Allison Mack/NXIVM/DOS


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I don't think we are that far off. My only contention is that the historical (in this case) feels more tangible. I'm not saying it's more authortative than religious evidence, just that it feels that way to many so in that sense I agree with you. But if there was no perceived difference between the two, we'd have a lot more actively religious people in the world than we actually do. 

See, the thing is, believing that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA does not require that you change the way you live your life.  Whereas, believing that Jesus is God does.  So there's a lot more at stake.  Now, if we're gonna say... Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA and if you believe in that you can't have sex with your girlfriend, I betcha tons of people won't believe there's such a thing as Abraham Lincoln.

I just saw the latest Teen Vogue video on gender... and it's amazing how Teen Vogue and their ilk can believe their "all they're teaching us about gender is wrong.  A trans woman is a biological woman and all her biological parts is woman (yes yes they actually say that in a Teen Vogue promotional video!)" defying every scientific discovery there ever was on gender.  And that's because believing their gender video gives them justification for their perceived identity and their demands for everybody else to perceive them as such.   So, there's skin on their game.  Make sense?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

See, the thing is, believing that Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA does not require that you change the way you live your life.  Whereas, believing that Jesus is God does.  So there's a lot more at stake.  Now, if we're gonna say... Abraham Lincoln was the President of the USA and if you believe in that you can't have sex with your girlfriend, I betcha tons of people won't believe there's such a thing as Abraham Lincoln.

I just saw the latest Teen Vogue video on gender... and it's amazing how Teen Vogue and their ilk can believe their "all they're teaching us about gender is wrong.  A trans woman is a biological woman and all her biological parts is woman (yes yes they actually say that in a Teen Vogue promotional video!)" defying every scientific discovery there ever was on gender.  And that's because believing their gender video gives them justification for their perceived identity and their demands for everybody else to perceive them as such.   So, there's skin on their game.  Make sense?

 

Yep I agree, it takes effort to believe in God, but 0 effort to believe in Lincoln. If you put some skin in the game as you say, we'd probably have groups of Lincoln nay sayers, arguing that you can't prove the truthfullness of the Gettysburg Address.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

To @Vort and @unixknight,

I think you're both onto something, but...here's the thing... It's not really about defining the difference between what is and isn't a cult. It's about knowing when an organization is one and when it isn't.

Is it? I really am not sure.

Obviously, "cult" is just a word. We imbue it with all sorts of meanings. Are those meanings valid? When we say "magical unicorn", is there such a thing? Or are we just naming off something that does not really exist? That we have a word to describe Condition X doesn't actually mean that Condition X exists.

Does "cultish" behavior exist? Well, yes, there certainly are people who put inordinate belief in untrue things and slavishly follow what they want and insist to be true, regardless of evidence, because it makes them feel better. That's cultish behavior in my book.

But guess what? That perfectly describes a non-trivial number of Latter-day Saints (except perhaps for the "untrue" part). Can we therefore conclude that our Church is—gulp—a cult?!

No, I don't believe we can conclude any such thing. That any organization or movement inspires cultish behavior, be it Republicanism, environmentalism, communism, essential oils, Jim Jones, or the Lord's Restored Church, does not mean that organization or movement is per se a "cult". (Not in the pejorative sense of the word, at least.)

Then what defines a "cult"? Or is there any such beast at all? Maybe it's just "cultish behavior" that exists, and not "cults" per se.

Actually, I think that's not the case. I do think that the modern pejorative word "cult" has a real meaning and accurately describes things that really exist. But it's darn hard to pin down the actual meaning. Can we just say that a "cult" is something that inspires cultish behavior and is untrue? No, that doesn't work. The Democratic Party is deeply, irredeemably corrupt, and it most certainly inspires an almost insane cult-like devotion among many. But I don't think that's what we mean when we talk about a "cult".

In the end, I'm not sure I know what a cult is. And unlike certain Supreme Court justices discussing obscenity, I'm not even confident that I know it when I see it. The word is so loosely defined and carries so much baggage that I think it's probably not useful.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not so sure.

This only works, however, if the leader's motivation is obvious. In the case of NXIVM I think it was not for most everyone. His program worked. It helped people. And his rhetoric was probably generally "selfless". Heck, they even had the Dalai Lama visit them and lend authority.

