I know what you’re expecting, but that’s not what this post is about. Here’s what it’s about, an article from The Hill: “GOP becoming a cult of know-nothings.” So the way to end the phrase in my post title is: You might be in a cult if you are a Republican. The author of the article is William Schneider, an emeritus prof of public policy at GMU and a long-time political commentator, so he’s not just spouting off; he actually knows what he’s talking about. So let’s talk about what he’s talking about. I’ll probably throw in a Mo app paragraph or two at the end, but I’m sure most readers can connect the dots for themselves, either to the square titled “yup, maybe I’m in a hundred-billion-dollar cult that meets on Sunday and does worldwide broadcasts twice a year” or to the square titled “nope, it’s just a church with an overactive youth and missionary program.”
Let’s look at the article, a five-minute read. First paragraph:
The Republican Party is becoming a cult. Its leaders are in thrall to Donald Trump, a defeated former president who refuses to acknowledge defeat. Its ideology is MAGA, Trump’s deeply divisive take on what Republicans assume to be unifying American values.
I think the key word here is ideology. One thing about cults is there is a loosely tied group of ideas or themes or key words that guides adherents. The ideology doesn’t have to be logically defensible, or factually correct, or coherent, or stable over time. To outsiders, the cult ideology looks and sounds rather loony, subject to the standard complaint “how could anyone believe that?” even as thousands or millions quite obviously do believe that.
Second paragraph:
The party is now in the process of carrying out purges of heretics who do not worship Trump or accept all the tenets of MAGA. Conformity is enforced by social media, a relatively new institution with the power to marshal populist energy against critics and opponents.
The key word here is heretics. Every cult needs enemies. They help to distract adherents from the incoherent and shifting ideology, for one thing. They also serve to animate and unify the faithful. The really distinguishing feature, as suggested by the term “heretics,” is that the enemies are often some of the adherents themselves, not outsiders or actual opponents of the cult. Outsiders and opponents may not take the cult seriously enough to publicly oppose it or even to notice it. Cults go after their own.
Here’s a paragraph from halfway down the article:
The roots of the current right-wing extremism lie in the late 1960s and 1970s, when Americans began to be polarized over values (race, ethnicity, sex, military intervention). Conflicts of interest (such as business versus labor) can be negotiated and compromised. Conflicts of values cannot.
I guess the key terms here are extremism and values. A cult is a brand of extremism that takes institutional form or that somehow infects and takes over an existing institution. It could be a religion or a congregation. It could be a political party or movement. I suppose it could be a business or a military unit or a team. And values are tied to the ideology. The ideology revolves not around policies or programs — these are too detailed, too rational, and may be at some point be seen as ineffective or failing. Values are malleable and useful. They can even be tied to actions or beliefs that are, on closer examination, antithetical to the claimed value. But few adherents subject the cult values to closer examination or puzzle over the often poor match between professed cult values and actual beliefs and actions of the institution. Loyalty. Patriotism. Strength. Prosperity. Purity. The family.
Here’s a paragraph that brings in the religious angle:
Oddly, religion has become a major force driving the current wave of right-wing extremism. Not religious affiliation (Protestant versus Catholic) but religiosity (regular churchgoers versus non-churchgoers). That’s not because of Trump’s religious appeal (he has none) but because of the Democratic Party’s embrace of secularism and the resulting estrangement of fundamentalist Protestants, observant Catholics and even orthodox Jews.
Key term: fundamentalist. Which helps us understand why Mormons are disproportionately fans of Trump (adherents of the Trump/Republican cult): because the Church practices a lot of religious fundamentalist black/white, good/evil, us/them non-thinking, which carries over oh-so-easily to political cult non-thinking. This also explains why some Mormons energetically resist the Trump/Republican cult: because not all of us are fundamentalists. Note I’m using “fundamentalist” in the general sense, not the narrower LDS polygamy sense.
Here’s the final paragraph, which winds things up nicely and shows why the discussion is not just theoretical but is very relevant:
The 2024 election could be a rematch between Trump and Biden. Or a race between Trump and a black woman. Or between Trump and a gay man with a husband and children. Lee Drutman, a political scientist at the New America think tank, recently told The New York Times, “I have a hard time seeing how we have a peaceful 2024 election after everything that’s happened now. I don’t see the rhetoric turning down. I don’t see the conflicts going away. … It’s hard to see how it gets better before it gets worse.”
Key idea: cults don’t end well, often going up in a literal pile of flames. Think David Koresh. Think Jim Jones. Think Hitler in his bunker at the end. Which is a strong hint the LDS Church isn’t a cult, as it is continuing, not ending, and it is continuing very well. People still join. The Church owns half of Florida (slight exaggeration). Hundred-billion-dollar fund. There is simply no scenario where the LDS Church goes up in flames. The scariest thing about the emergence and rise of the Trump/Republican cult is just this ugly fact: Cults don’t end well. Trump’s first term ended up with the January 6 attempted coup, supported (but not successfully executed) by a lot of chaotic and frankly hare-brained scheming by Trump and some of his close associates. His second term would probably end in something like a civil war. If Trump’s a candidate in 2024, I’m buying guns and ammo, spending time at the shooting range with some of my gun friends, and seriously looking into which Canadian province is a good refuge. I’m thinking northern BC would work. Or maybe Vancouver Island.
That Other Alleged Cult
There are religious cults, of course. I read the book Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief (Knopf, 2013) a few years back. Now that’s a cult. I suppose you could say that’s an extreme cult, and try to argue that the LDS Church is a mild cult or a church that’s a little bit cultish, but that seems like just a way to put the “cult” label on an outfit that just isn’t a cult. Contrast the stories of the extreme measures an involved Scientologist has to take to get out of the organization (read the book for examples) with what a Mormon has to do to leave the Church: you can do it informally by just not attending anymore and saying “No” about three dozen times to phone calls and emails. Or you can send a verified letter. It’s not that tough.
There’s a counter-argument, of course. Using terms from the above discussion, you can argue that the Church has an ideology (various doctrines, policies, and values); it identifies heretics and enemies; and it employs fundamentalist thinking. To that extent, maybe it’s a mild cult. But real cults don’t last two hundred years and don’t get bigger and wealthier every decade for two hundred years.
