What parts of Mormanism make peaple think.That its a Cult?

[StrawberryFields]

Number one with a bullet. Any time any religion has secret parts, people are going to think the worse. And call it a cult.

I have found that people fear things they don't understand.

[NateHowe]

Name-calling has been around much longer than the restored Church, but we seem to attract it well.

My advice is to get over the labels and look at the doctrine, beginning with the Book of Mormon, which is the fruit of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You say you have a hard time swallowing the idea of the Joseph Smith story. That's okay. Read the book, apply its precepts, pray about it earnestly, and see what God tells you about it.

[BenRaines]

Old Testament. Amos 3:7

Ben Raines

[bytor2112]

I'm not sure if I (as a non-Mormon Christian) would call Mormonism a cult ... I'm not entirely sure I would call it Christian either, because of the different way that the LDS understand God and Jesus to be compared to other Christian denominations. Edit: I'd actually rather define it as a different, but related religion.

But I agree with PrisonChaplain, I think the greatest problem people have with LDS are the additional texts besides the Bible and the doctrines that come from them.

With all due respect.....we could be as arrogant and ignorant as the rest of Christendom and say, well....I don't think the Baptists are a cult, but I'm not sure I would call them Christian either!!! It is so audacious of you or anyone else to assume that you have the right to determine who is and who is not a Christian. Have you considered the possibility that your doctrine is wrong? That your interpretation of things is incorrect, that your understanding of God is wrong? I mean, really............ It is so absolutely insulting and inconsiderate and really just plain ignorance of our beliefs to say....well I am not sure I would call them Christian either. We are absolutely Christians, in the most devout sense of the word. The thread is not about making heretical charges toward a people that strive to live the example that Christ taught in both word and deed. So please, though we disagree on theology, I believe you and those of other faiths to be sincere Christians, please accord us the same respect.

Edited August 15, 2008 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Funny....the Savior and his followers would fit the definition of a cult......seems we are in good company.

[bytor2112]

From Jeff Lindsey:

In condemning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "the Mormon Cult," the main issues used by critics to create special definitions of the word "cult" are:

1. The Trinity: LDS doctrine does not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, the Church is said to be a cult.

2. Prophets and Apostles: the Church gives respect to human leaders called apostles and prophets, allegedly making us a cult.

3. New Scripture: Latter-day Saints have new scriptures not in the old canon. Therefore, we are said to belong to a cult.

4. New Doctrines: Latter-day Saints have had a variety of doctrines and teachings differing from older practices. Anyone departing from Christian tradition must belong to a cult.

5. Commandment Keeping: Latter-day Saints are said to think that we must keep the commandments to be saved instead of relying on the grace of Christ, thus making us a cult.

6. Divine Potential of Human Beings: Latter-day Saints are said to believe that they may eventually become "gods," thus making their church a non-Christian cult. Indeed, any group is said to be a cult if they teach that man has divine potential or that man can become like Christ, glorified with Christ, or "joint heirs" with Christ.

7. Close Social Ties: "Cults" are often described as close-knit groups with strong social ties and influence from fellow believers, a definition which would seem to fit Latter-day Saints.

8. Polygamy: Plural marriages were practiced by some early Latter-day Saints and were encouraged by the Church for a period of time in the nineteenth century (from about 1840 to 1890), so Latter-day Saints are said to be a cult for having once had such an abhorrent practice.

9. Departure from Tradition: Mormons are said to be a cult because we depart from much of established Christian tradition.

These special definitions of cults are used to label us as "cultists" and to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the ranks of Christianity, regardless of our belief in and acceptance of Christ as our Savior and as the Son of God who died to free us from our sins and from death. Naturally, the critics usually call the Church by any name (Mormon Church, Mormonism, Church of Latter-day Saints, etc.) other than it's official and correct name, lest their audience wonder why a non-Christian group calls itself after the name of Christ. Curiously, most of the special definitions listed above would also have condemned Christ and His New Testament church as non-Christian cultists. Was Christ a Christian? I should think so - but the logic of popular "cult slayers" would suggest otherwise, if their logic were applied to Him. Let's consider each of these charges in light of New Testament teachings of Christ and His Apostles to see if they were also "cultists."

