Transcription
Hi everyone, Nemo here. If you're new here, be sure to subscribe and stick around. I'm back to fact-checking today, this time looking at Saints Unscripted and their video which asks the question: Is the latter-day saint religion a cult? So let's get to it.
So, as a Latter-day Saint channel, we see a lot of comments claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult. I'm telling you, these people are Satanists. As I sit here, they are Satanists. Look, calling our faith a cult is an extremely loaded claim. So, in this episode, we're going to unpack this a bit and see where it leads us.
Sure, some may use the word "cult" as a pejorative, but whatever. "Cult" is a descriptive noun with definable characteristics. I can then call something a cult which meets those characteristics in an objective and unemotive way, without it being loaded. However, I do agree in the sense that the use of the term "cult" to describe the LDS Church is understandably divisive, given the general pejorative meaning of the word. But we must be careful not to ascribe generalized motives, as there will always be outliers, and motive is a hard thing to prove to begin with.
[Music]
Alright, so the term "cult" is used in a variety of ways. Some definitions are more benign than others. But in general, when people call our faith a cult, it's used rather loosely as a derogatory term aimed at discouraging people from learning more about our faith. This definition of a cult that David gives is genuinely loaded. It describes motive and sets up a victim narrative for the church. Also, presenting it in this way immediately makes this about David's definition of a cult, which other people who have called the LDS Church a cult in the past will clearly not have access to. Therefore, he is giving the word a definition and then judging others by the definition he has created. This is known as a definist fallacy. We really need a more objective definition of the word, one that everyone would have access to. And in order to steal man David's position, I'm going to use the definition from the New World Encyclopedia, which he shares in the description of his video. A cult, strictly speaking, is a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
I tend to agree with non-Latter-day Saint Guy Harrison's analysis in Psychology Today. If we step back and take an honest look at how this label is applied, the application of this term is prejudice in practice. One should not have too much difficulty recognizing "cult" as an unsavory stealth word with an unjust mission. This is verbalized bullying that demeans less popular groups and distances them from more popular groups.
If we look closely at the paragraph David shares here, we see this line: "Nothing more than power and popularity separates cults from normal religions." While the church is rarely engaged directly with the idea of them being a cult, as they often leave this task to apologists like David, when they have addressed it, they criticize the idea of a cult and the scholarly work behind it, rather than explain why they aren't one. There is no objective distinction by which a cult may be distinguished from a religion, though non-LDS scholars have made many attempts to define a cult in a way that would distinguish it from a religion. To date, every such attempt has failed.
Now, moving quite quickly past the fact that they call them "non-LDS scholars," which creates a very typical cult behavior of in-group versus out-group, the problem with this argument is cults are very often religions. Being a cult and a religion is not mutually exclusive. Simply attacking the validity of a school of study rather than defending the accusation is a form of poisoning the well, which is a type of ad hominem attack.
As the Methodist author Andrew Tevington noted, Christianity was originally seen as a cult arising from Judaism. Islam was viewed as a cult in opposition to the then-existing pagan religion of the Arabian Peninsula. Buddhism was understood as a cult coming from what today is called Hinduism. According to the New World Encyclopedia, when Christianity began, it was a minority system of beliefs and controversial practices, such as Holy Communion. When it was a small cult or a minority group in the empire, it was often criticized by those who did not understand it or who were threatened by changes its adoption might mean. Rumors were spread by detractors about Christians drinking human blood and eating human flesh. Wait, do you want them to take your family, kidnap them, tear their livers out, and make some kind of satanic pâté? All of that changed, though, when Christianity was adopted by the state and became more mainstream. When a new religion becomes large or dominant in a society, the cult basically becomes culture.
I see what you did there. This segment was a classic appeal to popularity. Well, other religions that are now mainstream were once considered cults, so what? They all fit the definition of a cult as ascribed by the New World Encyclopedia. They are particular systems of religious worship, after all. And being a cult and a religion are not mutually exclusive. In this sense, "cult" may be seen as a pejorative term, something akin to calling someone a barbarian. It represents a type of in-group, out-group terminology designed to exclude one group by calling them less human or inferior.
