Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
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.
|
Appreciate your observations here. Trying to prove some group is a cult can be pretty difficult. Too loose a definition and you would snag most Christian groups I think, and too tight, then only the most blatant (think Jonestown) would fit. And proving that someone isn't a cult can be difficult too, for much of the same reasons.
I've heard the more general term "cult like" bandied about many times in referring to the LC.
Wikipedia defines "cult" this way:
Quote:
|
In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.
|
Does the LC fit this general definition? I would say so on both the above two points:
1) "Unusual religious, spiritual or philosophical beliefs"
2) "Common interest in a particular personality"
(maybe a #3 for "particular . . . goal" - one church one city)
The second point regarding a "particular personality" certainly fits with the almost totally exclusive focus on WL/WN. But then who is to define what is unusual according to the 1st point? (Of course, that's what this forum has been attempting to determine and convey for many years.) So while we get all hung-up on the first point and all the beliefs and practices of the LC, to me, it seems the second point is much easier to support.