A more relevant argument here is the extent to which the Trump/Republican cult has damaged the Church. And let’s be honest: The emergence of a Trump/Republican cult has damaged the Church. You can see it in the nutty statements you hear from some of your fellow ward members. You can see it in the long delay in 2020 before LDS leaders issued their standard statement of congratulation to the newly elected US President. You can see it in the carefully hedged statements made by LDS leaders about masking and vaccines over the last year. You can see it in the reaction of most conservative LDS who, after decades of complaining that liberal-leaning members use a cafeteria approach to LDS doctrine and policy, suddenly find themselves doing the same thing.
And so the next round of discussion, after acknowledging that the Trump/Republican cult has damaged the Church, is: Can the Church recover? That’s a serious question. It’s obvious now that society will never get back to the “old normal,” and it is not clear what the “new normal” is going to be. Getting there is an ugly and messy process. What is the Church’s “new normal” going to be? I think that masks and social distancing in sacrament meeting aren’t the real story here. Those practices may come and go at various stakes, depending on local circumstances and local leadership (and there are lots of Trumpers in LDS local leadership; in some places it’s almost a requirement). I’m talking about the unseen but real changes in the culture and the thinking and the discourse, imported into LDS culture from the Trump/Republican cult. I’m sure some readers have felt the change and are no longer excited or interested or even comfortable attending LDS church services these days. Because the Church is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost.
Wheat & Tares 
I think one key step church leadership can take is to continue to add more and more international and multiethnic representation in the church leadership. Make the point clear the nationalism is anti-Christ. Also, scale back the gender essentialism.
I usually hesitate to comment on politics on Wheat and Tares but I get a little tired of the anti-Republican tilt here. It’s true that with respect to LDS members, we see more cult-like behavior on the right than on the left…again, among LDS. So I’ll give you that.
But on a national scale among the general population, I see cult-like behavior on both sides of the political spectrum. The Trumpers and the AOC progressives have more in common than they each like to admit. The R party is much more to the right than it used to be (with a populist angle now) and the D party is much more liberal than it used to be (with an elitist angle now). Could Bush 41 or 43 get the R nomination if alive today? Could Bill Clinton get the D nomination in today’s Dem party?
The political spectrum is not a line left to right. It’s a circle. And the most extreme elements of the liberals look very much like the extreme elements of the conservatives. Fanatics have more in common than they might want to believe and here’s a great example to illustrate my point: the two most significant political lies told in my adult lifetime were that (A) Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election and (B) that the 2020 election was stolen by Biden. The result of A and B is that the majority of Republicans and Democrats view US elections with suspicion. The Russian collusion narrative was invented by associates of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The stolen election narrative was invented by Trump and associates. Both narratives are lies and both reflect how the two parties have been hijacked.
I hope there’s room for economic conservatives who are socially moderate (me) but I don’t see it in either party. Both are cults now.
Can the Church recover? I think so. The Church (and religion in general) is a living, breathing organism and it must evolve and adapt to survive. The Church will still be around in some form or another, long after Trump is gone. Devout Trumpers will still be present in church at the local level, but their influence will wane as they get older and their views become less relevant and less tolerated. If the presidency of RMN has taught us one thing, it’s that the Church is capable of drastic change depending on who’s in the top spot…though I am a bit concerned about what will happen when Bednar eventually rises to the presidency.
I saw a post over at Times and Seasons about how the future of the church is orthodox because the people that tend to become disaffected and leave are the more progressive, nuanced and left-leaning members. I think there is something to that, and so the question of whether the church will “recover” from Trump/Republican cultism is the wrong question. Most members wouldn’t see that kind of cultism as something to recover from in the first place; they’d see it as a natural part of what Mormonism has become. So the church will likely drift further to the right and further into cultism, but the members won’t mind. It may be that the core, active membership will shrink a bit more, but it’s hardly likely the Mormon Church will go the way of the Shakers, or the Branch Davidians, for that matter (not that I would equate those two).
I might disagree a bit on just how cultish the church has become. You’re right that proper cults don’t last as long as the church has; they’re in the main less sustainable and more short-lived than religions. That being said, there are a lot of cultish elements in the Mormon Church: a deeply embedded tendency towards leader worship (leaders both past and present), an emphasis on obedience rather than on free will, the high social cost of expressing contrary beliefs or embracing healthy contemporary views on things like gender and feminism, and the relatively high costs of being considered a member in good standing (believe the same as everyone else or else stay silent, pay money, have the right kind of marriage/family, make God more important than family, etc.). I am personally not comfortable attending church these days. I still do because I do have friends at church that I like seeing and keeping in touch with, but the way the church has retrenched and doubled down on a lot of things that simply aren’t true has made church an unpleasant experience. Boring lessons and talks don’t help either. IMHO, the church has lost a lot of the vitality it had 40 years ago when I was an investigator, but I don’t think it cares about that as long as it has enough obedient followers.
@Josh H, I think that there is proof that a moderate Democrat can indeed get the Democrat nomination because, well, Biden did – not Warren or Sanders and obviously not AOC who was not even close to being in the running. So your question has already been answered and it’s not an answer that serves your point.
I agree there are extremes on both ends but as tired as you may be of anti-Republicanism I am tired of both sidesism.
How many AOC’s are there in Congress? In your ward? In the mainstream Democratic Party?
How many Trumpers are there in Congress? In your ward? In the mainstream Republican Party?
I think it’s a really fair question whether it’s fair to lump “Republicans” with “Trumpism” as I know a lot of Republicans who hate him and who voted for Biden in 2020. But in my observation, extremism is much more widespread among the Republican Party than Democrats and I think it’s the mainstreaming of extremism among conservatives that is alarming to many. There will -*always* be a fringe but it’s the shifting of the center of gravity of the Republican Party to the far right that’s the issue and I do not think the same case can be made for the left.
And say what you will about AOC but at least she’s not a white supremacist who takes her cues from the left equivalent of Alex Jones and Steve Bannon (who would that even be?) and thinks it’s OK to “grab ‘em by the pussy” so again – not the same. Just not.