[Misshalfway]

2. Cult, as defined by evangelicals, "Group that labels itself Christians, but departs from "historic orthodox teachings."

The problem is that many LDS, and most non-religious people think of the first one, and most of the "Anti Mormon" sites mean the 2nd one.

I always thought this definition applied to heresay. It is an interesting definition because if I am not mistaken early protestants called themselves Christians but departed from the historic orthodox teachings. Hmmmm......

Look.....

I would much rather hear from the traditional Christian community that our doctrine is heretical, than hear us referred to as a cult. In fact, I thought that was what protestantism was all about.....breaking away. It is an interesting double-standard.

I don't mind if someone disagrees and even strongly objects. There is no offense in that. Stand up and tell me my doctrine is wrong. Fine. But attack...discredit...lie...deceive....and throw around painful labels....to prove that something is wrong?? It is behavior that baffles me because such things don't sound at all like what Christ exemplified. And then to have such antics whitewashed and the blame shifted back to us because we didn't understand the proper definition is a little much to take.

[pam]

I don't know. I keep watching for the next comet to catch the tail.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

And then to have such antics whitewashed and the blame shifted back to us because we didn't understand the proper definition is a little much to take.

I suspect that "cult" is nothing more than a label that means "I don't like or understand this group, but I haven't got anything specific to offer."

You see a lot of that these days. But if I get specific, I'm going to breaking the board rule about being non-partisan.

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I don't know. I keep watching for the next comet to catch the tail.

You say "comet", I say "sweet chariot."

[bytor2112]

I suspect that "cult" is nothing more than a label that means "I don't like or understand this group, but I haven't got anything specific to offer."

You see a lot of that these days. But if I get specific, I'm going to breaking the board rule about being non-partisan.

I think you can be specific in a non-partisan way...the thread is after all about some of the reasons some consider us to be a cult.

[Misshalfway]

Well, and at the end of the day the real question isn't whether or not we are a cult. It is whether or not our doctrine is true.

So....to the OP.... Come and learn of us....and see if what we teach is true. God is certainly capable of laying to rest the arguments of the sometimes cantankerous, but lovable factions. :)

Edited August 15, 2008 by Misshalfway

[bytor2112]

Well, and at the end of the day the real question isn't whether or not we are a cult. It is whether or not our doctrine is true.

So....to the OP.... Come and learn of us....and see if what we teach is true. God is certainly capable of laying to rest the arguments of the sometimes cantankerous, but lovable factions. :)

And so I now say: Come and let us reason together; let us reason as did righteous men of old that we may come to understanding.

Come and hear us declare sound doctrine; let us declare it plainly and in power as do the angels of God in heaven.

Come and let us testify of those things which God has made known to us; let us testify as do those whose souls are afire with the Spirit and who know by revelation of the truth and verity of their spoken word. Elder Bruce R. McConkie

[pam]

You say "comet", I say "sweet chariot."

haha I was referring to that group that was going to catch the tail end of some comet..but didn't they all commit suicide?

[bytor2112]

haha I was referring to that group that was going to catch the tail end of some comet..but didn't they all commit suicide?

Weren't they all dressed in jogging suits and NIKE running shoes??? Hale-bop, right. I'm personally drawn to the Raelians.......

[Misshalfway]

Pam, do you mean to say "where are we all going? and how did we all end up in this handbasket??" hahaha

[FlaviusHambonius]

haha I was referring to that group that was going to catch the tail end of some comet..but didn't they all commit suicide?

Yes indeed, 'Doe' was the name and 'Hail Bop' was the train---that was taking them to another dimension. I would have much rather stayed in sunny San Diego where they were from and enjoyed the weather than catch a first class ticket on a cosmic ride.

[pam]

I have to agree. Having grown up in San Diego. Much better place to stay. haha

[FlaviusHambonius]

Funny....the Savior and his followers would fit the definition of a cult......seems we are in good company.

I have heard it said that Christ and Joseph Smith were the 'progressives' of their day.

They both had some pretty radical teachings to say the least.

[prisonchaplain]

With all due respect.....we could be as arrogant and ignorant as the rest of Christendom and say, well....I don't think the Baptists are a cult, but I'm not sure I would call them Christian either!!! It is so audacious of you or anyone else to assume that you have the right to determine who is and who is not a Christian.

