT members, but they do it ‘indirectly’ by restricting access to all the covenants essential for exaltation. I can understand why it is easy for heterosexual folks to view this from an observational position rather than a first hand experience so again I say, try being forced to practice celibacy for 5, 10, 15 years with similar restrictions and eternal consequences and then let’s revisit this conversation. I bet you will see it differently then.
I have read Hassan’s previous cult books, but have been leary of the Trump book. Even though he does say that not all people that voted for Trump are part of his “Cult” it seems to demean half of the country that did. The main item that I think is missing from this discussion is the foundational idea that leads to the other issues is totalitarianism. Meaning do you think you have the one and only truth and are willing to impose your rules on everyone. Robert Lifton who is Hassan’s mentor is the one that develops this idea after studying China thought reform camps. The church has gotten softer on this, but through this lens the early church was very “cultish”. There is a reason that Mormon neighbors were worried about them following Joseph over the laws of the land (even with our AoF). President Nelson’s talk from a year ago is rooted in the Church being the one and only true church. ( it doesn’t matter if you are a good person if you haven’t accepted the gospel themes). So it is still alive and well today but I mostly agree with Stella that the church is softening. I don’t see Hassan linking Trump to full on Totalitarianism. The beauty of our county is the checks and balances we have in place. We assume that people can not be fully trusted and must have limits to their power. (Opposite of totalitarianism) My other thought is around Johnathon Haidt’s book “a righteous mind” where he theorizes that civilization is possible only because of our in group/ out group tendencies, not in spite on them. So we are biologically built to be groupish and the extremism of totalitarianism bring out the cult tendencies.
Skdadyl: I do fully agree with you that the Church’s stance on LGB is untenable and controlling in a completely different degree than it is for cishetero members. I simply see it as on par with many other churches. You have my empathy.
I have to jump in and say that as far as restricting sleep, I wouldn’t write off early morning seminary so easily. Those are very formative years for youth, and the sacrifice of sleep to show devotion to the faith is HUGE. Completing seminary also is a requirement to go to Zion (BYU) and overachieving, perfectionist Mormon youth living outside the Wasatch Front (where release-time is not an option and they feel starved for dense populations of other members) don’t have any other choice if they want to go to God’s Own School. People who give those 4 years away to early morning seminary have lots of sunk costs and will be more likely to stay, IMO. This said by one who is probably still suffering from sleep-deprived trauma from 25 years ago….
“CULT!” is one of those ridiculing accusations screamed from the great and spacious building. I am far more interested in whether the gospel and church are true than whether my fealty to them is viewed as “cultish” by non-believers.
As Tom Wolfe once said, “A cult is a religion with no political power.”
Bryan- all cult members believe they have the real truth. They are kept from looking at other sources and outside sources are taught as not trustworthy. So by looking at another group that claims to have the truth is one way Hassan proposes for others to evaluate if they are in a cult.
Jessica: Believe me, I totally agree with your views on the tension between EMS and REM which I have posted about many times. Spotty seminary attendance (although with makeup work) was probably the reason my daughter did not get into BYU which means that all my sunk cost tithing dollars will now go to help other people’s kids’ tuition stay ridiculously low, while I will have to pay at least double for my daughter to attend elsewhere (our in state is roughly twice BYU’s cost). She had a 33 ACT and a 3.8 GPA, even though her early morning seminary has killed sleep for her and both parents for 3.5 years. I am a firm hater of early morning seminary, and it’s completely unfair to make it a condition when some kids have release time. A woman from our stake who isn’t even a paid teacher may have sunk her application by giving her a lukewarm endorsement. That’s arbitrary and unfair, but that’s what BYU admissions have become since I attended in the late 80s.
Ryanprun: I tend to agree that the Cult of Trump is partly hyperbole (hence this post). He uses the word cult rather freely, and even his BITE model feels like every individual item on the scale should be considered on a continuum. The military is probably more of a cult than most churches, for example, if you use the BITE model, and it exerts much higher control and punishments for non-conformity. All organizations have “opinions” about things like dress & grooming, sex, positive thinking, etc., but how strongly do they enforce these things and what are the consequences for non-compliance? That’s the sliding scale where things are either authoritarian or more open.
