There was an online discussion recently about whether or not models describing cults apply to the Church or not, and although the topic started with Steve Hassan’s BITE model that I’ve previously written about here, a participant shared a different list of criteria from Luna Cordben, author of Recovering Agency. I thought this new list was somewhat interesting to evaluate as well.
As mentioned in my previous post, there are some background considerations that should apply whenever looking at this type of list:
- How does this organization compare to peer organizations? More extreme or less?
- How much variation of individual experience exists within the group? How is variation dealt with by the organization?
- How is the group changing over time? Become more or less extreme on the scale or aspect?
- Intentionality–how much are these effects intended by the organization as a means of growth & self-preservation vs. how much are these effects a byproduct of other efforts that aren’t related or a byproduct of member expectations?
- How much variation exists among leaders within the group? Is leadership’s approach consistent or varied based on individuals?
With all that in mind, let’s hit the new list! There’s a fair bit of overlap here with the BITE model, but it’s condensed (yay!). A few of these might make you laugh because they are pretty typical Mormon behavior, but there are also quite a few that don’t feel like the norm to me.
Love Bombing. Friendliness, flattery, praise, and affection are used to entice participation and attendance for potential recruits, and to retain members who may be showing less enthusiasm or are thinking of leaving. Diagnosis: Mormons kind of do this, although not to the extent of the full-on cults I’ve read about. For example, Manson would entice group members by putting young, nubile girls out to seduce recruits with actual orgies. We’re prone to making people projects and plastering a young woman’s garage door with hearts (a “heart attack”). In general, Mormons tend to be extra nice to those they want to woo, but they aren’t offering themselves sexually to them, and a lot of superficial friendship attempts feel frankly half-hearted. IMO, we aren’t really that good at this or that committed to it on the whole.
Destabilizing the Self. Barriers are torn down that would otherwise prevent acceptance of new beliefs. Includes those who have already been destabilized by life situations and the indoctrination of children, who have not yet formed a sense of self. Diagnosis: yes and no. We aren’t as bad as the military which is really into this tactic. Missions probably come closest within the Church to achieving an erasure of self in favor of the person the Church wants representing it.
Deception. Lies, omissions, and “front” activities cover up flaws or unusual aspects of the group, doctrine, leadership, and history. Some deceptions will be revealed later when a member is “ready.” Diagnosis: This is a huge yes. Our version of Church history is deliberately misleading, and what occurs in the temple, including the covenants an individual will be making, are unknown until one is actually there. Having said that, the temple experience is constantly evolving and becoming more palatable to initiates based on feedback, although the hidden meanings (some of which are concerning to patrons) remain intact.
Sacred Science (Closed System of Logic). The ideology and leader have the one and only truth. Members should only seek answers in group teachings. Doctrinal logic is airtight. The leaders are above criticism and those who question or criticize are immoral. Diagnosis: 100% yes, and in comparison to most other churches, ours is far more authoritarian and full of leader-worship. Some of the things we say and sing would make the Pope blush.
Mystical Manipulation. Forces exist which are more powerful than the self. The group strives to fulfill a higher purpose. Ends justify the means. Events and experiences are orchestrated, manipulated, or reframed to appear supernatural and prove the leader is chosen and the doctrines are true. Diagnosis: mostly yes, but this one feels like just another Tuesday in Christianity. Mainstream Christians tend to see the hand of God or Satan in the things that occur in life. If anything, Mormons might be a little lower on this one because we also believe a lot that human actions drive consequences (except for leaders who are exempt from negative consequences regardless their actions).
Milieu Control. Information and environment are tightly controlled. Gossip, questioning, and criticism is tightly regulated, as is access to outside information, especially that which might raise doubts or be critical of the group. Diagnosis: Meh, mixed bag. The Church would prefer to contain questioning and criticism more than it is able to do so. If we rate this on intentions, it’s got to be pretty high, but if we rate it on how effectively it’s done, it’s probably middle of the road.
Demand for Purity (Perpetual Inadequacy). Lofty moral goals are set. At first the goals seem achievable, but the standards for achievement grow ever more impossible to meet, keeping the follower perpetually inadequate. Diagnosis: This one depends entirely on whether one’s life matches up with the Mormon ideal or not. For married, white, male heterosexuals, the goals aren’t all that lofty. For anyone else, you have to basically try to be someone you are not.
Dispensing of Existence. The individual’s literal or figurative existence is threatened as a consequence for impurity, doubt, or leaving the group. Life, the eternal soul, self-esteem, a sense of “being good”, and one’s identity hangs in the balance. Diagnosis: mostly the intention on this one is a yes. I tend to think that most family-based religions operate this way, though. But do the majority of Church members buy this? I suspect this has more to do with individual temperament and one’s social circle, so I imagine a lot of variation on this.
Doctrine Over Self. The individual is subordinate to the group, leader, and teachings. When personal desires, goals, and values conflict with group values, they become selfish or immoral. Diagnosis: another yes, if the intentions of the organization are considered, although it didn’t used to be this way. In yesteryear, the party line was that the Church had policies that were “the rule,” but individuals, through the gift of the Holy Ghost, could receive personal revelation that was for themselves only (or their immediate family) and that meant they were an “exception.” Even E. Oaks has preached that the Church only talks about rules, not exceptions, but exceptions exist.
