[OBW]

My overall point on chasing after the "cult" label is not found in one single post. It has included different and overlapping analyses of the practical use of the term and the negative effects it tends to have on the willingness of current members of such a group to listen to anything you say after slapping on the label.

The problem with the practical use is that no one has an iron-clad definition. There are varying lists of characteristics, each coupled with some kind of reference to needing several of them to rise to the level of a cult. But if there are 10 characteristics supplied (hypothetical), what clearly constitutes having any particular characteristic? Are they all weighted equally? What kind of "score" is required? And even where you think that any particular group is guilty of a particular item on the list, they may disagree with it. For example, when we talk about the RCC, one of the first things that many Protestants bring up is the worship of Mary. Yet many devout, practicing RCC members do not consider that they are worshipping Mary. What gives? Are they just lying to protect their status quo? Or are we working with two different definitions of "worship?" And if that is the case, then which one is "right?" And given some of the discussions and disagreements about how Protestants "worship," it is not certain that even "we" all agree on what is worship.

Then, no matter how you manage to frame your case for applying the label, it is viewed as an ad hominem. A general and vague attack of the person/group rather than of specific reasons to avoid them. We cease real dialog related to actual errors and problems and make the fight about labels. And those you are putting the label on tend to simply dig in and fight, or just go away. Either way, you fail to get them to stop and consider that they may be wrong. And you don't simply start with "you are wrong about the whole thing." You start with a specific issue. One point of disagreement. Then another. Once you can start them looking at separate items along with sound support for each position, there is a chance you can sway them. But as long are you make it about the whole thing, it is almost like Lee declaring that if you read through the whole Bible you will see that (something about God's economy is a prime example). You are never going to actually read through the whole Bible to try to see it for yourself. You are either going to accept his word (which they are already prone to do) or you will reject it outright as a rhetorical trick to fool you. But since they are already too invested in Lee's stuff, they are unlikely to stop to consider. It could happen, but the more likely response is to simply continue to accept Lee and reject the entire discussion against him. To either just fight without basis or leave. Either way is to fail to get them to engage in consideration.

In a less extreme way, StG's recent thread about his assembly in Scottsdale was effectively a request to have his group declared not a cult. (That is not what was asked, nor was it what anyone thought about the request. Rather just a declaration that it was "OK" was sought) We didn't say it was a cult or not a cult, instead, we stated that it is too difficult to base any decision on what people say about it, or on generalities at the broad level. It would take a detailed analysis of teachings and practices. Something that requires a full discussion of each issue. In the end, we have said nothing other than that many of us are uncomfortable that it is too lop-sided in its approach to scripture, as are so many inner-life groups. Neither an endorsement nor a definite warning.

If you want anyone that is currently in the LC to consider leaving when they currently don't see why, you can't have a discussion of whether the group is a cult in the recent record. It is, to them, a red flag to avoid contact. It makes the invitation to discuss almost impossible to accept.

That is my problem with trying to pin down vagaries like "cult." I agree with aron's comparison of the regular church preacher that takes questionable positions — from a little to a lot. There is something there. And it may help some of us who have escaped. But it is almost sure to terminate the participation of any regular member that we might hope to persuade. Most of them will simply stop coming and declare the environment to be too hostile.

Am I making any sense? And if you really want to see a discussion about the LC as a cult, There was probably one many years ago that you can find by using the search feature. Maybe the last real pointed discussion was in the old Berean forum (which is no longer accessible), but think it has been repeated here. But also understand that I am not suggesting that such a thread, if it exists, be posted to so that it appears on the current list. Just read through it where it is. Let it be. The acrimony that so often occurs with such threads is not worth resurrecting.