Bryan: The gospel is true in that it works to create better outcomes in society and in people’s lives. The church is only true insofar as it does likewise. Sometimes the church acts as the great and spacious building, sometimes the iron rod, sometimes the mists of darkness, sometimes the tree of life. If you can’t see examples of all these behaviors within the church, I suspect you aren’t paying attention. Focus on the gospel, and you’ll be just fine. Fealty to human organizations is always fraught.
Great post, I agree with your assessments of our cultyness. I am listening to Volume 1 of Saints, even though it’s meant to be faith-promoting, we sounds an awful lot like a cult in the story. I think we’ve been slowly getting away from a lot of those elements. I like that we’ve toned down the rhetoric around garments and I expect that trend will continue until the point that people can wear them if they want but are not required to (which is my view now) or only wear them in the temple. I do think our leader worship and requirements for devotion and obedience to the institution are problematic and hope we can soften that rhetoric. I feel like so many talks in conference are about why we should listen to our leaders instead of giving such great talks and insights that people will want to listen and follow on their own with out being told they have to.
Before I could come and give my main comment, Brother Sky already beat me to it. That of “we have cult-like tendencies.” I don’t think it is if we have a 6.45 on a scale of 10 then something is not a cult, but if you move to 6.55 your are now a cult. And I think there is quite a bit of variance in location and individuals. I swear some people actually want to be a member of a cult where they can show, “there isn’t ANYTHING I wouldn’t do to show you how converted I am.”
One area not covered is missions. They have just backed off on the “controlling communication” A BIT. Members may think it is so different after that last changes, but most people would still think it is crazy that your 18 year-old missionary son in another country can only make contact with you once a week for an hour. I think if you re-run the numbers on the BITE model when you are a missionary, there are several that move more towards the cult end of the spectrum and I am not sure if any move back the other way toward moderation.
I also agree with Jessica on the sleep issue outside of Utah. Seminary wasn’t the only issue that pushed this as our culture does not value sleep enough, but it sure started me off in a pattern where I believed sleep was secondary to getting things done. It wasn’t until I was in my 50’s (and no longer had to wake up to take kids to seminary) that I realized how much better you feel when you get a good nights rest night after night.
I grew up outside of Utah and as a youth was troubled by people characterizing the church as a cult. I read somewhere that any organization with over a million members couldn’t be a cult (presumably because you can’t fool a million people). When the church hit the million-member mark I breathed a sigh of relief.
I agree that the church does some culty stuff, but it is far from cult status. With my new relationship with the church, it does feel pretty good to be away from some of the “control” that I feel rises to the definition of unrighteous dominion. Still, I cringe a little every time I hear a postmo call the church a cult as it feels unreasoned and reactionary.
Thanks for the great post.
Woman opens door: “Who is it?”
Young man in wrinkled white shirt and too long tie: “We’re missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, now 37% less cult like!”
Woman closes door: “No thank you.”
I will add one problematic culty area is our reliance on authority and asking for permission to do things and not trusting on our inner authority. Jennifer Finnlayson-Fife, sex therapist, has said that a lot of her therapy work involves married people asking for permission to do different things in the bedroom. With our strict norms and policing of personal behavior, we have created a structure where adults don’t feel like they can make their own decisions, which is problematic. I have family members who have lamented that a vasectomy would have made so much sense for their family and they wish they could do it, but the Church handbook says it is discouraged, so they will keep marching on like good soldiers using inconvenient birth control. Taking back my inner authority has been one of the most liberating things about entering middle age. I think this still scares the crap out of the Church and thinking for yourself is really discouraged over the pulpit.
If we were asked in General Conference to crab walk to the top of Mt. Timpanogos, my mother-in-law would start immediately making a plan for how her and the whole family could do it.
felixfabulous, I would argue that the issue you’re describing relates to certain members of the church but does not relate to all or even most members and certainly does not describe the church as an institution. When has thinking for yourself ever been discouraged over the pulpit? If you have some examples, I’d love to hear them. I know a lot of men in the church (I would even say most that I know who are over a certain age) who have had a vasectomy even though it is officially discouraged. They have no issue with thinking for themselves.
