Is Mormonism a cult?

[com7fy8]

Here I am specifically inviting Jutta2 to present for evaluation different items about the Mormon group.

My intention is to let Jutta freely present things of concern. And for each item we can discuss, debate, or agree, depending. I am free to play the sceptic or disagree or agree on each point.

It is open-ended, with effort to mutually moderate which way we go with things and do the best we can to properly define what we mean by "cult" and other things.

Also, my personal interest in this is to help us understand how to evaluate reliably and fairly what really is a cult . . . while making sure we ourselves are not being "cultic".

Because, I have found, ones in cults can create an "enemy", to keep attention of members toward that enemy, instead of seeing how wrong their own leaders are. Like this, any of us could be trying to make a project of pointing at some "cult", so we are not looking at how we ourselves could be our worst enemy. So, this issue would be included in evaluating the credibility of how we evaluate others.

 

[com7fy8]

I have already offered to Jutta how we might do this; and here are some points I think could be good >

(1) First, each of us introduces oneself, with some info about our background which can effect how we see Mormonism. Either of us is free to comment on the other's background testimony.

(2) As an introduction, we could exchange posts about what each of us considers to be key warning signs that a group is a cult. Here, we would not apply the items directly to Mormonism, perhaps, but just present lists and maybe clarification. But as we get into the subject of Mormonism, we are each free to bring up other things, too, not limiting to our listed items.

(3) Discuss/debate one item at a time, as it applies or does not apply to Mormonism. Jutta can start with an item, I can respond. Then we move on, or we can fill things out more, if we wish.

(4) We "mutually moderate" how we handle each item of debate/discussion/agreement.

(5) No word or time limit, but try to keep it simple and complete so we and readers can relate with what we are sharing.

(6) Scripture evaluation always good

(7) Jutta is welcome to confront or supplement this, however is suitable for Jutta's desire to communicate her concerns. She is always welcome to bring in testimonial "evidence" or whatsoever else she desires to share. But I recommend she keep things on the short side so I can respond to items and parts, not too many things at a time.

(8) Also, I request that we do not use links. But if Jutta has something to say, which could be found by reading a link, I would appreciate it if she would simply state in her own words what she wants to share, right here where we can see it in simple terms and I can comment.

For one example, while we are bringing out what we consider to be warning signs of a group being a cult . . . we would not just put in a link to a long and complicated article about warning signs of a cult, but instead list right here the items which we find to be significant, so everyone can readily see it and read it.

We could put in a link, but also make sure we write, right here, our main points that we want to make from that link.

 

[Jutta2]

First of all I want to thank you for opening this thread. Then I want to apologize for my bad english. So forgive me if I express myself wrong or inadequate. Now to the topic:
Why is Mormonism a cult or a sect? What we take as a basis, in order to prove or disprove that Mormonism is a cult or a sect?
The following sources were for me, depending on the topic, very helpful:

1. The Bible. I have dealt with the textual context of Scripture, the historical background, as well as the original understanding of Jewish and / or Christian terms. An example:

In Judaism, was someone who hold the Priesthood of Aaron, a descendant of Aaron, adult, married, father. The Mormons are boys who are 12 years old, ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood. Something that is against biblical knowledge.

2. The LDS Scriptures.
At the Joseph Smith called it, "most correct book on earth," many changes have been made in the course of the LDS Church history. Likewise, the way in Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the LDS Church history. Changes that affected not only the grammar, but also church doctrines.

3. Church History. I found there a lot of cover-ups and lies about the founder Joseph Smith and their decendands.

4. Historical, archaeological and theological books and theological dictionaries. They help me to get a deeper understanding of the relations.
I would suggest that we have in mind an issue and treat it exhaustively. For example, Joseph Smith and his prophecies, The Book of Mormon and the Bible, the LDS priesthood, to name a few topics. What do you think about it?