Oh how I understand this! The comment is so Pacific Northwest, so California...and so postmodern. Here's the thing: You're only narrow-minded, arrogant, audacious, etc., if you are wrong. Ergo:

1. If the Restoration is true, then your church is not arrogant to say it's the one true church, with living prophets, etc.

2. If historic Christian orthodoxy (Trinity doctrine, etc.) is true, and there was no 1900-year Great Apostasy, then it is acceptable, imho, for those orthodox folk to draw a line and say, "Go beyond these established teachings and you go outside the community of faith--we do not share a united system of belief."

3. Is there not some irony in Joseph Smith berating the Protestant churches for their disunity, and yet modern followers of his berating the Protestant churches for insisting that some doctrines are essential, if there is to be unity?

We are absolutely Christians, in the most devout sense of the word. The thread is not about making heretical charges toward a people that strive to live the example that Christ taught in both word and deed. So please, though we disagree on theology, I believe you and those of other faiths to be sincere Christians, please accord us the same respect.

There are many devout people who live "Christ-like" lives, and yet do not even belief in Christ, nor claim to be Christians (Muslims for example). And yes, there are some who claim Christ, believe what I would call "the right information," and yet live for the Devil. BUT, is it enough to do good? Cain was not condemned for failing to sacrifice, but for doing it wrong.

Perhaps it's not wise to say that another who believes and follows Christ to the best of their knowledge, is not a Christian. It's probably not useful, and poisons any potential discussion. At the same time, words have meaning, and there are certain doctrines that have defined Christians for a long time. So, if the restoration is wrong, are the LDS theological departures Christian? Forget the people for a moment, what of the teachings? If there was no Great Apostasy, if the Trinity is truth, for example, then is the Godhead a Christian teaching too?

[candyprpl]

The Great Apostasy -- Amos 8:11-12 - prophecies the downfall of Israel, 'there will be a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.' Acts 20:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:1-2 - Jesus speaks of the apostasy that will come after his crucifixion -- 2 Timothy 4:3-4 - very accurate prophecy, 'And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned into fables.'

Even before the death of the Apostles, many conflicts concerning doctrine arose. Important religious questions were settled by councils. The simple doctrines and ordinances taught by the Savior were debated and changed to comform to worldly philosophies (see Isaiah 24:5). They physically changed the scriptures, removing plain and precious doctrines from them. Because of pride, some aspired to positions of influence (see John 1:9-10). People accepted these false ideas and gave honor to false teachers who taught pleasing doctrines rather than divine truth (see 2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Throughtout history, many people have sincerely believed false creeds and doctrines. They have worshiped according to the light they possessed and have received answers to their prayers. Yet they are "kept from the truth because they know not where to find it" (D&C 123:12).

Therefore, a restoration, not a reformation, was required. Priesthood authority did not continue in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostle Peter. To reform is to change what already exists; to restore is to bring back something in its original form. Thus, the restoration of priesthood authority through divine messengers was the only possible way to overcome the Great Apostasy. (Preach My Gospel)

The previous statement is part of the first missionary lesson. When I first heard it, something inside said, 'hmmm, this makes sense.' But I'm a skeptic by nature and it took really thinking and praying about it before I could say I believe this to be true.

Even before I was a member when I would hear people say this church was a cult -- would make me laugh. I think people are always ready to catorgarize things they don't understand.

Prisonchaplain -- I agree that some people who don't claim to be Christian do have more Christ like attributes than some who do claim to be Christian. Members of this church are not perfect -- I don't think we are perfect in our beliefs (oh boy, I know I've offended some). My father and mother, who were Baptist, were wonderful people and they had lived very much Christ-like. And their Pastor (who once was mine) I loved (he's pasted away) dearly and believe he taught all the truth he knew. I love hanging out with people who live the gospel -- and that doesn't mean people who are just members of my church. I quite frankly don't like the holier than thou attitude that I sometimes see in members (oh boy, I know I've offended again).

I do not believe this church to be a cult. I have lived 54 years trying to find the truth and this Church has gotten me closer to truth than any other faith. Granted, I have not looked into all the other faiths out there, but I do have a personal testimony given to me through the Holy Spirit that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored and that we are led by prophets and apostles today.