Married couples who think they can’t do what they want in the bedroom? Why? Where are they getting that from? Not from the church. Policing of personal behavior? Who’s doing that? If some members of the church feel like they can’t make their own decisions and have to ask permission to do things, that’s on them and not the church. That’s certainly not an issue for most members. I do feel sorry for members who feel that way, but if that’s only an issue for some members and not all or even most members, you can’t blame the church.
BeenThere, I also grew up outside of Utah and heard a lot of people from other religions call the church a cult but it was never for the reasons Angela is describing. Most people who call us a cult do it because we’re different and to them any church that’s different must be a cult, because someone else told them we’re a cult and they don’t know any better, or they do it as a fear tactic to keep people away from us. People with any sense who know anything about us know that we’re not a cult but that won’t stop them from using that term anyway.
But see, e.g., the letter from THE FIRST PRESIDENCY dated January 5, 1982 to all stake, mission, and branch presidents, bishops, etc, stating
“Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices…The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”
While a follow-up letter in October 1982 instructed bishops not to inquire into intimate matters, the labeling in the January letter has never since been further clarified or rescinded.
DB, I agree that this does not apply to all members, but think it is more prevalent than we would like to acknowledge. I think members are free to and encouraged to think for themselves in a lot of areas of their lives except when it comes to doctrine, following church leaders and keeping commandments. A few examples, D&C 89 is a beautiful general health guideline “sent by greeting, not by command or constraint.” For many years the pressing questions were “can we drink Coke?” “Can we drink green tea?” “Can we drink decaf?” There has been some recent clarity on these strict rules, but the nature of strict guidelines has people asking for permission and more clarity. People are told they have to keep the WOW to get a recommend, so we want to know exactly what the rules are and often don’t. Every two years TR holders are asked if they wear the authorized underwear and, until recently, if they wore it day and night and were even read a statement about how they were not to remove it for yardwork. The language in the temple instructs patrons to wear the garment throughout their lives and gives no covenants or guidelines regarding day and night. Again, this gets people asking bishops, temple presidents, etc., for exemptions to wearing garments for rashes, yeast infections and other health problems, when the decision should be personal the whole time and not require any kind of reliance on authority. But, we’ve set up a system where the authority figures ask you about these things and the stakes are high because your temple recommend and standing in the Church depends on it.
When a friend of mine went in for her marriage temple recommend the stake president told her that the only thing forbidden in the bedroom was anal sex. There used to be a prohibition on oral sex, briefly in the 80s. In earlier eras recreational sex with married couples and birth control were strongly condemned. So, there is presently some confusion on the rules which causes people asking for clarification and permission. Can married people masturbate? etc.
I think with these personal behavior issues and things like looking at controversial Church history and doctrinal changes over the years, thinking for yourself is discouraged and members are told things like “if you have to ask, you probably shouldn’t do it . . . ” and to learn by the spirit by relying on faithful sources, etc.
DB – I have to push back on your comment of:
Married couples who think they can’t do what they want in the bedroom? Why? Where are they getting that from? Not from the church.
I disagree. Maybe it is because I am mid 50’s, I remember items such as gen conference talks chiding birth control as evil. I heard about Mark E Peterson saying, “I’ve been married to my wife for 44 years, and never once have seen her body uncovered” (poor wife!). The declaration that oral sex was evil (and many SP’s kept preaching about it as mine did across the pulpit in 1998 in stake priesthood meeting).
And I do think it goes beyond these statements. It is the “fear” that “the natural man” takes over. The licked cupcake, the chewed gum, the nail in the board analogies were so damaging. They may not be aimed at sex within marriage, but it is hard to go from it being “next to murder” then be ready to get it on after a few hours in the temple. I think if you even talk with most any marriage therapist that deal with LDS clients, I think they are going to disagree with you that the church has no part.
To be clear on how I view it, it is not the church alone that makes us nervous about sex. But the church does create individuals much more on the side of being concerned about lines to be crossed. And I think quite a lot has to do with parents and how they act and talk (or not talk) about sex.