If you've been taught that our church is a cult, you may want to take a step back and analyze why you've been taught that. As was the case with early Christianity, it may be that your views are based on rumors, misunderstandings, or mischaracterizations of our beliefs. Or maybe some of the beliefs and practices of the LDS Church tick the cult boxes for some people. Whether it be the reverence shown to Joseph Smith, or the concentration in a geographic area, or the secrecy around the practice of temple rituals, any of these things may have a person viewing the LDS Church as a cult. If you'd like, feel free to just attend some of our worship services and come to your own conclusions. I promise you will not be swept off into a dark room to be brainwashed or force-fed green Jell-O.
How children think about themselves is often determined by the labels you put on them. See, you're saying just come to one of our worship services. When people can't just rock up to an endowment session, they can't even ask us details of what goes on in there. So this will be where some people are getting the cult vibes. Now, in fairness to the church, steps have been taken in recent years, such as this video showing temple robes and garments, helping to alleviate some of the secrecy.
Some people attempt to justify labeling us with such a loaded and derogatory term by actually pointing out parallels between our faith and characteristics of infamously harmful cults like Heaven's Gate or the Manson Family commune, groups whose leaders had such control over their followers that they were manipulated into committing mass suicide and murder. To me, the attempt to justify calling us a cult seems like more of an attempt to justify religious bigotry. People attempting to back up their assertion by giving evidence. What you're saying here, Dave, is that people attempt to justify the use of the word "cult" by pointing out how the church is similar to other cults, and then you're calling that bigotry. It may seem that way to you, David, but those saying it may see it from the perspective of acknowledging similarities between organizations which have done damage to their followers and the LDS Church. It's not bigotry to see similarities and point them out, is it? That's not obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction.
But if you want to point out parallels, you can. For example, cults, in this sense, are usually led by a charismatic leader. Joseph Smith was a charismatic leader. Our current prophet and president, Russell M. Nelson, is pretty charismatic for a 96-year-old. You might call Moses or even Jesus charismatic leaders as well. It's just more appeals to popularity. Some cults try to control your behavior by doing things like regulating your diet. Latter-day Saints don't drink tea, coffee, or alcohol. If that sounds difficult, you would not have enjoyed the Law of Moses. Cults sometimes have their own ceremonial clothing, as did the ancient Israelites, as do many religions today. We could talk about these parallels for hours, but I hope you're starting to see the pattern. They aren't parallels, they're actual, genuine parallels. They raise the important point of shared characteristics between mainstream religions and religions sometimes labeled cults, and where we draw that line, or if we need to at all.
What if all religions check off boxes on the cult checklist to varying extents? Because all religions, to varying extents, act like cults. Well, what checklist is this? It's the checklist of Steven Hassan, who covers four main ways in which cults control their members' behavior: control information, control thought, and control emotional. It's known as the BITE model, and while we won't go into masses of detail here, it is in the description below. Steven Hassan readily acknowledges that the characteristics are present in many organizations, secular and religious, but the key to these techniques on the list is that they can all be used to create dependency, obedience, and stop independent thought. I think it's fair to say those are fairly negative consequences of anyone's behavior, and so shouldn't we have a way of telling if an organization is doing that to us? And if it means the word "cult" is applied to every religion, then fine. Does that devalue it? Sure, it devalues its insulting value, which is also fine. We don't need the word "cult" to be insulting. We need it to be a way of identifying an institution which enacts techniques on its members to create unhealthy dependence and obedience, which is not my definition of the word, but the definition given by Steven Hassan. He gives the BITE model so that we can identify these unhealthy behaviors wherever they may occur.
Now, David says in the description of the video, in rebuttal to Hassan's BITE model, "Isn't the goal of all Christianity to promote a certain sense of dependency and obedience to God?" I would argue no. I would argue the goal of Christianity is to empower humans to do good by helping them understand and utilize their relationship with the divine. The teachings of the Pharisees, who Christ came to correct and was often at odds with, was one of dependency and strict obedience. It's really difficult to paint our faith as a cult in this sense in any significant way that would not also apply to Moses, or early Christians, or the Catholics, or Evangelicals, or even secular organizations like the Girl Scouts. They look very aggressive. I think they want to beat me up. Or Microsoft. I mean, you want to talk about a charismatic leader? Take a look at that Bill Gates. Just to reiterate, this sort of appeal to popularity is an attempt to justify the negative behaviors that garner the use of the term "cult" by saying that everyone else is doing it. If everyone is doing things that would be labeled cultish, we must work to identify and overcome those behaviors in our society, as far as they are causing harm. One of the first steps in identifying something is to give it a name, in this instance, "cult."
