Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: MHCS results Message-ID: <438@topaz.ARPA> Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 00:58:26 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.438 Posted: Wed Jan 30 00:58:26 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 17:58:20 EST References: <1784@uvacs.UUCP> <2765@ncsu.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.flame:8178 net.religion:5465 net.philosophy:1426 I'm not sure that this discussion of "cult" is accomplishing anything. However let me say that it is often used as a quasi-technical term. The intent is not to cover anyone that disagrees, or anyone who is not Christian. Rather it is intended to characterize a certain class of religious movements that seem to share a number of similar tendencies: - rejection of the rest of the Church as substandard or even non-Christian - their own private revelation. I don't mean to include anybody who has new ideas about theology, even ones I think are misguided. I am talking about people who have angels descend to their founder and reveal that the human race is a large turnip. - a "personality cult" centered around their founder or some other high officials - high-pressure recruitment tactics, often involving classical brainwashing techniques The term is normally used these days to characterize current movements. The early Mormons certainly fit several of the criteria (certainly 1 and 2, probably also 3). Today's Mormon church is much less subject to the definition. Using the term of them is sort of marginal, though I guess I would be willing to do so. Knowing the sort of fine people that the Mormon church seems to collect as members, I really hate to group them with the Moonies (or with what the Moonies are claimed to be - I claim no direct knowlege).