So you’re telling me that the totality of the evidence that the church dictates married couples sexual intimacy is a single statement from a letter written almost 40 years ago, that was only sent to leadership and not to general membership and was not an official statement, that contains the opinion of the First Presidency about a single, particular sexual act? That’s it? Seriously? I stand by what I previously wrote.
DB – if you are commenting to me, then I would ask that you read my entire comment before responding.
I gave more than one example and I can find more, but getting into counting the statements is not something I am interested in. Also clearly said, “And I do think it goes beyond these statements”.
I can respect that you feel the church does not “dictate” what acts can/can’t be done. Good for you and I can believe that you are honest and this could be the case in your situation.
I have not argued that it was just “dictating” from church leaders that is at issue.
I have had a different experience and I mentioned where my SP told us that “the first presidency has clarified that oral sex is not appropriate” and he stated that he has the memo on this. I have also seen enough proof with other individuals that for some church teachings absolutely has put fears in them that prevent them from having freedom in marriage bed.
HappyHubby, I don’t consider Mark Peterson’s preference that his wife be clothed or random statements from various stake presidents to be representative of the church. Likewise, I don’t consider random statements from various bishops, seminary teachers, etc., to be representative of the church. If some people do consider those to be official teachings of the church, that’s their perception, not the church’s. All that I’ve seen is that single obscure statement from almost 40 years ago.
The topic of this post is about the cultishmess of the church based on it’s control of members including behavior control which includes control of sexual intimacy. I was originally responding to felixfabulous’ comment about married couples who feel like they need to ask permission to do certain things in the privacy of their bedroom. Why do they feel that way? It’s not the church. The church gives the same message to all members. Even though we all receive the same instruction and same guidance from the church, a minority will feel like they aren’t allowed to think for themselves while the vast majority do not feel that way. The difference in those two groups is not the church because the church is the same for both groups. The difference is in each group’s perception of the church.
If another member of the church tells me that the church does not allow him to be intimate with his wife the way he wants to and I tell him that the church has no control over my relationship with my wife, which of us is correct? If you say we both are, I would agree with you, because it has nothing to do with the church, it’s all about our perception of the church. When someone says that the church tries to control their marital intimacy, what they really mean is that their perception of the church is controlling their marital intimacy, because I go to the same church and it doesn’t try to control me. After all, the only thing that’s come from the church is some obscure statement from almost 40 years ago.
The church doesn’t control anyone. If someone thinks the church controls them, that’s really their perception that’s controlling them. If the church did control its members, one could expect that it would control all or at least most of its members, but that’s clearly not the case. It certainly doesn’t control me and I hope anyone reading this does not allow their perceptions of the church to control them either.
DB, to take it back to the original post, it’s all about cults, which, by definition exert undue influence and control on people. The question is, to what extent does the Church do this? I don’t believe the Church is a cult, but believe we are guilty of exerting undue influence and control on people in certain areas, such as sexuality. Your argument that the Church doesn’t control someone, it’s just their perception that controls them is entirely the point of the cult discussion and why they are unhealthy. Why didn’t the Manson family members just leave Spahn Ranch or tell Manson to pound sand when he gave his orders? Why didn’t Elizabeth Smart just leave when she was dragged around Salt Lake? That is the common question people ask about unhealthy organizations, why don’t people just leave or ignore the unhealthy parts? It’s due to the undue influence and control that they exert on people. I don’t think the Church is a cult and doesn’t do this the same way other cults do, but I certainly think there are many controlling and unhealthy elements that are worth discussing. If people are controlled in unhealthy ways, blaming the people who are controlled can be healthy in examining why we don’t think for ourselves and let others influence us, but the organization doing the controlling also needs to be held accountable.
felixfabulous, I entirely agree with you, especially about examining an organization’s relationship with its members and how it influences its members. When we discuss control or how a group exerts influence over others, we really to discuss how that influence is done before we call it controlling. Control can be such a vague term if not properly described. Certainly the way the church influences its members is very different from the way Charles Manson or Elizabeth Smart’s captors exerted their influence.
I’m the oldest of seven kids. The birth of the youngest nearly killed my mom.
When I was 17 (1977) I went to fetch the .22 pistol from my parents’ closet – top shelf. I found a box of condoms.
I thought my folks were going to hell. They were “artificially curtailing” the number of children – a Handbook policy at the time.