(Oh yeah I’d also say that WAY fewer democrats paid attention to “Russia and Trump colluded in 2016” and those people also didn’t storm the capital BTW. Not. Same. Equating those is not helpful.)
As for the Church, I think most people would prefer “high demand religion” terminology to cult given the baggage that comes with the word. I’ll just say that if you take one of the “cult tests” about the church and answer honestly it scores pretty high. Leave that there for everyone.
The timing of this post made me chuckle when I read it this morning:
I’ve lived in Northern BC. (Just to clarify, did you mean geographically, or what the Lower Mainland ie. Vancouver *calls* Northern BC? Because they think the entire top 2/3 of the province is the “north”).
I currently live on Vancouver Island. What are you looking for in terms of refuge? If low house prices are part of that equation, I hate to be the bearer of bad news… But if weather is a consideration, may I recommend our Zone 8, Mediterranean climate?
Politically, British Columbia is quite left, but I’m grappling a bit with church culture here. Many members in my ward have connections to small-town Southern Alberta and they’ve imported that “jello belt” culture wholesale. It’s so strange that church is more B&W and far less nuanced here than even the majority of Alberta. I suppose the American equivalent would be moving from a more progressive part of Utah to California and finding “when the prophet has spoken the thinking is done” mentality. It’s been a shock, frankly. On the flip side, stake policy is that if you can’t wear a mask to Sacrament meeting, you’re the one staying home watching on Zoom.
My DIL is from Idaho and loves it up here. She’s trying to convince her siblings to come up as well and one recently said to her, “If Trump gets elected in 2024, I’ll seriously consider it.” Will the Church heal? I desperately hope so. The US is a cultural behemoth and it’s influencing us as well. Our politics is getting meaner and more divisive as well.
I liked Josh H’s comment. I guess that is why it has gotten so many thumbs down votes. My own two cents’ worth is somewhat cranky.
In a pinch, I would choose AOC over Marjorie Taylor Green. Her politics are vile, but she seems a decent, if self-righteous movement politician. But Marjorie Taylor Green is…..well, in addition to being politically vile, she is also just plain deranged. Rothschilds causing California forest fires.
Pointing out the problems that both left and right have is not both-sideism. The biggest danger right now is from the deranged right. But after their inevitable collapse (and I insist that the alt-right movement will fall as it gets ever more absurd), the alt-left will come to the fore. Just look at the recent elections in Seattle, very liberal place, where the voters finally got tired of wacko antics from the left, and actually—gasp—elected a moderate Republicans.
I like problem solvers—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney with the Republicans—and Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema with the Democrats. You know they are doing something right when the fanatics in their own respective parties hate them.
In local Utah politics, I like Romney, Cox, and Curtis. Also Jenny Wilson, SLC County Executive, a Democrat. I will vote for whomever runs against Captain Moroni and Burgess, assuming that the Democrats can summon the sense to nominate someone in their right minds.
In the Church, I (not too seriously) fantasize about mass excommunication of anti-vaxers, people who think Trump won, and people who won’t wear masks in Church. Not very Christian of me, but even RMN knows as a surgeon that cancers need to be removed.
I was born in Germany shortly after WW2, and saw first-hand the terrible results of fanaticism—from the destruction caused by the Nazis, and the 20 percent of East Germany that fled the workers’ paradise. The Nazis were of course worse, but when a country has to put up a wall to keep its own people from leaving, something is wrong.
I mistrust people who promise paradise, if only we could get rid of (fill in the blank).
Jack Hughes: “I am a bit concerned about what will happen when Bednar eventually rises to the presidency.” Will he rise to it, or will it fall to him?
I’ve occasionally observed that the Church isn’t a cult, but some members haven’t got the memo. There are quite a few who behave as if it IS a cult.. As to the bothsidesism about Republicans / Democrats, I agree with Elisa that it’s not equivalent at all because it’s not really about the Republican party per se–it’s about the Trump party which has taken over the Republican party. The Republican party doesn’t know it yet, but they no longer exist as a cohesive party. Trumpism is a cult of personality and must be willing to believe and spread his lies. There are cult-like causes among Democrats, and perhaps this is what you referred to. There are things that can’t be questioned, ideals, norms, etc. Those could be called culty.
Within the Church, aside from the GOP-leaning folks who are rampant, the most culty thing I’m seeing currently is the requirement that people get into fights over “Mormon,” which is the actual dumbest hill to die on.
Taiwan Missionary: Kyrsten Sinema, a problem solver?? Puh-lease! The only problem she’s interested in is getting into bed with Big Pharma. She’s a rank opportunist whose opinions change constantly, following whoever’s waving money in front of her face at the moment. I voted for her, and I will never do so again. I dislike Manchin’s stance on paid leave, and he clearly has personal conflicts of interest with the environmental agenda (that his state also has), but at least he had a stance and was willing to talk with other legislators about it, not just play stupid games to get press coverage. Sinema is simply the worst.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
josh h, comments across the spectrum are welcome. Note that I wrote the post with both sides of the “cult / not a cult” LDS question open and available. I think there is less latitude for the direction of the Republican Party as taken over by Trump and those who embrace or simply knuckle under to his bullying tactics and self-aggrandizing agenda. In the long run, history will judge. In the short run, we need to defend the basic procedures of free and fair elections, rule of law, and civilized political behavior.
Jack Hughes said, “If the presidency of RMN has taught us one thing, it’s that the Church is capable of drastic change depending on who’s in the top spot.” True, but I would think Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks, both strong personalities with professional backgrounds (hence a well defined sense of ethics and professional conduct, likely to be appalled by the complete lack of same in Trump) are more likely than any other set of leaders to forcefully oppose the Trumpification of the Church. But they have not done so, largely out of fear of offending church-going and tithe-paying LDS Trumpers. So if leadership is the key to the Church recovering or even to stop the moral decline — then we’ve had it. I place more hope in a grass roots movement (attendance declines, tithing reductions. youth defections, and so forth) than anything from the leadership.
Margot, I’m thinking of anything north of the Vancouver to Hope corridor. A little cabin a few miles outside Kamloops or Prince George would suit me fine.
Angela C:
To quote Voltaire, in my (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) response to your comment:
I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.