 

[com7fy8]

ok . . . moderator, I think this needs to be moved to become our debate thread? Just switching this thread from "proposals", to "Formal Debate", would be fine with me. Then what we have already written can be our introduction. Jutta seems to think this is already the thread; so I think this would be fine with her. Thank you

And then I would like to answer Jutta's comments, item by item.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@Patrick Bateman
@com7fy8
@Jutta2

We need to establish the stipulations before we proceed.

We need for you guys to agree to, and spell out the following:

1. Title
2. Topic
3. Participants and the positions that you will take (affirmative regarding the subject, or negative)
4. Maximum size of the posts.
5. Maximum time allowed between posts.
6. Who will be posting the opening post.
7. How many rounds there will be.
8. Any restrictions on reference sources?
9. (this statement) outside of the stipulations set fourth, all of CF's comunity rules apply, including the 20% copyright rule.

Links to the peanut gallery thread (CT one in this case), and in the peanut gallery thread, a link to the debate thread.

Once we have this in place, we will create the debate thread, and the first post can go up. It will not be visible until it has been reviewed by one of us staff, and if it crosses the line, you will be contacted and asked to revise it (no penalty); once it has been reviewed, it will be approved and become visible; then the next opponent may reply.

Sounds a bit cumbersome, but not too bad in reality.

Mark

 

[Jutta2]

Title
What do you think about "The Mormons discussion forum"

Topic
Let's start with the basics: Joseph Smith - Prophet or liar?

Participants and the positions that you will take (affirmative regarding the subject, or negative)

I don't know how many. Maybe less than 10

Maximum size of the posts.
I have a lot of material, so I guess, it needs a lot of space.

Maximum time allowed between posts.
That's up to you. I have no idea.

Who will be posting the opening post.
I guess I could start, I have collected a lot of material about the LDS. It is interesting, for example, as the "First Vision" of Smith, when he allegedly saw God and Jesus, was amended several times. And that this "vision" was only told when the book of Mormon was published.

How many rounds there will be.
I do not understand the question. That's not a boxing match in which a K.O. should go.

Any restrictions on reference sources?
I think it's important to be able to quote from the Bible and the LDS scriptures, or from books that have been written by Mormons. And other books, for example, from archeology, can be helpful.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Sorry, I should have been clearer, there will be only the two of you. This is a moderated formal debate, one on one only. Since we don't have a "Mormon Forum" as such, the Title needs to be changed.

The standard length of such a debate is 3 rounds, but you may stipulate 5 or 10 if you like; there is always the option to extend it further if you wish; or of another topic comes up, have a second dedicated discussion.

Title and Topic: "Is Mormonism a Cult?"

Participants: com7fy8 will be affirming that it is; Jutta2 will be asserting that it is not

Maximum size of the posts: 1000 words


Maximum time allowed between posts: One week, however, this may be extended on request.

Who will be posting the opening post: Jutta2 will open the debate.

The number of rounds: There will be five alternating rounds (10 posts total)

Restrictions on reference material: There will be no restrictions on sources for reference material, but the 20% rule for copyright and all of the the other Community Rules outside of the stipulations set out here will apply to this debate.

Peanut Gallery for those not directly involved in this discussion: Because of the nature of this discussion, the Peanut Gallery thread will be set up in the Formal Debate Peanut Gallery forum.
​

Something like this is more what I was thinking.

 

[Jutta2]

Mark, I'm a FORMER MORMON! I can't say, that Mormons are NOT A CULT, because THEY ARE. As I registered her, I was a Mormon, but not now. I have had sent my Bishop a resign letter. And they excommunicated me. I'm not a Christian (except by feeling), because I didn't found any denomination/church I want to belong to.