There is a difference between what people say and what they do. 

Who (both in and out of the cult) could not see that he was getting insanely rich and insanely "satisfied" by his ventures?  Who couldn't see that? 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm just not sure how most people, prior to the exposé of the "branding" and what-have-you would have any way of reasonably seeing the organization as a cult.

If one were simply not aware of them (as I was until yesterday) then it would be easy not to see it.  That's one thing.  But to be exposed to it and not see it is another.  I guess we ought to count our blessings that we have true principles to guide us.  But to others who didn't hold the LoC as an important principle would be quite another.  I'll address the rebuttal to that which I know you're forming already.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Power. Authority. Respect. Honor.

I don't think blowing that off because Mick Jagger has more screaming fans is legitimate.

Actually it is.  What power?  What authority? People aren't usually so power hungry that they simply want power for the sake of power.  They want power to manipulate others so that said leader will benefit in some significant way.  What benefit does Nelson have?

Respect and honor, I'll grant.  But just look at how hard he has to work to get it.  Hard work in itself is a reason to respect a person.  Heck, I have a certain amount of respect for Satan himself because he's a (how did Nelson put it?) an incessant insomniac?  He never gives up.  Something like that.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I, of course, believe, as you do, that they do not do it for these reasons. But I don't think there's a reasonable argument to be made that such things are impossible as a reason.

Outside the church looking in, with no idea about revelation, I cannot see any good reason why someone would not conclude that leaders of a church with millions of members don't have very strong motivations to be in those positions.

It is easy to issue summary judgment without facts.  That does not a convincing argument make.  But the question I was asking was "How can one tell?"  That would obviously start with gathering facts.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. Honestly I believe that Keith Raniere wasn't fully evil. I tend to believe he actually meant a lot of the good said and did. I doubt it was all a big con and nothing more just to have sex. His programs and thinking don't seem to have been only to exploit. I don't know for sure...but that's my sense. Being a man of the world and corrupt, however, I think he had evil mixed in with the good. (Which goes to your point about there being good everywhere, etc...).

Hard to say for sure. But I doubt most villains are actually comic book villains.

I never said he was a comic book villain.  And I have a different interpretation of Raniere.

I believe he STARTED with good intentions (and a desire to make a living in the process).  Then just a few too many very attractive and available females made their way to his programs and... down the dark road.  I don't believe it started as a cult.  I believe it started as a business.  Then it morphed into one.  The road to evil is not a light switch.  It's a journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Satan's not actively working to convince people that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist. 

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

100% agree

Irrelevant. 

Satan doesn't put much energy into convincing people that Jesus never existed (although there is a bit of that in the world as well).  He works to make people believe that such a person was not as history claims him to be.  And guess what?  People are doing the same to Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson...

Good men who did a lot of good in the world should be praised for the blessings that we enjoy today because of the good they did.  But instead, people are actively trying to focus on the faults of these mortal men as if that somehow nullifies the good they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it objectively harmful to get a brand to show commitment and devotion? What about sexual submission?

Is choosing to these things "cultish" behavior?

How does that relate to the removal of foreskin as a covenant? What about the idea of giving daughters as polygamous wives, and submission of women in this regard in the OT? Or covenants to obey one's husband?

Were/are these things inherently wrong?

When and why should these things be illegal or considered wrong or abusive and when should they be left alone as the prerogatives of those involved?

I don't think the answer is so black and white as people want to try and make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
35 minutes ago, Vort said:

Does "cultish" behavior exist? Well, yes, there certainly are people who put inordinate belief in untrue things and slavishly follow what they want and insist to be true, regardless of evidence, because it makes them feel better. That's cultish behavior in my book.

@The Folk Prophet,

See what Vort said above.  In the end, this quoted portion is the only real definition.  It is where I was going with "of God" or not.  If it is of God, we know it is true religion.  If it is not of God, then there is at least something from Satan.

All religions, ideologies, philosophies, and other belief systems will have some mix of God, man, and Satan.  The more it drifts into the "Satan" range of stuff, then it is a cult.  The closer it is to God, it is a religion.