We can agree to disagree, even with a pejorative “puh-lease.” I have never known that “word” to enhance discussion. I prefer enfilading my opponents from behind well-fortified corners…..
Back to being serious, as to Sinema and Manchin, I would rather have corrupt moderates from both sides, than ideological purists. Show me a politician who has not made ethical compromises or changed his or her views.I do not think it can be done. Some are supposedly more “pure” than others, but the most dangerous person in the world is the one who thinks that God is on his or side.
To put it in a Church perspective, the reason that SWK received his revelation about ending the priesthood, was that he was humble enough to question his own beliefs. Hard to imagine RMN doing that.
During the past couple decades in the United States, the broadcasting arm of the institution that manages the wealth of the congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ, decided to invest in promoting “conservative” values over radio waves. The cultural Mormon corridor was showered by radio talk shows (Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, etc.), who grew audiences by attacking anything “liberal.” National media followed suit. So for more than a generation, the institution has indirectly poisoned the congregation with contentious polemic in the name of conservative values. The agenda-makers somewhere in the middle-administration of the institution that manages the congregation of the Church of Jesus Christ, sought to employ state-department-like tactics [radio free model] fueled by conservative rhetoric to better align with the nutball evangelical right wing Christian prosperity gospel.
The pollution of politic is so pervasive that many LDS in the United States today can no longer see, hear, taste, touch, or speak, outside of a “conservative vs liberal lens.” The gospel in the United States has been made to fit the politic, when it should be our politic that is shaped and made to fit the gospel. It’s a mess, and it is good that we notice.
@Jack Hughes: the prospect of Bednar as President worries me. His trademark manipulation of audiences by claiming that whatever random thoughts come to mind during his speeches is, in fact, the Spirit–plants an unsproutable seed to imply that he commands the Spirit, or that the Spirit is always testifying in his speeches. Also, his organizational management emphasis seems to derive from the desire to rule over people; he stands out from the Brethren in not-a-good-way. I love him and sustain him regardless.
Though it’s still a bit off topic, just to be clear, the “both siderism” josh h commits, is not, as Taiwan Missionary claims, “pointing out the problems that both left and right have .” It’s, as Elisa points out, that Josh H equates them wrongfully. That the most accepted use of “both siderism.”
“If the presidency of RMN has taught us one thing, it’s that the Church is capable of drastic change depending on who’s in the top spot.”
What are these drastic changes? 2 hour church, considering gay marriage apostate, then reversing course, dissolving high priest group, changing a couple words in the temple, urging people to get vaccinated? I’m not impressed with the drasticity. What am I missing? OK destroying Mormon temple art is kind of drastic.
While I would rather not characterize the LDS Church as a cult, recall that as part of the temple endowment patrons are required to pledge loyalty to the institutional Church (rather than to God or Christ or the Gospel or any abstract concept), even at the cost of one’s own life if necessary. In practice, the degree to which individual Church members take temple covenants seriously varies significantly, but the culty extreme option is presented clearly as the rule, not the exception. Compare that with one of the defining characteristics of the Cult of Trump– the demand of absolute loyalty from followers, without regard for morals, ethics or lawful behavior.
@your food allergy, you’re forgetting about THE NEW LOGO.
I agree the church is not a cult, but it does have many characteristics you would also find in a cult. Earlier this year I really started to question if I was in a cult when I requested to be released from a stake calling, and was told “No” twice. (I began to question “Am I trapped with no escape?”) I phrased my third request to be released roughly as, “I guess you don’t have to release me, but I am no longer able to/going to fulfill the calling” and they graciously released me. Phew, it was a close call, and now I’m “pretty sure” I don’t belong to a cult.
No one above is offering solutions for the future of America as a democracy? I don’t know how much the church contributed to the common sense/problem solving skills of the members, but trying to find common ground with social conservatives, libertarians, or trumpers is impossible.
An article on BCC says America has been added to the list of sliding democracies. If trump runs again in 24 whatever the result America will become a failed democracy. Possible exception would be if trump were totally defeated so the Republicans dropped him, and returned to believing in democracy. If trump wins, or the result is close, and republicans continue to question the result you only have one party that believes in democracy. America has a responsibility not only 0nly to its self but as leader of the free world.
China is growing in power, if America is no longer the leader of the free world? The EU might be able to contain Russia but the balance changes if America changes status, particularly if Russia and China combine.
We have an election in march or may (the PM decides)in Aus, hopefully we can remove our conservative government which is becoming more trump like, and so bolster the democrats on areas like climate change. We are having extreme weather again. This time we are having floods. Much of eastern Aus has had twice and more rain, in the last fortnight, than is usual for a year. More rain is forecast including storms, and in some areas this is to be followed by heatwaves of over 110f for days on end.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
aporetic1 said, “I agree the church is not a cult, but it does have many characteristics you would also find in a cult.” That’s the tricky part. Plus some of the leaders, some of the time, emphasize or celebrate the cult-like characteristics (like paying tithing rather than feeding your children) rather than tamp them down. So if leaders complain from time to time about the charge, the proper response might be, “Well, if you don’t want to be called a cult, stop acting like one!”
Geoff-Aus, it’s always interesting to hear the overseas view of things in America. If the US lurches to the right and is no longer the standard-bearer as “leader of the free world,” who steps into that role? Or will we end up with a shrinking free world and an expanding authoritarian world? Other authoritarians around the world who view an extreme right-wing America as an opportunity for their own expansion should be wary. If America becomes authoritarian, it may very well become more aggressive and more willing to “pull the trigger” with its powerful military rather than invoke sanctions or use diplomacy. If Trump wins in 2024, he’ll be a much more dangerous president internationally as well as domestically.
I agree with Brother Sky. I stay in the church because most of the folks my age (early 40’s) are nuanced like me but emotionally tied to an organization they’ve invested in their whole lives. So I still have a group of people that roll their eyes with me at every fifth comment in Sunday School, which makes the two-hour block bearable. Contrast that to the 20-somethings who either leave because they aren’t invested and find the whole thing not worth the effort, or stay because they are not nuanced, and behold our future. My kids will most likely leave, because they are being raised in a way that seems incompatible with fundamental Mormonism, and it will impact them before they are invested. And when they do, I’ll probably leave with them.