Loading the Language. Existing words are loaded with new meaning. New words are added. Other words are banned or dropped from usage. This affects ability to think, as well as ability to communicate comfortably with those outside the group. Diagnosis: LOL, there is definitely this tendency to redefine words, and to claim that the actual meaning of the word is the “world’s definition.” I had a bit of fun with this in my Mormon Jargon posts several years ago here and here. I’m not really sure how effective this re-definition words business actually is. Does anyone out there actually believe “preside” means “equal”? If so, come on.
Totalist Reframing. Situations, thoughts, or feelings are reinterpreted in a way that suits the goals of the organization. This is used to continually prove the ideology correct, to squelch doubts, and to silence outsiders. Diagnosis: To an extent, the Church does this. Clearly the intent is there, but it also feels like there’s a lot of variation in individual experience on this one.
Thought-Terminating Clichés. Short phrases, pat answers, metaphors, and emotional reactions are pre-established to frame doubts. Doubt and questions are automatically shut down. Diagnosis: The closest example of this I can think of is quoting passages of scripture to oneself (which all religious people do, just cherry picking different verses that the sect finds most meaningful to their worldview), or the song from Book of Mormon: The Musical in which the one elder with sexy thoughts sings “Turn it off! Like a light bulb!” referring to the Mormon advice to sing a hymn or change your thoughts when facing temptation. It’s a catchy little tune. However, none of these approaches are on par with the thought-stopping that is done in your garden variety cults.
Social Pressure. Social acceptance and rejection are used to reward and punish. A member becomes driven with a desire to conform. Diagnosis: This is another one where we have to consider how extreme it is because I can’t think of a community on the planet where this doesn’t happen. If you were hunting and gathering, this happened in your social group. It’s just how humans work. If (as the author of this list is doing) you are attempting to extricate yourself from a group that is harmful, sure, it’s useful to identify the social pressures the group is exerting on you to enable you to do so. Personally, I have been in many wards where the social pressure wasn’t that high, but then again, I’m not a joiner. YMMV.
Belief Follows Behavior. Action generates the associated beliefs. Diagnosis: Insofar as Mormonism is more orthoprax than orthodox, I suppose this may be true. This one confuses me.
Public Commitment. Commitments are expressed aloud. Public statements reinforce belief and dedication to the group. Diagnosis: Yes, in terms of fast and testimony meetings and inviting people to bear testimony, including all teachers being encouraged to do so at the end of the lesson, and people being randomly invited to do so in various meetings.
Creating Dependency. A member comes to depend on the group for physical, emotional, social, spiritual, or other needs. The member has a high stake in continuing to stay loyal to the group. Diagnosis: This one came up in the post I did on the BITE model, but this wording is more convincingly affirmative. Loyalty is reinforced through sunk costs like tithing, mission service, temple marriage, sealings, and callings. For many Mormons, their entire social world is the Church, and they have invested so much money in it that if they fall on hard financial times, their only way out will be the Church. The Church doesn’t like this financial reliance, though, and encourages members to be self-reliant or to go to family first, only asking for financial assistance from the Church if all else fails. I suppose if someone had socked away that 10% into retirement savings, one might have a better safety net given that situation. (However, as I’ve often noted, a LOT of my non-LDS friends spend roughly 10% of their income on booze, so there ya go).
Black and White Thinking. Broad spectrums of thought and morality become reduced to two options: Good vs. Evil, Love vs. Hate, Weak vs. Strong. Humble vs. Proud. Diagnosis: This one sounds like the curriculum of any conservative church, but individuals who live in the real world usually don’t see things this way. There is a lot of variation among members on this.
Elitism. The members of the group are chosen people, exalted, righteous. Members are made to feel special when compared to outsiders. Diagnosis: This used to be a bigger problem than it is now, although there’s always a tendency in high demand religions to do this. Basically the whole premise of this country was based on this idea that the Colonists were God’s chosen people creating a light on the hill, blah, blah, blah. Exceptionalism is our bread and butter as a nation, and it’s based on the Puritan doctrines that were there from the inception.
Us-Versus-Them Thinking. This is a form of black-and-white thinking wherein outsiders, ex-members, and those critical of the group are dehumanized and labeled as evil, apostate, vicious, hateful, prideful, blinded, deceived, etc. A persecution complex may exist whereby reasonable criticism is reframed as an attack. Diagnosis: Yes, a thousand times, yes. This one is huge. It was particularly embarrassing when some Mormons were posting a thing during the Black Lives Matter protests about how persecuted Mormons were when driven out of Nauvoo, overlooking the fact that they weren’t exactly fantastic neighbors, and they were also not enslaved at any point. It was pretty gross.
Indirect Directives. Certain restrictions or demands on behavior are implied rather than express. The logical elements for a given conclusion are supplied, leaving the member to draw the conclusion herself. Leadership remains innocent of issuing any unseemly teachings. Diagnosis: Unwritten rules, anyone? (E. Packer’s infamous talk about the unwritten rules within the Church). However, social norms always operate this way. Every group has unwritten norms. You can’t write them all down!
Identification and Example. Those who behave correctly or incorrectly are used as examples. Suggested behavior can be inferred from these stories without direct commandment. Stories are told, which may be reframed or blatantly untrue, to demonstrate consequences. The human mind relates strongly to stories, and it also inspires social pressure. Diagnosis: Very much so. Milk strippings story comes to mind, as do many others. Someone recently pointed to Ziff’s post on the Church’s abortion stance and the fact that while the policy carves out reasonable exceptions, every talk on this topic illustrates the example of a woman who, against all advice, risks her life and brings a baby into the world (and they lived happily ever after, the end).