And in contrast to the perceived parallels, there are also a lot of obvious misses. For example, in our faith, we don't want you to cut off communication with your family unless they leave the church, in which case some active members will cut off ties due to teachings of in-group versus out-group thinking that I've discussed in quite a few other videos. You will not be beaten, tortured, or kidnapped for any reason. That's fair, but it's also one of the most extreme of cult behaviors. This is akin to saying that we aren't the worst cult around. If you want to leave our faith, you can. You can leave, and you won't even be threatened with eternal suffering in hell, though we might bring you some cookies every once in a while. You may not be threatened with hell, but you are threatened with the eternal consequences of your actions if you send a letter requesting removal of your records, aka you try to leave. Also, you can't just leave. You either need to write a letter and then sit through interviews where ecclesiastical leaders try to dissuade you, or you have to get an attorney, such as QuitMormon, to send a notarized request. If you can name another religion that sometimes requires the use of an attorney to leave it, I'd be really interested to hear about it in the comments below.
It's true that like any religion, we have moral and ethical standards. We have rules, perhaps more than most. But whether or not you abide by those standards is up to you. When asked how Joseph Smith was able to govern so many people so well, he replied, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." This is a great principle from Joseph Smith, and I would love to see the church leaders act this way. But alas, as church leaders in recent years are teaching exact obedience and that we should raise our children to understand that they are free to act for themselves, to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life, children deserve to understand this great truth. Then I think we've departed from that principle somewhat.
So, are we a cult? It depends on your definition. In the sense that we are a system of religious beliefs and ritual, certainly. Are we a cult in the more sinister sense of the word? I don't think so. But you're certainly free to believe as you see fit. From what I've observed about my own faith, it seems to me to be a family-oriented faith of service and charity, a faith of love for God and your neighbor, a faith that believes in being good citizens and acknowledging truth wherever it can be found. Back up a moment. That is certainly not the case. If it was, we wouldn't have church leaders saying, "Some things that are true are not very useful to a group of church educators," the people supposedly responsible for teaching our youth to look for the truth.
If you're still on the fence about it, if the line between doomsday cult and Christ-centered religion is a little blurry still, borrowing the words of Christ in John 1, I invite you to "come and see." You don't have to take my word or anyone's word for it. Just come hang out with us for a while and decide for yourself, if you dare. On a side note, if David ever reached out to me and wanted to talk or discuss things, I would so be game. Do I disagree with him on things? Of course. Do I think he seems like a great guy with a sense of humor? Absolutely. Now, I'm done swooning over David. Let's sum up his argument. The logical fallacies seem to fall into three types of dismissal: ad hominem, definism, and appeals to popularity. He sought to dismiss the term "cults" by criticizing its validity as a term, ascribing motive to those that use it, and poisoning the well. He also set up his own definition of a cult, and the rest of his argument played out under the shadow of that definition. The one time he used a formal definition, which I also chose to use, he admitted the LDS Church is a cult by that definition, defeating his own criticism of the term that it is bullying and bigoted, etc. And he appealed to popularity time and time again by arguing that other churches were called cults too, as though that somehow devalues the assessment.
Now, just because David makes fallacious arguments in support of his opinion that the LDS Church is not a cult, does not mean that some of his conclusions are not correct. The term "cult" is used pejoratively by some people. He's not wrong about that. But its use as a pejorative should not undermine the value that the term could bring in the form of a diagnostic tool for the recognition of unhealthy behaviors within an institution. This is not a clerical issue by any means. So please let me know in the comments if I missed anything. And so you don't miss anything, be sure to subscribe and like for more. Bye now.
[Music]
[Music]
[Music]
You