I agree both sides of the political spectrum can be reduced to a few memes essentially. But that doesn’t make them the same, josh h. One side protests wearing vagina hats, the other side protests with guns and violence. One side took a pandemic seriously, the other side thinks its ok to shoot up a pizza parlor looking for its basement. While the extremism may look the same on paper, it’s not the same in practice. That being said josh h, I love your comments and hope you feel at home here, notwithstanding a difference of opinion on this point.
In terms of cult, I usually use the term high demand religion. But in my heart, it’s a cult-lite.
Let me just add that the article at The Hill about the Republican Party becoming a cult of know-nothings was the starting point for my post — and it was only at the end of the post that I really stumbled upon the most relevant and interesting reflections: (1) The Trump cult has almost certainly damaged the Church; and (2) Can the Church recover from that damage?
It’s not a full-blown brand crisis; there are plenty of other US institutions that have been damaged. And the Church has shown itself quite capable of damaging its own brand without any outside help. What’s different here is the perception of the Church has changed for many *insiders*. The Trumpification of the Church may hardly be noticeable to outsiders, but to many insiders it is significant. If not a deal-breaker, at least an enthusiasm-killer. Possibly an attendance-reducer or a tithing-eliminator.
@Dave B, I think that’s right re: damage to the brand. Or maybe not so much damage to the brand from a PR / national level, but damage to enthusiasm / the membership insiders.
I have talked to a lot of progressive Mormons – and frankly, even just moderate / centrist / conservative but not-Trumpist Mormons – who say that the last 2+ years has been harder on their relationship with the Church than any other time in the Church. Worse than the exclusion policy, worse than Prop 8, worse than various high-profile excommunications. And there are probably a lot of reasons for it but I think it’s because some of those things as awful as they were for a lot of people felt easier to ignore in the day-to-day / week-to-week because it was “from the top” and they still felt connected to their local Church communities. But the Trumpism, the divisiveness, the subtle hints at conspiracy theories in testimony meetings and Sunday school comments, the being-the-only-person-in-a-mask-even-though-the-prophet-asked-people-to-wear-them, feeling like an outsider even when you were the one “following the prophet” by getting a vaccine – that’s having a huge impact on the way that people experience *the community* around them in a way that even those brand-damaging high profile events didn’t. It’s impossible to escape and it impacts our lived Church experience in very visible ways that some of those other things may not (although I fully recognize that for many people the anti-LGBTQ stuff impacts it a lot – so I guess I mean this applies to a lot of privileged people who’ve not experienced the marginalization before. Not trying to diminish people who’ve already experienced that marginalization.)
Anecdotally, my immediate family is very pro-LGBTQ, feminist, progressive Mormons etc. etc. etc. but four of the five siblings have been very active for quite some time – return missionaries, BYU grads, temple marriages, leadership positions, all the things. (The fifth is gay and left after graduating high school.). One of us left over the exclusion policy and three have hung on. I am not sure if any of the three of us who weathered many, many storms that bothered us a great deal will really return to full activity post-Covid / Trump and if we do, it’ll be on radically different terms than before. That’s striking to me given how much we care about the other issues we’ve powered through.
(Also, I second @Chadwick’s comments about @Josh H and should have said as much in my response. I love Josh H’s comments. I just heartily disagree on this one ;-).)
Also, this seems relevant: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/11/30/lds-church-withholds/
My humble observations on the OP topic:
1. I totally understand the academic and outside observers’ rationale to define the LDS Church as a cult. My personal opinion though is that it’s not quite the right definition. Classifying it as a mild cult is perhaps more accurate, but it just feels a bit off to me. Aside from academic definition, I think a cult is typically used to refer to an extreme group, far outside of the mainstream population norms. LDS members are not outside of mainstream norms. We do pop culture stuff, we use modern medicine, we are involved in politics and professions, etc. And if you define “cult” too softly (being associated with “culture,”) then everything is a cult and there is no real meaning. So use of that word doesn’t register with me.
2. “The emergence of a Trump/Republican cult has damaged the church.” In my limited observation from Utah County, there is no doubt this has happened. There are enough who dislike the mixture of politics and spirituality that it is offensive to them, even if they align with conservative political values and regularly vote a straight Republican party line. There are enough non-Republican members who are flabbergasted at how many members seem to have conflated religion and politics (I am talking to you Senator Lee–this was a monumentally appropriate response from a retired state court judge on that incident: https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/letters/2020/11/04/letter-shame-you-sen-lee/
3. I could be wrong, but it seems that there have been talks given by DHO and others over the past 3 general conferences that can be the foundation for a new policy or “doctrine” to steer members away from making the prior generation’s mistake of associating/promoting one party with church goals and doctrines (thanks Apostle Benson!). Ironically, it is also DHO who continues to present homophobic messages to the flock. It will be interesting to see how/if that materializes or is addressed in the next election cycle, or if they will be too chicken to be more specific. The Church does need to to maintain appropriate neutrality towards politics and/or party affiliations, but if members are straying from Christ-centered values, isn’t the whole point of church leadership to protect the true doctrine of Christ?
I think aporecti1 is speaking tongue in cheek. No? I mean, not a cult but with many characteristics of a cult … if it walks like a duck. I found it difficult to concede that any organization I had actively promoted (Illinois, Chicago mission, 1984-1985) might be a cult, but the more I looked at some widely accepted descriptions of cults (the BITE model), it seemed that there was too much overlap to dismiss the characterization. If it ain’t, members can probably clearly see a full-blown cult from where they’re standing.
Chadwick, you probably already know this but you sound like you’re living the sunk costs fallacy. It’s a mistake all make in so many aspects of life. Some remain diehard Jets fans, others remain Mormon.
Elisa: you think you made a point (Biden is a moderate Dem and was elected) that undermines my point (the Dems are extreme left now). Has Biden governed as a moderate? Or has he given in to the progressives? Look at the trillions in spending proposals. His presidency actually supports my position.
josh h:
I’m not sure spending is truly a progressive-only ideal any more, other than on paper. Don’t both sides spend more than they should? I think the only divide on spending now is what they spend it on, or who should pay for it. But the idea of a fiscal conservative seems a relic post-Bush I.
jaredsbrother: My wife teases me that I can’t quit things. I’ve given notice at my firm many times over the years and yet I’m now a partner. I’ve told a few bishops over the years that I’m done only to accept yet another calling. I’m apparently just really bad at quitting things =).