Emotion Over Intellect. Emotion is emphasized as the preferred decision-making tool. The value of using reason is downplayed. Doctrines are frequently taught in emotional contexts, such as through stories told in tearful or gentle tones. Diagnosis: Yes, totally this, BUT again, this just feels like what religions do. Are there churches out there that just discuss things logically rather than emotionally? I thought the point of church was to elevate emotions and set logic aside for this one part of your life.
Induced Phobias. Fears are instilled which are either imaginary, based on real or exaggerated consequences, or on artificial effects created from group pressures. Diagnosis: Huge big fat yes on this one. Sad heaven, anyone?
Trance Induction & Dissociative States. Critical thinking skills are reduced through regular encouragement of receptive mental states. Altered states can be mild and seem normal, and include concentration, fatigue, boredom, and hunger. Diagnosis: This one feels nah to me, certainly when compared to other cult-like organizations. I mean, if we’re including boredom, sure, but come on, that’s a low bar. Is every business meeting a cult now?
Time Control. The member has little time or energy to question beliefs, associate with outsiders, or examine life too closely. Time spent on group-related activities is strongly encouraged or enforced, and usually fills every spare moment. Diagnosis: Less true than it used to be, which is a good trend. Cutting church down to two hours has made a big difference, and aside from the youth who are basically held hostage daily in seminary, most of us really just go to church on Sunday and that’s it. It used to be much more involved, but all the cultural stuff got killed, and the activities got pared back a lot.
Double-Bind. The member is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” She must betray the group or betray her own integrity. Diagnosis: Kind of, but that doesn’t have to be the case. The last few years of talks have really softened this rhetoric, although many of them have been amateurish. The effort to dial it down seems to be there for a change.
Blame Reversal. The leadership, group, and doctrine are above reproach, so any failed promises and bad situations are always the fault of the member. Diagnosis: Perhaps my biggest pet peeve of all, this one is classic behavior in the Church.
Guilt & Shame. A cycle of guilt and shame comes from repressed doubts, social pressure, and failure to meet impossible standards. Diagnosis: This type of scrupulosity certainly exists in the Church, and while it’s not uncommon, it’s far from universal. I think we all know people like this, but we also all know lots of people nothing like this.
Confession. The individual surrenders to leaders through confession, which reduces privacy and boundaries. Successful purification can grant temporary relief from guilt, which increases trust and dedication. Members are motivated to obey to avoid confession. Diagnosis: This one kind of makes me laugh because clearly the Church attempts to do this through worthiness interviews, but it can’t be that successful except for the youth who haven’t yet learned how to lie to the bishop or for BYU students whose education hangs in the balance.
Euphoria Induction. The euphoria of group participation and fulfilling the member’s ideals motivates good behavior and reduces doubts while proving the validity of the group. Diagnosis: Euphoria? That’s not a word I would associate with my Church experience. What is this, yoga?
Proselytizing. Members are encouraged to propagate teachings to outsiders. This not only maintains or increases the size of the group, but also soothes cognitive dissonance, consumes time, and provides opportunities for public commitment. Diagnosis: Yes, and certainly compared to other faiths this is a pretty strong expectation due to proselyting missions. The encouragement to invite others to join never ends, although once you’re an adult, nearly everyone secretly ignores this, like walking past a homeless person while patting down your empty pockets.
Assuming the Church doesn’t want to appear cult-like, or at least not in comparison to other sects, what could they do to change this? Here are a few that would help, particularly in a proselytizing Church that wants to win converts rather than scare them away:
- Scrap the human leader worship. No quoting other leaders, particularly those who are living. This is getting completely out of control. Kill the horrible Primary song “Follow the Prophet” which is nothing Jesus ever promoted. That song is creepy anyway and has an unsettling melody that ends on a minor chord. Spooky! Stop using the word “obedience” in reference to human leaders. Change it to “wise counsel from reverred leaders” if you must.
- Quit presenting misleading history narratives. Can we just quit talking about history? It’s pretty clear that we can’t be trusted with it. Any investigator can know in five minutes with a Google search that we are full of crap.
- Get rid of the Strengthening the Members Committee. This is LONG overdue. Be secure enough to never again excommunicte anyone for so-called apostasy. If we have to excommunicate people, let it be for real problems like embezzlement, adultery or using the ward directory to pitch MLMs or sell insurance.
- Get rid of worthiness interviews, probably altogether, but for sure in their present form. No sexual questions beyond using the words “law of chastity” if you absolutely can’t let it go. Bear in mind, we’ve deputized 100K middle aged men to interrogate people behind doors and assess their worthiness. That’s a pretty large barrel if we’re trying to avoid bad apples.
- Modify mission service to be more self-directed (length of service) and flexible (service missions or proselytizing at the choice of the applicant).
- Be transparent about finances. Members should be able to be proud of how their contributions are spent, and if they aren’t going to be proud of how they’re being spent, well, that’s just not good enough. Where much is given, much is required. The lack of transparency in today’s internet age is beginning to feel like a lack of accountability and respect.