 

[Jutta2]

In addition, I think; that's what I found out, is important enough that it learns more than one person. An example:

The first published consecutive account of the origin of the Church began in the October, 1834, issue of the Messenger and Advocate. It consists of eight letters written by Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps. This account is very important as Oliver Cowdery claims in a letter published in the October, 1834, issue, but dated September 7, 1834, that Joseph Smith assisted him in the writing of the letters. Source: Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness For Christ In America, (vol. 1, p.17)

Oliver Cowdery, one of the three wittness of the Book of Mormon, says, that Smith was 17 years lold, not 15 years old.
Joseph Smith claimed that just before he received his first vision there was a great revival in his neighborhood:
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all sects in that region of country, indeed the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people ...
I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother Lucy, my brothers Hyrum, Samuel, Harrison, and my sister Sophronia.
During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection.... So in accordance with this my determination, to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, pp.727-28)
Wesley P. Walters wrote about this statement of Joseph Smith in his pamphlet New Light on Mormon Origins From The Palmyra (N.Y.) Revival.:
Mormons account for the origin of their movement by quoting from a narrative written by their prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1838. In this account he claims that a revival broke out in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820....
Information which we have recently uncovered conclusively proves that the revival did not occur until the fall of 1824 and that no revival occurred between 1819 and 1823 in the Palmyra vicinity.
Later he wrote:
Such a revival does not pass from the scene without leaving some traces in the records and publications of the period. In this study we wish to show by the contemporary records that the revival, which Smith claimed occurred in 1820, did not occur until the fall of 1824. We also show that in 1820 there was no revival in any of the churches in Palmyra or its vicinity. In short, our investigation shows that the statement of Joseph Smith, Jr. can not be true when he claims that he was stirred up by an 1820 revival to make his inquiry in the grove near his home....
An even more surprising confirmation that this revival occurred in 1824 and not in 1820 has just recently come to light. While searching through some dusty volumes of early Methodist literature at a near-by Methodist college, imagine our surprise and elation when we stumbled upon Rev. George Lane's own personal account of the Palmyra revival. It was written, not at some years distance from the event as the Mormon accounts all were, but while the revival was still in progress and was printed a few months later. Lane's account gives us not only the year, 1824, but even the month and date....

So, Smith was a liar. And I have much more evidences about the first vision.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark, I'm a FORMER MORMON! I can't say, that Mormons are NOT A CULT, because THEY ARE. As I registered her, I was a Mormon, but not now. I have had sent my Bishop a resign letter. And they excommunicated me. I'm not a Christian (except by feeling), because I didn't found any denomination/church I want to belong to.

Not a Mormon... First things first. Start a thread here (and ask for me in the title), and we can figure out a more suitable identifier for you; identifying as Mormon can cause a fair bit of confusion if you are not: Member Services Center (MSC)

 

[com7fy8]

Not a Mormon...

Mark Jutta has been a Mormon; this is why she wants to open a thread where she can present her experience and why now she considers Mormonism to be a cult. I think she needed to start her thread somewhere else, I'm not sure where.

So, Mark . . . Jutta never was going to take the position that Mormonism is not a cult. She desires to present how it is, from her own background of having been a Mormon. And I was not going to directly take the opposite position, but I was going to evaluate her different claims, about if each one really supports that Mormonism is a cult, or if certain claims and reports would not or might not mean this.

So, with those debate rules, I would say we can't debate. But we should set up a discussion thread, wherever this would be good.

So . . . Jutta . . . I would say start a thread, wherever Mark says is the right place for your kind of a presentation. And I can visit you there and discuss things with you . . . while others, likely including Mormons, will also be able to write.

Mark, which forum section would be the right place for her to start her presentation of her personal experience with Mormonism and why she decided it is a cult . . . after having been a Mormon, herself?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

OK, I understand. We can set up a discussion/dialogue. We need to do this in a way that we avoid flaming Mormons. Another member, Athanasias and my self have had similar discussions in formal debate (Catholic/Lutheran dialogues), and those have been relatively open ended. I'll be glad to set this up this way also; leave it with me and we should have it in place Sunday or Monday.

 

[com7fy8]

In case a group is a cult, how do you talk about if the group is a cult or not . . . without flaming and accusing? I understand our rules here are clear that we are not allowed to make general statements of criticism about any group. And . . . "as far as I know" Mormons are a group

Of course, you can moderate all our posts before putting them up on the website, then personally advise whichever of us needs a little or a lot of refining.

