LDS Church is a cult

From FAIRMormon

Jump to: navigation, search
An anti-Mormon protester at Temple Square during the April 2003 LDS General Conference.

Contents

Criticism

Critics claim that the Church is "a cult."

Source(s) of the Criticism

Response

An anti-Mormon protester at the 2002 Winter Olympics.
This claim is a good example of anti-Mormon attempts to use loaded language and emotionally charged words to attack.

Webster's Dictionary defines cult as a “great devotion to a person, idea, or thing”. So, because the Jews revere Moses, Lutherans revere Martin Luther, Seventh-day Adventists are devoted to the teachings of Ellen G. White, and Christians reverence Jesus Christ, all these groups could be considered "cults" by this definition.

Alan Gomes, who teaches at BIOLA University’s Talbot school of Theology and applies the label to Mormons, among others, admits that “our English word cult comes from the Latin word cultus, which is a form of the verb colere, meaning ‘to worship or give reverence to a deity.” [1]

Yet, this is not simply what sectarian critics of the Church mean when they call it a "cult." Gomes writes that his "preferred definition" of cult is "a group that deviates doctrinally from a parent or host religion; that is, cults grow out of and deviate from a previously established religion."[2]

But, if Gomes wishes to adopt this definition, would he be content to call Christianity "a Jewish cult"? Christianity certainly grew out of Judaism, and it certainly deviates doctrinally from Judaism. Is Gomes content to label his own faith "a cult"? One suspects not.

The advantage of the term "cult," for critics, is that it has a negative connotation. When the public hears the term "cult," they do not simply think, "religious group devoted to some person or ideal." Nor, usually, do they think, "religion that has deviated from the beliefs of a parent religion." A "cult" implies a fanatical, probably dangerous, religious group—and it is this image which critics seek to exploit. Hence Gomes' desire, for example, to "unmask" cults (who must have something to hide) and the necessity of a chapter on "Keeping People Out of Cults."

If the "cult" is a Jewish cult (i.e. Christianity) then presumably Gomes would not want to keep them out. Thus, "cult" is clearly intended to communicate something additional.

Gomes also insists there are other criteria for being "a cult," such as "den[ying] (either explicitly or implicitly) one or more of the central doctrines of the Christian faith."[3] Gomes considers these to include "the Trinity," yet this creates problems for his definition, since the first century Christians clearly had no doctrine of creedal Trinitarianism as Gomes' present denomination does. By Gomes' definition, he would then be part of a Christian cult, since he's altered the doctrines of the "parent" religion, early Christianity.

Clearly, such linguistic games become laughable, and rather pointless.

It should not surprise us that the Church is so labeled—new religious groups, when considered 'strange' or 'heretical', and still in the minority, have often been labeled as "cults" to keep people away from them, or to justify poor treatment of them. Unsurprisingly, the early Christians had the same experience:

This new Jewish-Christian party in the eyes of the religious leaders of the time was, at the worst, simply regarded as guilty of minuth (cultism), namely, a variety of Jewish heresy, or rather, Jewish sectarianism...early passages in the Talmud still contain hostile references to the minim (cults), among whom were numbered the Jewish Christians...[4]

Pliny, an early Roman leader also said that Christians were a “superstition, a foreign cult,” and this characterization was re-iterated by two more Roman writers, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Tacitus explained the attacks on Christians as being due to their 'cult' status, and also because “of their hatred toward mankind”. Tacitus also said that they were “an enemy to mankind”, and a “deadly superstition”. Suetonius called the Christians a “mischievous superstition” or, in other words, a cult.[5]

Conclusion

Simply put, "cult" is simply a label that implies "religion I don't like" or "religion that I disagree with." When the early Christians were unpopular, uncommon, and powerless, they were labeled a "cult." When they reached prominence and power, they began applying the label in turn to religions with whom they disagreed.

A book-length treatment of these issues has been written, and no cogent response to its arguments has been forthcoming.[6] "Cult" is not a useful term, since it merely expresses the speaker's prejudices, but tells us nothing useful about the religion being considered. It is likely impossible for sectarian critics of the Church to formulate a definition for "cult" that would include the present-day Church of Jesus Christ but not include the first century Christian Church. The usefulness of the label "cult," is therefore questionable—except as a short-hand for bigotry or prejudice.

Endnotes

  1. [back]  Alan W. Gomes, Unmasking the Cults (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), 7 (italics added).
  2. [back]  Ibid.
  3. [back]  Ibid., 10.
  4. [back]  Herbert Danbys, "The Jew and Christianity," p. 8. [citation needed]
  5. [back]  Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (Yale University Press; 2nd edition, 2003), 22, 49–50, 66. ISBN 0300098391.
  6. [back] Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, Utah: FARMS (reprint edition), 1992), 1. ISBN 0934893357. off-site

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Logical Fallacies
Definitional fallacies wiki articles
Theosis and related at FAIR