In addition, we need to be more accepting of people who leave or are not full-throated in their commitment to the Church, like Catholics are. We need to quit demonizing people who don’t fit the mold. If the “plan” isn’t compelling to them, maybe it’s the plan’s fault, not theirs. Let’s be honest that variation exists and isn’t thwarting God’s plan for human life. Also, if Church isn’t enjoyable, let’s make it enjoyable, not just tell people they are the problem for not enjoying it.
Someone in the discussion said that a measure of “cultiness” is whether it’s possible to leave while retaining your dignity. I think that’s an interesting thought experiment, but the core question between cults and Churches in our modern world also feels like how easy is it to leave in general? The more you experience retaliation, threats, shunning, and other non-natural consequences for leaving, the higher it is on the cult spectrum.
- How do you measure the Church against this list? Do you like this list more or less than the BITE model?
- What are the top 3-5 ways you would recommend we reduce “cultiness” in the Church or do you think it’s fine as it is?
- Do you think the Church is getting less culty or more culty in your lifetime? Defend your answer.
- How do you think the Church compares to other churches across these measures?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Excellent post.
Comment #1: Most high demand religions have multiple levels of engagement, with some near the periphery less affected by mind control techniques and others deeper in, much more affected. For example, someone can attend church, enjoy seeing friends, avoid discussions of religion and still stay part of the community (if they stay silent about their beliefs). Think of how many are there, are pleasant, and never get up on Fast Sunday and rarely give talks and have callings that don’t require teaching. The structured levels toward the inner circle are baptism, endowment, temple marriage, leadership status (lots of gradations), church employee (for some), and second anointing in terms of being increasingly subject to the techniques. At the same time a person’s family environment, personality, their propensity to accept religious teachings as given, etc. deeply affect how much an individual is affected. I would not be surprised if there are a wide range of comments to your post, given how close one is to the inner circle and their individual factors.
Comment #2: It would be a great idea to use Luna’s Book as a program of study in Sunday School one year. That way each member could acquire a detailed, conscious awareness of mind control techniques, making their future potential engagement with the church consistent with the principle of informed consent. But there are certain barriers to the church accepting my proposition, given the realities of the situation.
To me, every list that purports to identify cult characteristics sounds like what a roomful of Evangelicals would come up with as their jealous gripes about the Mormons. They have other gripe lists for Catholics and atheists, of course. The purpose of the lists is to reinforce the Evangelical sense of entitlement and salvation and Jesus. Let’s not forget that it’s that same Evangelical mindset that drives the success in America of white supremacy and Trumpism. But hey, I’ll play along with the post.
Love Bombing — yeah, we’re too friendly. I hear complaints from time to time from members who don’t get any friendliness in a new ward. I pretty much never hear complaints from members that their ward members are too friendly. Honestly, I’m thinking Love Bombing is a feature, not a flaw.
Deception — okay, not good. God bless honest LDS historians.
Milieu Control — not good. God bless the Internet.
Thought-Terminating Cliches — these seem to be on the rise in all segments of society. And bonus points for getting the accent mark over the “e” in cliches. How did you do that? Perhaps we should add “oblivious to good grammar and orthography” to the list of cult characteristics.
Euphoria Induction — Definite proof the Church is not a cult. The closest I come to euphoria in an LDS meeting is three seconds after the last meeting ends on Fast Sunday.
The church appears to me, in general and across all demographics, to be getting less “culty.” A few examples for this:
–changes to the most cult-like ceremony we engage in, namely temple worship, has gradually improved (garments accommodating much fashion and person’s comfort, removing penalties from endowment, improving the language in the ceremonies to be SLIGHTLY more sensitive to women, etc);
–church curriculum, CES, seminary, home resources being more topical and allowing members/classes to use or deviate as desires (even the Come Follow Me manuals state explicitly to study something else if the Holy Ghost directs);
–general attitudes towards “others” are improving slowly and we are creeping in the direction of loving God’s children because of who they are, and not so that we can make them into one of us (dark-skinned peoples become fair and delight-some rhetoric is gone, LGBT awareness and sympathy starting to catch on at all levels, non-members or other denominations aren’t enemies but likely allies in tackling important causes and humanitarian efforts).
I understand the comparison and discussion of the LDS church being a cult, or cult-like, or “culty.” And there’s certainly some truth to pieces of it as the OP article points out. But I think you can argue that is true of many organizations, families, sports teams and fanbases, religions, etc. to some degree or another. We are a pretty mainstream bunch overall, albeit with some specific doctrinal ideas that are not mainstream, but still allow us to be “in the world.”
I am less concerned with the label and more concerned with the “fruits” of whatever culture we are involved in, whether it does real good or harm.
I remember John Dehlin talking with Steve Hassan and Hassan being hesitant to declare Mormonism to be a cult, and rightfully so. I think the BITE model is useful in describing real cults. Although it could benefit by adding that cults typically have small numbers and tight control systems, which are much tighter than what you’d find in Mormonism. At worst, Mormonism has a thick culture in select environments (the Mormon belt and among some multi-generational families outside it) which applies heavy social pressure on kids and spouses to be participant at church. The higher leadership has built a structure that integrates these select groups of people and keeps them busy and tied deeply to the church. Leaving the church for people in this environment can often lead to social strain (at worst ostracism, divorce, and estrangement) among their families. But the church leaders themselves aren’t directly imposing social consequences. They simply indirectly foster a culture that does so. I think this is significantly different from what we see I the Jim Jones cult, Westboro Baptist Church, and Heaven’s Gate cults.