@Josh H you asked who would get the nomination today and that’s what I’m responding to because that’s our more recent empirical example. I was happy about his nomination because my conservative but anti-Trump friends told me he was the only Democrat candidate that they’d vote for, if someone like Warren was nominated they’d vote third party, which is why I feel justified calling him a moderate candidate (because it was my conservative friends saying that, not me, and when I say these friends are conservative I really mean it).
I know I have progressive positions on social issues like women’s rights, gay marriage, etc on this blog but I’m quite moderate on spending and those types of issues, generally register independent (except in Utah where I register Republican so I can vote in primaries), and no I haven’t been super thrilled with Biden and am not thrilled with the OSHA or federal contractor orders (even tho I think everyone should get vaccinated) but that’s a little beside the point which is: that to say that extremism has taken over the mainstream Democratic Party to the extent it has the mainstream Republican Party is inaccurate and unfair.
I had not read Counselor’s post prior to adding my thoughts and have to agree completely with the idea that we can’t define it too softly. I think we back off the use of cult in reference to the LDS church because it does not look like Scientology or People’s Temple; it does not quack like a duck, to walk back my previous trite-ism. Truly, it doesn’t. But then what is a cult becomes the product of the eye test or smell test, not the accuracy of a list of behaviors and characteristics. I think the eye and smell tests can often deceive based on the stories individual humans tell themselves.
To the both-sidesers (you know who you are) on here. Who is the most “extreme” member of Congress among the Democrats? AOC? Cori Bush? What positions make them extreme? Dreamy-eyed idealism about economic equality that will raise taxes (mostly on the wealthy) to address real issues like climate change, overpriced healthcare, and deep economic insecurity and disparity throughout the US. Belief in some form of reparations. Slowness to condemn vandalism at George Floyd protests. Exaggerations about racism, (although structural racism is most certainly a thing).
Now compare them to the most extreme among the Republicans: namely, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Madison Cawthorne. Greene once in front of a group of angry protesters, shouted that Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason and then followed that by saying that the punishment for treason was death. She has harassed school shooting survivors and other members of Congress. She believes that 9/11 was an inside job. Boebert told QAnon protesters where Nancy Pelosi was when the insurrectionists stormed the Capitol on January 6th. She has ties to domestic terrorists and white supremacist groups. All these three current members of Congress promote conspiracy theories about COVID, the 2020 election, and have routinely shown themselves to live in an alternate reality. They are actually dangerous people with the ability and willingness to incite mobs to violence on the basis of lies and fantasies.
There are no “both sides.” Saying such is a false equivalence in the extreme. In fact, the bothsidesers have hurt the country by their obsession with such a false equivalence. Rationality, sanity, belief in democracy, science, and progress now only exist on the Democratic side. Whatever believers in these concepts there are in the Republican party have all been muffled and are PNGs in their own party. Trump rules the GOP. Trumpism is its belief system. It is pure delusion.
@jaredsbrother, I was speaking tongue in cheek about only being “pretty sure” I’m not in a cult. As I was going through that experience I was listening to the podcast “The Turning: The sister’s who left” about Mother Theresa’s missionaries of charity, and there was a lot of discussion about what it means to be in a cult- especially not being allowed to leave. As much as people may “feel” trapped/controlled in the church, we are allowed to be a part of the larger society and make our own decisions, even the decision to leave the church. It also doesn’t meet the standard of a cult in other areas as well. http://cultresearch.org/help/characteristics-associated-with-cults/ The exceptions I see are: A-while serving a mission, B-while attending a church school. In those circumstances the church does exert immense control over your behavior and there are very significant repercussions for leaving the church, and so I think it’s hard to defend the church not being a cult for missionaries/BYU students.
@aporetoc1 sure we are “allowed” to leave the Church but there can be tremendous negative social, familial, and, depending on where you live and work, employment and economic consequences.
Again I’m not arguing that the Church is a cult but the shunning and othering of people who leave is real and is encouraged by leadership, is incredibly harmful, and is a total cultish tactic that can’t be ignored. And I don’t think that’s only true for people at BYU and on missions (although clearly it’s more acute there).
It’s interesting to hear people’s perspectives here about Trumpism damaging the church. How are we defining damage to the church? Is it in membership figures and activity rates? In tithing dollars? In political influence or social clout (the latter of which we’ve never had much of anyway)?
I haven’t attended since 2017 so I was kind of under the impression that the church (despite some obvious covid setbacks) was doing pretty well for itself. Clearly the financial resources are untouchable. Temples continue to spring up right and left. And the membership is still growing, albeit at its slowest pace since the 1930s. Also the political influence along the Wasatch Front is still holding steady (unless the leader-member-dissonance re: masks and vaccines portends a larger sea change).
My takeaway from many of these comments is that Trumpism made the subjective experience of church culture worse for many of us by changing ward cultures around the country. Would you say that’s accurate? And at the end of the day, does that damage to the Sunday experiences of the average W&T reader constitute substantial damage to the church as a whole or will the COJCOLDS keep on truckin’ with or without us?
My RLDS upbringing was pretty clearly much more sect than cult. The difference may help in this discussion:
“1.A sect is a small group that separated from a larger group to follow a different doctrine while a cult is a small, quasi-religious group with very unorthodox ideologies, rituals, and practices.
2.A sect is a branch of a certain religious organization while a cult is a totally different organization.
3.Members of a sect live in mainstream society while members of a cult usually live in isolation away from their families who are non-believers.
4.Cult members are usually completely obedient and dependent upon their leader.”
The RLDS Church changed and, in fact, transformed largely from within to become the Communitg of Christ. There are probably a few vestiges of our sect past still hanging around but they continue to diminish.
I wonder what eventual direction the Trump-inspired behavior in the LDS church will take? Will it morph from radicaliizing sect with the mainstream to eventually become more cult-like? An important factor is the kind of general-church leadership that sustains movement and/or the ascent of non-institutional leaders guiding the membership.