Then, of course, the final question is,"How do you know it is true?"  Well, we know the answer to that already.  But for some reason, we can't seem to get the rest of the world to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

@The Folk Prophet,

See what Vort said above.  In the end, this quoted portion is the only real definition.  It is where I was going with "of God" or not.  If it is of God, we know it is true religion.  If it is not of God, then there is at least something from Satan.

All religions, ideologies, philosophies, and other belief systems will have some mix of God, man, and Satan.  The more it drifts into the "Satan" range of stuff, then it is a cult.  The closer it is to God, it is a religion.

Then, of course, the final question is,"How do you know it is true?"  Well, we know the answer to that already.  But for some reason, we can't seem to get the rest of the world to agree.

You have a nasty habit of getting to my point before I do. ;)

I was just typing up a reply to you that said something along these lines. You ruined it. All my typing for naught!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

You have a nasty habit of getting to my point before I do. ;)

I was just typing up a reply to you that said something along these lines. You ruined it. All my typing for naught!

Yeah, that was what I was going for.  Another one bites the dust.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Yeah, that was what I was going for.  Another one bites the dust.:P

If you get a chance, listen to some of the interviews, etc. with Sarah Edmondson:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sarah+edmondson+nxivm&FORM=HDRSC3

So very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...let's see what the actual definition of a cult is..

merriam webster dictionary definition

 

Quote

1: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see SPURIOUS sense 2)also : its body of adherents

2a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book)criticizing how the media promotes the cult of celebrity

especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

b: the object of such devotion

c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotionthe singer's cult of fansThe film has a cult following.

3: a system of religious beliefs and ritual

also : its body of adherents

4: formal religious veneration : WORSHIP

5: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator

So....

In ancient times there was this cult, it was called the Cult of Jesus Christ.  Those who were members of it at times were called Christians.

Today, we have many cults and the qualify as such under the definition above with #3 and #4.  There are many systems of religious beliefs and ritual.  The Church of Jesus Christ falls under this as almost any other religious group.

It also can fall under the first definition, that of a religion regarded as unorthodox.  We, Saints, are VERY unorthodox in our belief system in relation to most Western society.

Many use the term cult as a bad word or bad connotation today.  In fact, many who hear it have that as their first reaction.  This does not mean that it is necessarily a bad word, only that the perception and how it is used today is culturally utilized in a bad way.

However, when you really boil it down, there are many various cults of ideas in our society.  We just do not want to label them as cults because of how people culturally view the word today.

Can the Church be considered a cult.  Absolutely.

Is it a secret organization that practices in secret and hides it's secrets from members that it seeks to do harm to them and others?  I'd argue that it does not fall within that arena of a secret organization.

Today, the word cult is used much in a similar way to the way the Book of Mormon refers to secret organization and gadiantons.  The difference with these and other groups is that these groups seek to do evil and harm. 

The Church is NOT a gadianton society as that, but, the NXIVM thing that is being discussed in this thread might qualify.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohnsonJones

While your point is taken, the very fact that the original definition of the word 'cult' can be applied so broadly already makes the word useless.  Since any religion can be argued to fit that definition, then that would make all religions a subset of cults, which also include destructive groups like NXIVM.

This is why it's useful to distinguish between organizations that are clearly religions from organizations that are cults.  There will still be some overlap and some gray area, but it puts the words in a more useful context.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores

Sometimes, life provides us perfect poetic irony/justice...

Considering the difference between cults and religions brought me back to Smallville.

Quote

'Twixt truth and madness lies but a sliver of a stream.

What's the difference between love and obsession?

Quote

I was trying to find the right words to describe what (the bride and groom) have.  And I realized that there are no words for it.  When you have it, you're willing to trust in it, believe in it, take a chance on it.  You're willing to sacrifice anything to keep it.  No matter what the cost.

This episode of Smallville came on the heels of another episode delving into the obsession of one man demanding the love of a woman who never wanted him.  And this later episode showcased two couples that had so many problems.  But one was honest.  The other was not.  While both were love, one worked.  The other didn't.

The difference between love and obsession is:

FORCE.  Love can't be forced.  Or as Phil Collins would say, "You can't hurry love."  But someone with an obsession would force it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-without-limits/201111/what-is-love-and-what-isnt

Perhaps honesty and force are the real difference between cults and religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share