Outside the abovementioned environment, Mormonism is far, far from a cult. People often have very loose ties to Mormonism and experience no social consequences for leaving Mormonism (and sometimes actually suffer social consequences for joining Mormonism).
I must add that Mormonism technically is a macro-religion that includes a number of different denominations. The polygamist groups are most certainly cults, the Kingston Group especially. Nelsonite Mormonism doesn’t even come close to the stuff that happens in those groups. So, yes, Mormonism is a cult or group of cults, but only its polygamist variants.
This will sound arrogant but I think the only ones really qualified to determine whether the COJCOLDS is a cult or not are those who have been IN the Church and OUT of the Church. If you’ve always been in, you have a very skewed insider perspective because you don’t know any other way. If you’ve never been a member of the Church, I don’t care for your opinions on this topic either because you don’t have the unique perspective of COJCOLDS membership.
Conveniently (see what I mean by arrogant?) , I am a former TBM who is now out. And all I can say is that while I was in, the Church didn’t seem like a cult. It just seemed demanding. But now that I’m out it sure seems pretty cult-like given that I allow myself to look at things more critically. My guess is most people like me (former TBMs who are out) would agree with my perspective generally as would most non-members. Most TBMs would disagree of course.
Great post. I’m not as optimistic as John W and Counselor about Mormonism not being a cult. I agree with Counselor that there are areas where the church seems to be turning more over to the members in terms of learning and there is a (very slow growing) awareness of others and sympathy for them. I think those are good points. I suppose what makes me think of the church as more of a cult rather than less of one are several things the OP mentions:
1. Us vs. Them thinking: As several folks including the OP have pointed out, there are traces of this in almost every organization; that’s a given. However, IMHO, the church takes it much further, what with its talk of “the world”, the spoken and unspoken teachings that reinforce the idea that every marriage is inferior to a temple marriage, that every family is inferior to an “eternal” one, etc. And that’s not even mentioning the whole “one true church” thing. There’s a LOT of indoctrination that goes along with this one.
2. Induced phobias. Related to number 1, this is a big one. Fear Satan, fear the world, fear sexuality (your own or others’), fear the body, fear music, art, etc. that doesn’t conform to LDS truths or “standards”‘ there’s a lot here as well. We give lip service to valuing faith over fear, but if you listen to many conference talks with their drumbeats about the decaying world and its slipshod values and how Satan is waiting for just one slip up, and how constant obedience is required or we’ll get sifted as wheat, etc., you can really see a strong vein of fear-mongering running through a lot of the rhetoric of church leaders.
3. This one is a little related to the Double Bind category that hawkgrrrl mentions, but I think of it as The High Cost of Getting Out. Think about the kind of will you have to summon to leave the church (esp. if you are married in the temple, are part of an eternal family sealed in the temple, etc.), which doesn’t just mean not attending a building on Sundays, but leaving behind family (eternally, not just in this life), breaking the sealing promises of the temple, “losing your blessings” as one bishop of mine once termed it, etc. This is a big cult-like feature for me. And it’s a huge social cost, not just a doctrinal one. You lose most, if not all of your still-believing friends; if you’re in the Jello belt, your work relationships and job status may be affected and if you’re a young adult or teenager, you risk getting disowned by your parents. This is the most cult-like aspect of the LDS Church to me. The damage church teachings have done are most evident, IMO, when you look at the tremendous struggles many folks have with leaving and after they leave the church. This where I disagree a bit with John W. Yes, LDS Church leaders are different from, say, Jim Jones or David Koresh, but to me it’s a difference of degree, not kind. They may not be as authoritarian as those cult leaders, but LDS leaders are, in fact, responsible for creating the social fabric of conformity and obedience and doubling down on church teachings that lead to the ostracizing and alienation that occurs when one leaves (or attempts to leave) the church. That feels to me like church leaders play a bigger part in creating this high cost than John W might think they do. And that’s fine; it’s okay to disagree about this stuff. It’s just that, from my perspective, this is one of the most toxic and cultish elements of the church.
I agree with Josh h’s comment.
I said this on the last post, but thanks for letting me repeat:
My company, my non-profit board, my local theater group, my kids sports leagues, all portray some of these elements. While it’s not healthy, I still wouldn’t call them a cult.
But here is the ultimate test for me: A cult won’t let you leave with your dignity in tact. I can quit my job, I can resign from my non-profit board position, I can walk away from theater and sports.
But a high demand religion? The JW have their shunning practice; Scientology is known for destroying reputations of those who leave. And the Mormons? Either face a disciplinary council or realize your neighbors will now look at you as (1) a sinner; (2) a project; (3) persona non-grata. And that’s if the institution will actually honor your resignation request. To me, the exit strategy of high-demand religions tips the scale towards cult.
While I enjoy reading these posts about culty characteristics, I don’t actually think they are very useful for defining a cult. I think they define several characteristics of organizations and religions that, in their extreme form, are generally undesirable. And I think that the term cult is generally used as a perjorative term that that may or may not include such characteristics. So when we are having these discussions we are really saying, “here are some traits of this organization that simultaneously make it hard to leave but undesirable to join” or something like that.