I still do not understand why people think that a loving Heavenly Father would close the heavens to his children and not give them guidance through a prophet. Every dispensation since Adam has been led by a prophet, why not now? Why Joseph Smith? Why not before the 1800's? This post is long enough. If you have read thus far and want to know the answer to those questions -- we'll go there another time -- or someone else can take up where I left off.:)

[bytor2112]

I knew in my rant that if anyone was going to respond it would be you PC..:)

1. If the Restoration is true, then your church is not arrogant to say it's the one true church, with living prophets, etc.

Our claims do not include saying that you PC, or Ceeboo or Heaven guard or any person who is part of another denomination and professes to be a Christian....are not Christians.

2. If historic Christian orthodoxy (Trinity doctrine, etc.) is true, and there was no 1900-year Great Apostasy, then it is acceptable, imho, for those orthodox folk to draw a line and say, "Go beyond these established teachings and you go outside the community of faith--we do not share a united system of belief."

Alas.....history points very strongly that Christian orthodoxy departs from the early historical church. If there was not an apostacy, which to the LDS means no direct revelation from God and a falling away from the original church that Christ established, then we should all be Roman Catholic who claim Apostolic succesion.

3. Is there not some irony in Joseph Smith berating the Protestant churches for their disunity, and yet modern followers of his berating the Protestant churches for insisting that some doctrines are essential, if there is to be unity?

When has there been unity? The Protestant movement was a protest against the RCC....not much unity there. And today where is there unity among the Protestant denominations? There was not a unity of belief during the reformation period, no central organization...they followed the views and philosophies of men. You know PC, many Protestants find the Pentacostal and Evangelical movement as a departure from Christian orthodoxy. The evolution of many Protestant churches is a belief that some doctrines and ordinances are essential, though they tend to disagree on which ones. Calvanists, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc.

There are many devout people who live "Christ-like" lives, and yet do not even belief in Christ, nor claim to be Christians (Muslims for example). And yes, there are some who claim Christ, believe what I would call "the right information," and yet live for the Devil. BUT, is it enough to do good? Cain was not condemned for failing to sacrifice, but for doing it wrong.

No argument here.....PC. As you know we believe that salvation is in Christ. It isn't enough to just be good. Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion by one having authority to do so and the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands by those having authority to do so are the first principles and ordinances of the gospel and humankind must come un to Christ in this manner....eventually. The sacrifice that Abel made was in similitude of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and Cain's was not...that is why his offering was not acceptable.

Perhaps it's not wise to say that another who believes and follows Christ to the best of their knowledge, is not a Christian. It's probably not useful, and poisons any potential discussion. At the same time, words have meaning, and there are certain doctrines that have defined Christians for a long time. So, if the restoration is wrong, are the LDS theological departures Christian? Forget the people for a moment, what of the teachings? If there was no Great Apostasy, if the Trinity is truth, for example, then is the Godhead a Christian teaching too?

Indeed, words do have meaning and who defined Christian beliefs? Was it Christ during his ministry or Constantine at Nicea? If there was not a falling away from the truth, from the original undertanding of the Gospel as taught by Christ and his Apostles, then why was there a need for the Council of Nicea? Confusion still prevails among Protestant Christendom today.....if not there would be only one Protestant denomination teaching exactly the same doctrines of salvation and believing in the same ordinances and claiming the same authority to practice and teach their beliefs. Much like the Roman Catholic Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If the Protestant Reformation was necessary, if the Catholic church did not have Apostolic succession as it claims, if it was bereft of divine authority and itself had fallen into apostacy or away from the teachings of Christ, or in the words of James Talmadge, "if the "mother church" be without a valid Priesthood, and devoid of spiritual power, how can her offspring derive from her the right to officiate in the things of God?", why then so many differing views among Protestants? And finally, maybe a better question about the Trinity and Godhead issue is,.........do we accept the Council of Nicea's view of the Trinity which is not supported biblically or do we declare what should be obvious in the reading of the scripture and confirmed by the Holy Spirit and witnessed by a 14 year old boy who by his humble prayer opened Heaven once again, that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct and seperate personages of flesh and bone and that the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit and together they are one in purpose and not one in substance and form the Godhead.