The church did – and does – tell you how to think and feel on hundreds of issues. You have a choice, but going against counsel and policy bring internal shame and guilt. That does go away easily with a policy change or following your own heart and mind.
Correction:
Shame and guilt does NOT go away easily . . ..
As a teenager in 80s Britain I heard the cult accusation more than a few times, and The Godmakers was shown over here too. For sure we don’t help ourselves sometimes. Part of that might be the luck of the draw as to which GA has charge of the area of the world we’re living in, and to what extent local leaders are inclined to jump when instructed or push back, and whether they’re heard if they do push back.
On charisma, I find I tend to distrust charisma.
BeenThere and others, one of the points that I’m trying to get across is that everyone should realize that their experience and perception of the church, while completely valid and real, is not the same as everyone else in the church. Other members will have very different experiences and perceptions of the church which are equally valid and real. Your perception is that the church tells us how to think and feel about things, but my perception is that while the church does counsel us on what we should and should not do it does not tell us how to think and feel about things. So what’s the difference? It’s not the church because the church is the same for both of us. The difference is our perception and we should all allow ourselves to acknowledge that there are vast differences in perceptions among so many members of the church. So then what we should all ask ourselves is why do we have the perception of the church that we have when others have such different perceptions?
If one member says that he never got a vasectomy because the church doesn’t allow it but so many other members do get vasectomies, the member that didn’t certainly can’t blame the church for his decision. If some couples limit what they do together in the bedroom while so many others enjoy their couple time however they want, the couples who limit themselves certainly can’t blame the church for their decision. If some couples continue to get pregnant in order to have a large family even if doing so is likely to kill the mother when most couples limit the number of children they have, the couples who continue to have kids certainly can’t blame the church for their decisions. Our decisions are our decisions, the church does not control us.
Sorry, DB, but I cannot absolve the organization of some responsibility. This is not just a matter of perception, or, if it is, then the church bears some responsibility for not stepping in when they know toxic perceptions run rampant. Your efforts to create a bright line between what the church counsels and how that should make us feel strikes me as obtuse. When the church defines how the ideal family should look and behave, is that not going to create thoughts and feelings about other forms of commitment, i.e., gay marriages, interracial marriages, couples unable to have children? When the church claims to be the only true religion on earth, is that not going to create thoughts and feelings among members about other faiths? When the church excommunicates people for publishing historical information that differs with the church line, is that not going to create thoughts and feelings about the importance of obedience and only reading approved materials?
On the passive side, when the leadership does nothing to combat urban myths about people of color, when it publicly acknowledges Joseph Smith’s polygamy only because of the internet, when D&C 132 is not extricated from the canon, the church is saying a lot about how it would like people to think and feel. When Dallin Oaks makes jokes about the tremendous insecurity and fear women experience at the prospect of eternal polygamy, they church is making a statement about how they should think and feel.
Use of the word ‘cult’ is one thing and people can differ about whether or not the Mormon church qualifies. That the church has a stake in how members think and feel, however, strikes me as plainly true.
DB – I think I tried (more than once if I recall) to say that how YOU experienced the church is valid and I am not going to say you are wrong.
I think where we may be in disagreement is that if each of our perceptions reflect the minority or majority (or even just
a plurality) . I certainly was making the case that the amount of control/coercion in some areas great and I get the feeling you are not saying that my perception for me was wrong, but I was over projecting.
Short of digging into survey data – we can agree that each of our perceptions is our perception and we disagree on how those project to most others. I don’t think that me commenting more will be benefit anyone.
Happy Hubby, I absolutely agree that each of our perceptions is our own valid perception and that is really the point of my argument. If the church were controlling its members, or had some measure of control, one would expect to see a great majority of the membership behaving and thinking the same way about most topics that the church touches upon. However, I think we both agree that’s not the case because within the church there is great variance among the membership as to how to behave and think. To me, that variance among the membership is evidence that the church does not control its members. The presence of differing opinions is evidence of the absence of control. Also, does anyone reading this actually believe that they can’t think for themselves because the church controls their thoughts and behaviors?
@DB if we were cult members we wouldn’t think that ;-).