I think the social pressure element is pretty huge. I mean, in the while it may not be too bad but there are a couple of huge red flags, like the possibility that you might not be able to attend your child’s wedding if they choose to do it in the temple. It’s a bit better now that sealings can be performed shortly after a civil ceremony, but most of the people I know are still getting married in the actual temple.
On the thought terminating clichés, in think they are frequently used. “Doubt your doubts” comes to mind. The OP says, “However, none of these approaches are on par with the thought-stopping that is done in your garden variety cults.” Well that may be true; I don’t know what thought stopping is done in your garden variety cut.
@Dave B, on a mobile device one can üsûáłly èñtër specïal chãractērs by holding down the most similar letter
I agree that we must get rid of the worship of leaders. We must start by banning “Praise to the Man.” Only God should be praised—not man.
Lots of good points here. I appreciate that the OP pointed out the ways that yes, it’s easy to identify these issues in the Church, but it’s also easy to see them in other orgs so it’s not as simple as just ticking down the list and then saying CULT! I do think that the way we treat disaffiliated / former members is a very big red flag though. I’ve just seen too many parents disown children, siblings torn apart, friendships unravel, marriages crumble, neighbors be suspicious of one another, and just overall really bad fruits of some of the characteristics mentioned above re: us vs. them, black and white thinking, one and only truth, fear tactics, etc.
I also think plvtime makes a really good point that this is going to depend a lot on your position within the Church (and your family situation and geographic location). The church has a lot less influence on me than it used to. But I paid a price for that, too, in creating some distance and giving up some callings and social capital. (As for studying the book in sunday school – hah! that would be amazing, but would also never, ever, ever happen.)
Cult or not cult I don’t really care but if I absolutely *had* to pick a label I would not label the mainstream LDS Church a cult. But what I do care about is that the tendencies identified above that are on the cult-like spectrum have rotten fruits that hurt people. Rather than rooting them out, I feel like the leadership – because it, too, feels threatened by unorthodox / less active / disaffiliated / critical members – looks the other way or even subtly encourages this kind of behavior because it sees doubt as a contagion. That needs to change at all levels. Maybe it would be more helpful to think of in terms of “undue influence” or something like that but whatever it is, it’s not healthy, loving, or ethical.
I think a post with the word cult in it will generate lots of effort to put the cult or the non-cult label on the institution.
What is really interesting however is to go through Luna’s book in detail and to investigate to the extent of one’s own conditioning based on speeches and policies and cultural practices I know well. I would have said I didn’t need to read the book, but when I did, it made me think a lot about the teachings and culture I was raised in in ways I did not see before and how my perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and actions were affected.
@plvtime – agree. I don’t know that a label is all that helpful even if it makes for an interesting discussion. I do think understanding practices, conditioning, and thought patterns is. As you had pointed out, it’s going to vary a lot individually. I think it’s up to us to determine how Church and other institutions / organizations might be unduly and unhealthily influencing us by reading about those kinds of tactics and then working on untangling our own brains (and trying to not to repeat mistakes with our own kids).
This is slighty off topic, but recently my friend and I were discussing the church’s role as part of the Kingdom of God. (With our understanding that the Kingdom of God is much bigger than the church, and includes people/groups/organizations of people who teach eternal truths/help people live better lives/bring people closer to God.) I don’t think that The COJCOLDS meets the criteria of being a cult, but even if it does, I also think it meets the criteria of being part of the Kingdom of God, (and I think it has a unique and important role in the Kingdom of God.).
My question is: Are there (other?) cults that you think/feel like are part of the Kingdom of God. If so, which ones? Or if it is a cult, is it antithetical to the Kingdom of God?
The word “cult” became poisoned for me back when it was employed by Walter Martin and fundamentalist evangelicals to label anything outside of their purview as evil and “other.” That seems to have waned as Trumpist Mormons exercise unholy envy of the worst elements of evangelicalism, but it’s very hard for me to take the “cult” label seriously. It’s not a word with an objective definition, and it tells me more about the person using the word than the religion it’s being employed to describe.
Inside scoop! The 2022 Church social media campaign theme has been revealed.
“The Church of Jeses Christ of Latter Day Saints. Now 37% less cult like!”
John Charity Spring, I’m with you all the way on getting rid of “Praise to the Man”. I would also get rid of “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet”. The last thing we need to be doing is reinforcing leader worship. I remember hearing President Hinkley state that he was extremely uncomfortable whenever that song was sung in any setting where he was present because he felt that all the praise, glory and honor should be given to the Savior and not to a fallible mortal. Compare his attitude with Nelson’s when that song is sung in conference. Nelson is visibly lapping it all up, and I’m sure that Wendy is too.