Pew Research Center’s political typology analysis shows two types that are the most pro Trump, the Faith & Flag group and the Populist Right. Combined, they make up about 20% of the population. Both of these groups are extreme right wing on social issues, but diverge somewhat on economic issues. So the unifying ideology of the Trump cult seems to be jingoism.
What is distressing in the Mormon context is that hyper nationalism is antithetical to the teachings of the New Testiment and the BoM. The Red, White and Blue, has become the golden calf of a significant portion of self proclaimed Christians, many Mormons among them.
On the left wing side, onle 6% of the population are in the the Progressive Left type. There are over 3x the number of right wing extremists than left wing extremists. So while extremism exists on both sides, it dominates the Republican party (46% of Rep/Lean Rep), but is only a small fraction of the Democratic coalition (a mere 12% of Dem/Lean Dem).
I am hopeful that DFU gets a chance to be Church Pres and can give the needed course correction. OTOH, I worry that if the does, the most strident nationalists in the Chuch will reject him and lead to schism.
If you’re not going to acknowledge the cult of the Left – as well as the Right – I have no interest in your article. Your bias is showing….
Lefty, it’s a shame, because if you had continued on, you would have seen that your concern was amply addressed in the comments. Not to mention that your main complaint is with the author of The Hill article and not the OP, as this OP summarizes the article and then uses it to explore connections to the Church. Is it possible that, instead, perhaps your inability/refusal to make a reasoned, engaged comment (as the very first comment did) reveals your own sensitive bias in what can hardly be considered more than a lazy drive-by comment? I mean, that’s sure what it appears to be.
Brian: addressed my ass! If we can’t at least agree that the extremes within both political parties have slipped into corrupt lunacy – and are both endangering the fabric of our Democratic Republic – there’s no sense in even having the discussion; for they both lead to decay, freedom lost and an overall quality of life diminishing.
Classy, totally well-reasoned, supported, persuasive response. Thanks.
Brian: from the bottom of my heart……you’re welcome.
@jlm thank you for data to validate my lazy anecdotal observations.
Some twenty years ago, when we were living back east, my oldest son had two friends who lived in our cul-de-sac. One friend was Jewish, the other one was Methodist. One day the Jewish friend told our son that the Methodist friend’s mom was teaching her son that the Mormon church fit the definition of a cult. (I believe there had been some publication of some sort making that argument).
Sometimes our church does seem cultish. Like when we testify that the church is “true,” rather than speak about the Savior. We emphasize missionary work—sales—and the temple, tithing etc rather than the attributes of being a good person—kindness, truthfulness etc.
The leadership’s attitude toward reading and learning seems cultish. Missionaries are limited in what they should read.
In the mid-Twentieth Century, learn out of the best books meant best books. Now it seems that best books is defined as the scriptures and GA talks. The Relief Society mag had examples of classic literature. Now the Church mags are mostly recycled GA talks and generic articles.
Everything has been dumbed down. With more and more GA worship. Sounds a bit cultish.
Whenever there’s a political post, Lefthandloafer always seems to pop on here to try to enlighten us with his militant centrism. Somehow I have doubts that he would be bothered to share his whataboutistic outbursts of outrage had the post bashed the left. “What about the outrageous behavior of the right?” is a reaction I wouldn’t anticipate from him.
But what the militant centrists and libertarians often fail to see is that they are a side unto themselves. Political affiliation is multidimensional, not a 2D shape. What is particularly annoying about these folks is that they see themselves on a pedestal having achieved a sort of nirvana with the simplistic view of “hey, there’s extremism on both sides” and then deign to educate us peons who back candidates, parties, and agendas to inform us that we have not achieved true enlightenment and must acknowledge the wrongness of the Democratic Party/left (it’s always the Democratic Party, never the other way around). And then they retreat to the sidelines, never revealing which candidates they support, what specific policy ideas they have to address real problems, or what sources/journalists they consult. More often than not they promote the cure-all elixir of less government and more “freedom” (often undefined) but return to their refuge of the sidelines before you can press them for more specifics.
These folks often easily fall for conspiracy theories. For their mantra is there being extremism on both sides. So if some know-nothing Democrat says something dumb like “vaccines are effective against COVID” or “Joe Biden won the 2020 election fairly”, their enlightened minds (ever paralyzed by over-analysis and excessive concern for right-wingers) say “not so fast, we have other people in this country who think differently” and then share their oh-so vaunted opinion that the answer must be somewhere in between, followed up by some tired quip about freedom and how we should be skeptical of the government and how we need to acknowledge the cult of the left, because Maoism or the USSR or some false exaggerated comparison.
Sorry centrists and libertarians. You folks exhibit cultish behavior far more than rational behavior.
Shunning is cultish.
All the busy “activities” are cultish.
The over the top adulation of the “prophet” is cultish.
The constant effort to convert others or explain Mormon beliefs to others without being asked is cultish.
John W: Wall of text, and I’m the one acting in a cultish way?. Really. One thing that is consistent about you is that you’re quite capable (and rather adept in) the consistent painting with a pretty broad brush. I simply think politics is (in an of itself) corrosive and corrupting: and the longer one stays in it, the more corrupt and “bent” they become. So, political “lifers” – of both Republican and Democratic political stipes – are not people to be blindly followed, emulated or celebrated; for at the end….they’re only in it for themselves, and their own gain. Cynical view, yes: but proven time and again throughout history. You and I will never agree on much….and honestly, I don’t much care. You bring no value to my life and your (oftentimes) silly thought experiments are really quite meaningless….and banal.
“I simply think politics is (in an of itself) corrosive and corrupting”
Says one who descends from a perch of self-righteousness to deliver angry one-liner jabs (only against liberal views). Your positioning of yourself as apolitical is about as believable as a word from Trump’s mouth.
I have always balked at thinking that the church was a cult. High-demand organization, yes, but a cult . . .
Then I had the nagging thought that maybe my aversion was that I didn’t want to think of myself as having been in a cult.
I’m reading Luna Corbden’s book “Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control”. She talks about 31 mind control techniques, starting with definitions and examples from researchers. Then quoting from LDS literature, conference talks, and Mormon scriptures. Dang – it really does quack like a duck.