Edited August 15, 2008 by bytor2112

[Guest ceeboo]

Throughtout history, many people have sincerely believed false creeds and doctrines. They have worshiped according to the light they possessed and have received answers to their prayers. Yet they are "kept from the truth because they know not where to find it" (D&C 123:12).

Therefore, a restoration, not a reformation, was required. Priesthood authority did not continue in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostle Peter. To reform is to change what already exists; to restore is to bring back something in its original form. Thus, the restoration of priesthood authority through divine messengers was the only possible way to overcome the Great Apostasy. (Preach My Gospel)

Hi candyprpl,

" Cult " to 97% of the peolple walking the earth is filled with negative tone as well as an evil flavor. ( 3 % use a scholarly definition ) So it is my humble opinion that the LDS is far from a cult, additionaly I believe that when some place this label on the LDS it is applied with a ignorant tape.

Although most of your post ( to me ) was very well said and I appreciate your LDS perspective, I would like to offer a few comments about the above portion from a Non LDS perspective.

I will begin ( to be fair ) that some ( me included ) do not believe, as you suggest, that the

line of authority was broken and thus the " Great Apostasy ", some ( me included ) are convinced that there was no " Great Apostasy " and furthermore can not find any historical evidence to support such a claim.

I would also respectfully not agree with your offering that to restore is to bring back to it's original form. I realize that to an LDS member they must make this claim to follow the next several beliesfs, however, to me, restore is NOT to apply completly " NEW " teachings and suggest that the " additional scripture " is part and equal to the original. I, for what it's worth, see this as " all new and different " and not restoring.

At any rate, I really do appreciate your comments.:)

God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

Our claims do not include saying that you PC, or Ceeboo or Heaven guard or any person who is part of another denomination and professes to be a Christian....are not Christians.

When has there been unity? The Protestant movement was a protest against the RCC....not much unity there. And today where is there unity among the Protestant denominations? There was not a unity of belief during the reformation period, no central organization...the followed the views of men. You know PC, many Protestants find the Pentacostal and Evangelical movement as a departure from Christian orthodoxy. The evolution of many Protestant churches is a belief that some doctrines and ordinances are essential, though they tend to disagree on which ones. Calvanists, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, etc.

Hi bytor,

First, why did you type PC before Ceeboo ???? :):) ( he must rank higher )

I would absoltly agree with your offering of our protestant brethren, last I looked there were about 30,000 or so. This , to me , is why there seems to be so many " flavors " of Christianity for us to choose from and in my humble opinion why we sometimes make that choice based on personal, appetizing, or family reasons.

Your comment " they followed the views of men " ( although I agree ) is rather interesting coming from an LDS member.

God bless,

Carl

[Heavenguard]

Uh oh, I opened a bad can of worms, didn't I? >_> I'll try to explain what I meant...

From the Mormon POV, the Protestants have an incomplete and erronous picture of who God and Jesus are. (ie Godhead vs Trinity) From the Protestant POV, the Mormons have given attributes to God and Jesus that are outside of who they are. (ie God having lived a mortal life in times past) I don't think I'm wrong in saying that from the LDS POV, the rest of Protestantism has an incomplete picture of who Jesus is, and so we do not follow the "true" (or whole picture) Jesus. Following that, from my (a non-Mormon Protestant) POV, the LDS church's understanding of Jesus has additions to it, and so does not follow the "true" Jesus.

I'll give that there are differing views in the different denominations, however none of them are so great that we cannot come together and still agree on who God is. We agree that God is our father, who sent Jesus, his son (in the Trinity) to die and resurrected from death in order to overcome it and redeem us from our sins so that we may return to the Father's presence. On the other hand, the LDS view of God and Jesus is far, far richer (and more epic ) than any of the Protestant teachings. The notion of God's former mortality and progression, Godhead (as opposed to Trinity), and humanity's exaltation to Godhood are things that paint a very different picture of who or what God is compared to he other churches. I rather understand the different denominations as emphasizing or focusing on a certain one thing more than another. (Baptists obviously baptism, Pentecostals on tongues.) Things we disagree on (ie determinism, predestination, communion as symbolic or transubstantiation) are not things that affect our view of God, but rather our view of ourselves.

I give wholly that if the LDS church is the One True church of Christ, then the rest of us are wrong. I never meant to say "I'm right, you're wrong", however the post-modern way of thinking can only go so far.