Several summers ago I was involved in getting my certification in a particular well known method of music instruction at BYU during the summer. Many of the people who participated in the three year certification program were not of our faith. In my particular class there were two ladies who were not LDS. One day our choral conducting professor was ill and we had a substitute. She had just begun to teach us the song “Scotland the Brave” when one of our class members told our teacher (who also wasn’t LDS) that this was the same tune with a couple of tiny changes as “Praise to the Man”. As we were in a large room that was used for church for BYU wards there were hymn books close by. Our professor had us Mormons sing the first verse for her and the other two ladies. I felt very uncomfortable singing this hymn in their presence for the reason that JCS brings up. By the time the first verse had been sung, the three non LDS ladies looked shocked, and one of the non ladies quietly asked me if we worshipped Joseph Smith as much or more than Jesus. All I could say was that I wasn’t comfortable with the lyrics for that very reason. She decided to ask the rest of the class the same question. Most of these ladies had never really given the words much thought. The fun tune was what they enjoyed most of all. The same lady who’d asked me about my feelings regarding the lyrics borrowed a hymn book and took it back to her dorm where she studied the words of our hymns. The next day the two of us ate lunch together and she started asking questions about our beliefs as expressed through our hymns. It was an extremely uncomfortable conversation that really opened my eyes to things that I was ashamed to never have really paid attention to. An investigator who visited a sacrament meeting with the missionaries or friends and joined in singing the hymns might very well think that our church has cult like aspects depending on which hymns were sung. While our hymnal has many hymns that are beautiful and Christ centered there are also many hymns that express teachings or subjects that have little to nothing to do with Jesus and our relationship with him. If you don’t believe me go through the hymnal and see for yourself. BTW I also heartily endorse getting rid of “Follow the Prophet” and other Primary songs that promote subtle and not so subtle similarly inappropriate messages for our young children.
A Poor Wayfaring Stranger: I’m quite sure the Community of Christ would graciously allow use of the revised words to the familiar hymn, as they appear in “Community of Christ Sings.” (CofC hymnal, 2013)
(1) We thank you, O God, for our prophets who guide us in witness today.
We thank you for sending the gospel enlightening our minds with its rays.
We thank you for every belssing bestowed by your generous hand.
We lift up our promise to serve you, to bring healing and peace to all lands.
(2) When dark clouds of trouble hang o’er us and threaten your peace by our fear,
there is hope smiling brightly before us, and we know that your kingdom is near.
We doubt not your grace and your goodness; we’ve claimed them in days that are past.
And all those who labor for Zion will surely be blessed at last.
(3) A people God calls to be prophetic will walk in the way of the Christ.
Welcome all who would join in the journey seeking joy in God’s life-giving light.
By prayer, may we always be open to bear further truth God would give.
We dare to act boldly for justice, and serve so that others may live.
Feeling some holy envy here. The CoC version is way better than the downer COJCOLDS version .
Thanks for sharing that Rich. Right there with JLM and the Holy Envy – that version is SO much better!!!!!
JLM: We used to sing the “downer version” as RLDS but increasing numbers of members grew uncomfortable with lyrics. President Grant McMurray especially pressed for changes as has his successor, Steve Veazey (prophet-president since 2004).
We’ve never sung “Praise to the Man,” and having just checked out the lyrics, I can see no way to just tweak the words to that one.
Brother Sky, I agree that there is some overlap between what we see in cults and what we see in the LDS church. But I think that the LDS church lacks the whole package and that when you compare the LDS church to the Heaven’s Gate Cult (a cult that I imagine extremely few people would have trouble with identifying as a cult), there really isn’t much of a comparison. Of course, this doesn’t mean that I don’t see lots that’s worth criticizing about the LDS church. My comments on this blog most certainly reveal that I am regularly quite critical of the church, in fact, probably more critical that most other commenters here.
My general reasoning is that cults do indeed exist and that they are overwhelmingly toxic influences on individuals and humanity. But I want to reserve the title of cult to the worst offenders. If we start applying it too broadly, it cheapens the value of the word.
The Church isn’t a traditional cult, but it does use some of their tactics which are truly disturbing. For example:
-Elder Holland’s talk to BYU staff smacked of censorship.
-Worship of leaders past and present is disturbing.
-Encouraging reading the scriptures and GA talks at the expense of real literature is problematic.
-The attempted controls on missionaries are way too tight. They should be encouraged to expand their minds, not constrict them.
-And don’t get me started on the temple.
I agree with John W, we reduce the impact of a word when we apply it too broadly. When we say stuff like, “Every family is dysfunctional,”
we’ve lost a word to describe a family that is unhealthy.
This is a bit of a tangent, (maybe we could have a post about it?), but I’ll chime in with my frustration about how we don’t pay attention to the words of our hymns. “We Thank Thee O God for a Prophet” has some wince-able lines, but the song really isn’t about the prophet, only the first two lines are about him. But because that’s the title and the beginning of the song there’s a tradition of singing it for the prophet.
Then there’s our habit of stopping hymns – because we’ve reached the 4th verse – either in the middle of a thought (#116), or a depressing verse (#191).
And don’t get me started on all the hymns that don’t reference God at all.
All I want to say is that Recovering Agency has been extremely beneficial to me as I try to work to know my own mind. I’m a fifth generation Mormon and it ran deep through every facet of my life for 57 years – plus 4 more – and probably for the rest of my life.
I had an opportunity to meet Luna recently and couldn’t stop the tears as I thanked her for the tools in her book.
I may have mentioned “mind worms” . . .
I think I’m supposed to feel like the church is less cult-like now, but the way leaders handled the internet tsunami of troubling info makes me think twice. In the gospel topics essays the gaslighting is off the chart.
After a good night’s rest, it seems I have something else to say.
I still haven’t called the church a cult – and won’t start here.
Luna’s objective in writing this book was not to demonstrate that the church is a cult, but rather to discuss 31 mind control techniques employed by cults and other high-demand organizations to further their means. Quotes from experts, church manuals and magazines, CES instruction, conference talks, and GA’s books are extensively footnoted.