FAIR web site

  • FAIR Topical Guide: LDS Church as "a cult" FAIR link
FAIR articles on Jesus Christ
  • FAIR Topical Guide: Are LDS Christian? FAIR link
  • FAIR Topical Guide: Jesus Christ FAIR link
  • FAIR Topical Guide: LDS Worship 'Different Jesus'? FAIR link
  • FAIR Topical Guide: Virgin Birth FAIR link
  • Mormonism 201: Jesus FAIR link
  • Cooper Johnson, "Mormons—Can They Be Considered Christians?" FAIR link
Theosis and related at FAIR
  • FAIR Topical Guide: Deification FAIR link
  • Michael W. Fordham, "Does President Gordon B. Hinckley Understand LDS Doctrine?" FAIR link (Key source)

Video

Historical or Hysterical? Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sources, Matthew Brown, 2004 FAIR Conference

External links

  • Orson Scott Card, "Hey, Who Are You Calling a Cult?" off-site
  • Louis Midgley, "Orders of Submission: Review of "Essays on Mormonism," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9/2 (Summer 2005): 1–81.," FARMS Review 18/2 (2006): 189–228. off-site PDF link wiki (Key source)
  • Benjamin I. Huff, "Of Course Mormonism Is Christian (Review of: Is Mormonism Christian?)," FARMS Review of Books 14/1 (2002): 113–130. off-site PDF link
  • Kent P. Jackson, "Am I a Christian? (Review of: Is Mormonism Christian?)," FARMS Review of Books 14/1 (2002): 131–138. off-site PDF link
  • Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
  • Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993). off-site FAIR link GospeLink
  • Robert E. Wells, "We Are Christians Because...," Ensign (January 1984): 17. off-site
Theosis and related links
  • Ernst W. Benz, "Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman G. Madsen (editor), Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center , Brigham Young University and Bookcraft, 1978), 215–216. ISBN 0884943585. Reprinted in Ernst Benz, "Imago dei: Man as the Image of God," FARMS Review 17/1 (2005): 223–254. off-site PDF link
    Note: Benz misunderstands some aspects of LDS doctrine, but his sketch of the relevance of theosis for Christianity in general, and Joseph Smith's implementation of it, is worthwhile.
  • David Bokovoy, "Ye Really Are Gods": A Response to Michael Heiser concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John; Review of "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82," by Michael S. Heiser," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 267–313. off-site PDF link wiki
  • Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest Sermon in Historical Perspective," Brigham Young University Studies 18:2 (1978): 179. PDF link
  • Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, "The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation," Ensign (January 1989): 27–33. off-site
  • Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse," Brigham Young University Studies 18:2 (1978): 209. PDF link
  • Michael S. Heiser, "Israel's Divine Counsel, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for Future Study," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 315–323. off-site PDF link wiki
  • Michael S. Heiser, "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 221–266. off-site PDF link wiki
  • Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text"," Brigham Young University Studies 18:2 (1978): 193. PDF link (Key source)
  • Jeff Lindsay, "The Divine Potential of Human Beings: The Latter-day Saint Perspective," JeffLindsay.com (accessed 30 March 2007) off-site
  • Gerald N. Lund, "Is President Lorenzo Snow's oft-repeated statement 'As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be'] accepted as official doctrine by the Church?," Ensign (February 1982): 38. off-site
  • Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2000). off-site
  • Keith E. Norman, "Deification, Early Christian," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:369–370. ISBN 002904040X. off-site off-site off-site
  • Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity," Sunstone (Issue #1) (Winter 1975): 14–19. off-site off-site
  • Blake T. Ostler, "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis by Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish," FARMS Review of Books 8/2 (1996): 99–146. off-site PDF link
  • David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, "How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser's Review," FARMS Review of Books 11/2 (1999): 221–264. off-site PDF link
  • Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" (Provo, Utah: FARMS, no date). off-site
  • Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye Are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 471–594. ISBN 0934893497. ISBN 978-0934893497. off-site direct off-site
  • Stephen E. Robinson, "The Doctrine of Deification," in Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993), 60–65. off-site FAIR link GospeLink
  • Tom Rosson, "Deification: Fulness and Remnant, A review of Deification and Grace by Daniel A. Keating," FARMS Review 20/1 (2008): 195–218. off-site PDF link wiki
  • Jordan Vajda, "'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization," FARMS Occasional Papers, (2002). off-site

Printed material

  • Terryl L. Givens, The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (Oxford University Press, 1997), 1. ISBN 0195101839.
  • Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, Utah: FARMS (reprint edition), 1992), 1. ISBN 0934893357. off-site
Theosis and related printed material
  • Extensive non-LDS bibliography available here.
  • K. Codell Carter, "Godhood," in Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 553-55.
  • Daniel H. Ludlow, "Eternal Life or Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom," in Daniel H. Ludlow, Selected Writings of Daniel H. Ludlow: Gospel Scholars Series (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2000), 416-20.
  • Robert L. Millet, "Do the Mormons really believe that men and women can become gods?" in Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1998), 175-77, 192-94.
  • Robert L. Millet, "The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament," in The Principles of the Gospel in Practice (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1985), 21-37.
  • Thomas S. Monson, An Invitation to Exaltation (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 18 pp.
  • David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990): 108–109.
  • Lorenzo Snow, "As God Is, Man May Be," in Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, compiled by Clyde J. Williams, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1984), 2–9. ISBN 0884945170.
Retrieved from "http://en.fairmormon.org/LDS_Church_is_a_cult"
Personal tools