I’m giving myself some grace – I was born into this system. And I’m giving the leaders the same – they were almost exclusively born into it as well. I suspect they don’t have a manual on “How to Run a Mild Cult”. They sincerely believe that all the programs, talks, policies, and practices are for our eternal good. But are they?
It’s hard work, lifting that veil. I’m excited to see what’s on the other side.
Is there anyone here who considers themselves an alt-centrist? Maybe neo-centrist? This is not the same as being a moderate and it’s the opposite of being a fence-sitter. It plays out like this: when I first hear about an issue, I place myself at ground zero; in the middle. and I attempt to avoid as much partisanship and bias as possible that I may already have as I begin to examine this new issue. This ain’t easy, so I at least try to recognize my leanings before I start my research. Step one: I attempt to get a basic notion of what we’re talking about. This also isn’t as easy as it should be. If in my search for basic info I find that any of the places I go to get info are trying to press “emotional triggers”, I immediately disengage from that source.
Step two: history, history, history. I’ll go back however far it takes. Afghanistan is a good example of my approach. When the US first entered Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 about the only thing I really knew about their history was their struggle with Russia in the 1980’s.
So I began digging, first getting to know the most current history, such as who the “players” are (with questions like “Why are the Taliban protecting el Qaeda?” and “What is Iran’s role in all this?”). Next, I studied Afghan political, religious, and social history, seeking to find out how they arrived at where they are and their relationship with the U.S.
Step three: I scan the sources that I feel will give me the best in-depth information that will allow me the greatest chance at reaching some type of understanding. My go-to (but not only) source for this for the last 40 years is PBS news programs. I personally consider “Frontline” as the single most important TV program on our planet, and nearly as good as the ones produced on Mars or Rigel 7. The above steps allowed me to “find my voice” on Afghanistan (which needed updating for the U. S. withdrawal in 2021 and is the reason I used it as an example) and nearly all issues that are important or relevant to me, including social and religious.
That is why I refer it to as centrist; it starts as close to ground zero as I can get it and takes me on adventures deep into liberal or conservative battlegrounds, depending on the issue. Sometimes I’m surprised where I landed and sometimes I’m not. This method is not without flaws, and there will always be info withheld from the public, but it’s the best I can come up with. The best part: no one ever wants to talk politics with me because on one issue they find me an ally and the next a delusional idiot.
I once heard someone describe a cult as an organization that won’t let you leave with your dignity.
Sometimes my company acts in cult-like ways, but I can quit.
Sometimes people in my political party act in cult-like ways, but if I change my affiliation, life will go on.
But try leaving the church. Loss of friendship, shunning, gossip mill, and my kids, if they stay, will be hinted that their father is less than. That’s if they will even honor your request to leave. And the way they kick you out? Horrifying.
I think the Church needs to do better if it doesn’t want the c word applied to its methods.
Rickpowers, your approach is commendable and honestly I would prefer that people dig deeper into issues in order to formulate opinions. As someone who has done a fair amount of research (I have a PhD in history and studied the Ottoman Empire), I can tell you that it is actually very difficult to formulate fresh new, nuanced views on issues. I spent a long time just trying to find daylight where I could generate an argument about history to write my dissertation from an angle that no one else has taken. To inform ourselves on any topic, inevitably we have to consult second-hand sources and rely on experts, journalists, and others who witnessed or researched things first-hand. Theorists can help us develop a framework through which to view different phenomena.
I think what you’re describing (yourself as a nuanced thinker) is an accurate description of most thinkers. No one is exactly alike. People who think (as opposed to people who are less informed of impulsive) tend to have areas where the don’t align. And that’s perfectly fine and normal. At the same time this doesn’t nor shouldn’t preclude someone from being partisan. I, for one, have no problem considering myself a Democrat and backing the Democratic party in about every election.
My problems with centrism are:
1) It sometimes doesn’t readily identify nonsense ideas. If someone says the earth is spherical and another one says it’s flat, sometimes the centrist view is that it must be oval.
2) It will sometimes reject ideas simply because a party is pushing that particularly idea hard. It could be the correct idea and something we desperately need. But centrism’s aversion to appearing partisan can drive it to reject well-argued ideas not on the basis of their merits, but simply because those ideas have become the platform of a party.
3) Centrism often lacks conviction. It can’t get anything done in the political world.
4) Centrists often fancy themselves as above the fray. I know of very few people (philosophers and thinkers) whom I consider to be above the fray. Most of us don’t have the time and resources to flesh out ideas on a range of topics. Also most of us when asked what our stances are on a range of issues will find ourselves fitting comfortably among some group or another. I have no problem expressing a range of views that align very well with most the positions of most Democrats.
And lastly 5) centrism has become a movement unto itself. A good number of people militantly declare that there are problems on both sides but either won’t move beyond that mantra or end up expressing ideas and views that align pretty well with what most conservatives or liberals think.
John W: you represent (in most perfect fashion) why I do not come to the Wheat & Tares Blog for open minded political thought and discussion. Your arrogant presumption (on so many topics) is so very off-putting and condescending: even after studying the Ottoman Empire. Like I said, you’ve brought no value to my life and have changed nothing about my opinion about politics. However, it has cemented my absolute contempt and disdain for people like you – as you look down your nose at others; which of course means nothing to you.
BTW: I thought the narrative by Rickpowers was beautifully done & masterfully crafted. I can imagine myself readily aligning with him; in any number of settings.
John W: I haven’t even uttered the word Trump in any of my comments above; while I’ve repeatedly referred to Republicans and Democrats – each having their own extremities. I don’t even think about Donald Trump any more……Hell, the man is out of office. But, he clearly lives in your head rent free. Whenever you hear (his name) does the big vein on your forehead throb while your breathing quickens to the point of having an aneurism?
“I do not come to the Wheat & Tares Blog for open minded political thought and discussion.”
Thanks for admitting what we knew all along. You’re an angry bad faith troll.
John W: “You’re an angry bad faith troll”. While you’re at it…you might as well throw out the labels of Racist, Bigot, Misogynistic, Patriarchal…..etc. For, these terms drop so easily from your lips…..(I’m certain that their very well practiced….and are applied with little to no thought)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. A fine discussion from across the spectrum: left, right, and center.
I’m going to close comments now.