If there is a theme in the OP and many of the comments it is “Mormons aren’t as bad as *insert evil cult* and not all members are equally *cultified*, therefore, Mormonism isn’t a cult – “nothing to see here”.
An analogy from my non-existent experience with Beer: Beer has a lower alcohol content than whiskey therefore Beer is not an alcoholic beverage. Not all Beer drinkers are alcoholics therefore there can be no harm in drinking Beer. We are employing logical fallacies
I do not believe that there is an LDS Department of Mind Control whose managing director channels the spirit of BKP. Most if not all of the Q15 are lifelong members with many having intertwined Utah pioneer roots that go back 170+ years. They grew up in the same system that they now steward. I would imagine they would not consider most of the 31 techniques as anything but beneficial and completely justified by the “righteous” ends to which they are employed – if they are considered at all. It’s just the way it is.
The crucial element to me is: to what extent do these practices interfere with my Agency?
Still not saying the church is a cult. But if I am being honest, I have to ask myself if that is because I don’t want to say that I was a member of a cult.
BeenThere: I love your crucial question: “to what extent do these practices interfere with my agency?” I think that’s the crux of it. However, it’s hard to assess in practical terms. We are all wrapped up in so many different motivating factors that it’s hard to disentangle our actions from them. It is a similar problem to whether something is a mental illness or not because it has to be something that leads to a dysfunctional life outcome. Narcissism is considered a mental illness, but there isn’t a narcissist out there who doesn’t think things are going great for them.
But I can’t agree with your characterization that there’s nothing to see here. Any tactics that fall along the cult spectrum probably should give an organization pause for reflection and to do better.
“I do not believe that there is an LDS Department of Mind Control whose managing director channels the spirit of BKP.”
Well, there is the (unintentionally ironically named) Strengthening Church Members Committee which comes pretty darn close.
Angela
I think we’re on the same page – I may not have articulated it well. The error lies in dismissing a tactic because it may not be at egregious levels.
It is death by a thousand cuts.
JLM
SCMC: Definitely the thought police. I heard a commenter on Mormonism Live recently who is a vocal “Jr.”. His father is in a stake presidency and got a call from the SCMC about his disparaging comments. Dad said he doesn’t watch YouTube, but he is as a “Sr.” so it may be his son they are looking for.
Mind control would imply that the leaders are somehow controlling people’s minds. It comes of as quite exaggerated. I know the CIA experimented with mind control in the Cold War era, but I think to little avail.
Having lived in Brazil, Egypt, Israel and Turkey, I have had the chance to experience first hand how thick culture is and how cultural norms that dictate a range of acceptable words and behaviors get set in place that are slow to change and kind of go in whatever direction they please. A few individuals have the standing and social capital to influence change in the norms. But most people just live by the norms (often unwittingly). I think that is simply what is at play in Mormonism. Joseph Smith created the religion, built a cult of personality around himself, cemented his status with his early death, and gradually a number of different Mormon cultures emerged (the predominant one under Brigham Young). The predominant culture shaped the leadership class who in turn would make pronouncements and decisions that mostly affirmed this culture and give it more strength. The cycle has repeated itself for generations. Culture may always be morphing and changing, with some elements remaining longer in place than others, but it is always there informing groups’ collective values, ritual practices, speech, and behavior. Mormon culture just has a long history of being more collectivist, and hence is more felt in individuals’ lives than other cultures.
Agree with @beenthere that Luna’s book isn’t really trying to prove or disprove anything about the church as an organization (although she personally obviously thinks it’s an unhealthy org and doesn’t hide that bias). It’s just trying to help people free themselves from unhealthy, controlling thought patterns. Even people who haven’t left the church could benefit from it (although may have a hard time stomaching it).
@john w I agree that no one’s mind is free from cultural influences. No one. But I also agree with Angela that this doesn’t mean organizations and people don’t get a free pass to use tactics that are manipulative and harmful. A term I have heard in this area is “unethical persuasion” or “unethical influence” as distinguished from ordinary cultural milieu and I think some of what Angela describes in the OP falls into that category. Claiming to have the one truth or one path to god, claiming that an individual speaks for god, shunning people who leave, limiting access to information, etc crosses a line IMO. Agree that “mind control” is too strong but I think “unethical influence” is fair.
Here are some thought terminating cliches…. Even the very elect will be deceived, It’s a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks for a sign, you can leave the church but you can’t leave it alone, you are in Satan’s clutches, Korihor much, and some more recent ones…. Doubt your doubts, Unruly children, Lazy learners. If the Church wants to become less culty, they could do something very simple in General Conference. They could tell the membership that members leave for a variety of reasons, instead of using the usual demeaning tropes, well they were offended, they wanted to sin, they were too lazy, they couldn’t keep the word of wisdom. Members who resign their membership in fact do not leave for any of those reasons, but for reasons of belief. These General Authorities are causing huge damages in marriages and families by using such language. Leaving the Church is not easy and can cause huge riffs with spouse, family, friends, neighbors, even employers.
There’s kind of an issue with the word cult being loaded. It’s like the word “conspiracy theorist” and is used for gaslighting. The characteristics of a cult may bear some resemblance to different groups but trying to argue about what the threshold is kind of misses the point. The point is that manipulative practices are being used, in almost every organization in the world, and the problem is when they’re being used to cause harm instead of just cohesion.