And, in any case, I am fine if our "rules" are otherwise informal, not limited to number of words and time. My interest in this debate/discussion is more for simply bringing things out. And, like I say, one of my intentions is to simply evaluate what Jutta considers to be indications that a group is a cult. I am one more for letting each Mormon speak for oneself . . . since members might not even know what is supposed to be the official stance of "Mormonism" on any thing, or what is considered to be right practice.

But Jutta says she has been a Mormon; so possibly she is qualified to know for sure if Mormonism is a cult. I would suppose, in such a case, that she could be right to bear witness, if she has evidence, and this would not be un-Christian or flaming or the wrong sort of accusing. But you can put our posts on hold while you check us out

And, "of course" . . . again . . . I see how plenty of individuals and marriages and local churches function like cults, though they are officially Trinitarian and do not in doctrine diminish the deity of Christ. In their actions and how the relate, they might represent Him very badly, and so if in on doctrine in practice they can diminish His divinity!! So, while we might look at "Mormonism", "let the one without sin cast the first stone."

"For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)

And Jutta says her English is needy; so this can be an opportunity for her to get experience in writing English. This is part of my motivation in this.

Ok . . . Jutta . . . I understand that we can talk about "Mormonism" . . . ideas and practices . . . and say what we believe about beliefs and actions . . . without directly accusing and flaming any and all "Mormons". We can say we understand or know about a certain belief and say what we think about it and use scripture. This, possibly, would not be directly criticizing any individual Mormon . . . since we "might" not know, anyway, what each Mormon really believes and understands and does.

And, "of course", what a certain Mormon has done in history does not represent any and all Mormons. Possibly, for one example, Joseph Smith really did some wrong things; but this does not automatically mean that all Mormons are guilty of any wrong things which Joseph Smith did.

Our Apostle Peter messed up, big time > even after He was filled with the Holy Spirit > Galatians 2:11-13 < a highly cultic thing to do; but this does not mean that all of God's children are guilty of what Peter did, at Antioch!!

So, I understand we can talk about facts of acts, beliefs, and practices, but not make or assume general things about any and all Mormons. I know I am not an eyewitness to any and all things Mormons have done; plus, I understand that people can in history reports "doctor things up" . . . either for or against Mormons. So, I am more interested in theoretical evaluation, and ones can apply what we share however is good for each person

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@Patrick Bateman
@com7fy8
@Jutta2

1. Title and topic: Mormonism; Church or Cult
2. The participants are com7fy8 and Jutta2
3. Since this is a discussion and not a debate there will be no restrictions on the number of rounds
4. Post size will be limited to 1000 words
5. The rounds will be alternating
6. Jutta2 will begin with com7fy8 will reply
7. Time limit between posts will be one week
8. There will be no restriction on references; but be mindful that the 20% copyright rule applies
9. Outside of the stipulations contained in this statement, all of the other Christian Forum Community Rules apply.
10. Starting date: Any time
11. A Peanut Gallery thread will be set up in Formal Debate Peanut Gallery Forum.

 

[Jutta2]

And where exactly should I open up the topic?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

And where exactly should I open up the topic?

I'll open it for you guys later tonight.

 

[Jutta2]

I did it a moment before your post at peanut gallery.

 

[com7fy8]

Ok, Mark and Jutta . . . a thousand words limit . . . we'll see if we can count

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I did it a moment before your post at peanut gallery.

No, that thread will be deleted. Generally, participants can not post in the peanut gallery until the debate/discussion is closed. OK?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The formal discussion thread and the peanut gallery thread has been created. The discussion can be found here:
Formal Discussion - Mormonism; Church or Cult?

Please post in accord to the stipulations; and note that the thread is moderated. That means that you post will not become visible until it has been reviewed and approved by a moderator. If you post, and it is not visible within 24 hours, please contact me via a conversation message.

Please enjoy your discussion.

Mark