[OBW]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "cult" topic been discussed here numerous times? Has a case not been made yet where forum users collectively know that the points that make it true have already been made, and we can thus use the word without needing an accompanying dissertation each time, or am I imagining things?

The cult topic has been discussed several times. And almost every one of them spent more time arguing about the benefits of doing the analysis. And I will admit that I was among those that pushed for the analysis in one of the earliest attempts. But so far, I have been unable to locate any meaningful working through the factors, although one thread did give a pretty decent list.

The problem that ultimately carries the day is that if this is to be a discussion about the Local Churches designed to persuade current members of the error of their ways, or those who are already on the fence or have left that they did the right thing and that it is more than just about practical problems in an otherwise great system, then you have to actually engage them in the process of discussion. Or at least interest them enough to read more and start to see the light.

In the modern art of argument (not aggressive arguing, but making, defending, and analyzing logical arguments) there is an error that ends the discussion cold. It is not a logical fallacy, but more of a rhetorical device that is almost guaranteed to end a discussion immediately upon its use. It is called "ad Hitlerum." In short, any reference to Hitler, no matter how small, tangental, or remote (and no matter how true), ends all discussion. And while not enumerated, there are a few similar names, words, or terms that have the same effect. One of them is "cult." I would agree that a sound determination as to whether the LC is legitimately a cult is worthwhile. But assuming I am right about its worth, to have that discussion as part of the "Local Church Discussions" forum is to insert it into the body of discussion and tends to have a somewhat sweeping effect on it all.

And one of the problems with these kinds of discussions is that they are prone to seeking "broad brush" solutions that are never as simple as a word or a term. And can't stand in as establishing anything as true. We had one of these kinds of discussions years ago and never heard from some of the participants again. And a few others only come around on rare occasions. And I am not talking about LC members who were turned off by the discussion. There were almost no LC members participating at the time. These were mostly long-time members of the forum.

So, my suggestion is that if you want to have a real discussion about the LC being a "cult," move it off the regular feed (sort of like the old Alt Topics used to be). And set some ground rules. Find a good list of characteristics. Agree that we are going to diligently analyze the applicability of each, not just say it is true. And spend time on each characteristic before moving on. I realize that some of them may seem obvious. But since the group gives push-back on so much of it, include serious consideration of their reasons for saying the characteristic does not apply. Or only applies in a manner similar to any other Christian group. Make it worth something.

Don't just approach this as a lynching. Don't come with the feathers already plucked from the chickens and the tar already being heated. And I mention this because already being so sure that some 70% of elders statistic is already true before anyone actually considers what it is that is being discussed seems like an answer looking for supporters, not a premise looking for investigation and testing. Don't skip the open analysis and back-and forth discussion. Assume that everyone is not going to agree. Be ready to both take time to give your reasons for your positions, and take time to carefully consider every argument against your positions. Remember, we all thought the LC was once the greatest thing since sliced bread. We had to have something or someone convince us otherwise. We had to be willing to consider positions that disagreed with the ones we already held. We weren't just forced to accept what someone was screaming about it. Reading The Mindbenders or The God Men wouldn't have done it for me (back in the 70s). I was closed. And a full treatise on the whole of being a cult was not the way to sway me. But after some chinks were put in the armor relating to one item, then another, then another, I could now read those books and say where I agree with them, and also where I think they went to far relative to actual facts.