Wait, It's A Cult?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But where o where did WL agree with anyone? Where was he perfectly united in mind and thought? I remenber him telling us he hadn't learned anything from anyone else for 40 or 45 years.

Yet we were expected to be united with his mind and thought.

Where did the apostle Paul agree with anyone? Can you answer?

[Evangelical]

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Mesmerization and hypnosis in and of themselves do not define a cult. There must be sinister intent. For example, many religions of the world, including Christianity, practice a kind of hypnosis or mesmerization. The goal however, is not sinister, but enlightenment, improvement, or having spiritual experiences.

With this definition, mormons and JW's, as bad as they are, are not cults, they are sects.

The Bible shows the definition of a church versus a sect:

A church, is a visible, practical and local expression of the Church Universal. All of the assemblies mentioned in the bible are churches. A sub-group of a church is not a church, but a sect.

Today, what most would call churches, baptist "church", Lutheran "church", etc are strictly speaking, not churches, but sects. A sect, is a sub-group of the church, a church within a Church. A sect is the proper label to give all the protestant denominations (see the Catholic encyclopedia).

All the denominations in our eyes are not real churches. They are sects, from which the word sectarian comes. Catholics and Orthodox have similar viewpoint.

Sects may have cult-like traits (as one person here noted, every denomination fits at least 1 or 2 of the categories), but there is a big difference between a sect and a cult.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

T
The Bible shows the definition of a church versus a sect:

A sub-group of a church is not a church, but a sect.

This is a circular argument. What is a "subgroup" of a church? Let's see, well, first you have to define a church. In the LSM mindset that's a group the calls itself "church in [some city]" and follows Witness Lee. Therefore any group that does otherwise is a "subgroup" and not a church.

The Bible does not give you enough information to make such pronouncements. Again, it's all just a pretext to discrediting everything but the LCM, um, sect.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is a circular argument. What is a "subgroup" of a church? Let's see, well, first you have to define a church. In the LSM mindset that's a group the calls itself "church in " and follows Witness Lee. Therefore any group that does otherwise is a "subgroup" and not a church.




The Bible does not give you enough information to make such pronouncements. Again, it's all just a pretest to discrediting everything but the LCM, um, sect.

It's not really circular because the definition of a church is straight from the biblical pattern. If the New Testament showed different churches with different names.. eg. Paul's letter to the "Baptist church of Ephesus", and Paul's letter to the "Faith Community Hope Peace and Love Center of Corinth" then we definitely would use that to define a church.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's not really circular because the definition of a church is straight from the biblical pattern. If the New Testament showed different churches with different names.. eg. Paul's letter to the "Baptist church of Ephesus", and Paul's letter to the "Faith Community Hope Peace and Love Center of Corinth" then we definitely would use that to define a church.

There is no place in the Bible where we are commissioned to judge whether a group of otherwise good Christians is a church or not. And the act of doing so is against the whole spirit of oneness, tolerance and receiving that the Bible encourages us to embrace among one another.

To me you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Worrying about names, taking it upon yourself to decide what are churches and what are not and generally being a childish nuisance and pain in the rear.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There is no place in the Bible where we are commissioned to judge whether a group of otherwise good Christians is a church or not. And the act of doing so is against the whole spirit of oneness, tolerance and receiving that the Bible encourages us to embrace among one another.

To me you are straining gnats and swallowing camels. Worrying about names, taking it upon yourself to decide what are churches and what are not and generally being a childish nuisance and pain in the rear.

Applying your words, to say, the LGBT church in a city (yes ,they exist), is troubling.

I don't think the apostle Paul would see it that way, to went to lengths to preserve the oneness and unity, and wrote against sectarianism and "other names".

Paul's commands for us to judge those in the church also extend to groups of believers, not just individuals. For example, suppose a church called itself the "Satan church", we can judge that to be not Christian. I use extreme examples to make a point - judgement is right and necessary.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Applying your words, to say, the LGBT church in a city (yes ,they exist), is troubling.

I said "otherwise" good Christians. This is another example of how you use the fallacy of the extreme to try to make a point.

I don't think the apostle Paul would see it that way, to went to lengths to preserve the oneness and unity, and wrote against sectarianism and "other names".

"Unity" is just another word you use to condemn others. I don't think you really have a clue what it is. To my observation your understanding of everything is superficial. I think you are sadly deceived. I don't think you have any idea what God is really about. All you have are teachings that make you feel like you are better than everyone else. Otherwise you are empty.

I've never heard anything in your personal testimony that leads me to believe you have a depth of relationship with God.

As I've said, if you are a example of what the LCM has become, I'm so glad I'm no longer there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

Mesmerization and hypnosis in and of themselves do not define a cult. There must be sinister intent.

For evidence of mesmerized sheep, look at how they sit, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, listening to ratty and threadbare exposition, and no one raises a peep. At the Psalms training, one poster here said he and his neighbour looked at each other and grimaced. But not one modifying word came forth from the crowd. Everyone knew not to correct the Ascended Master. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

For evidence of intent, look at Daystar, Philip Lee as the Office, Linko and so on. Eventually they realized that Standing Orders to the ministry franchises, the local churches of LSM, was most effective.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

For evidence of mesmerized sheep, look at how they sit, hour after hour, day after day, year after year, listening to to ratty and threadbare exposition, and no one raises a peep. At the Psalms training, one poster here said he and his neighbour looked at each other and grimaced. But not one modifying word came forth from the crowd. Everyone knew not to correct the Ascended Master. Even when he's wrong, he's right.

For evidence of intent, look at Daystar, Philip Lee as the Office, Linko and so on. Eventually they realized that Standing Orders to the ministry franchises, the local churches of LSM, was most effective.

Couldn't your description apply to any church on a Sunday?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Couldn't your description apply to any church on a Sunday?

No. Shepherds are accountable. They don't get carte blanche. Only God is always right. The rest of us, all of us, are subject to the flock. Otherwise mutuality is irreparably harmed.

The other thing you must remember is that if a pastor or shepherd begins to abuse the sheep, they can leave. The so-called revelation of the local ground was an end run on that. Now we were "caught for the local church". And lo and behold the abuse, and the merchandise of ministry, begins anon. Fealty is extracted, and out comes the lash.

[aron]

Contrast the LSM LC experience with the clear record in the NT. "After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them. . ." (Acts 15:7) Where by contrast did we ever see such mutuality in decision aking in the LSM LC? No, everything was done by fiat. Poster 'Hope' recalled how he and some others had a discussion on the merits and demerits of WL's latest 'flow'. WL got wind of this, had them summoned, and publicly blasted them. On the ride home, his host laughed and said all the So. Cal. brothers got this treatment.

Where is the mutuality in the LSM LC? Nowhere is where.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

This would be a personal definition of a cult that is created without reference to what is already there. And it is preferred because it would give your leader a free pass.

Or would it . . . . ?

There are some who can point to the tricks of oratory that seduce people to set their natural reasoning aside in favor of illogic spoken by the orator. And when the intent is arguably to create a group that will buy your wares as if they were gold, then sinister intent could be inferred.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a definition of a cult that has not been addressed here so far and the OP fails to mention it -

My definition of a cult:

A cult is a group which is subject to mesmerization and has hypnotic following of a leader or leaders, who have sinister intent. A cult implies a person's own rational and logical free-will being overtaken by mesmerization or hypnosis.

1. Mesmerization -- If you told me I had been "mesmerized" while in the LRC I would have rejected that.
2. Hypnotic following -- Many claimed that "pray reading" and "calling on the name of the Lord" were practices conducive to "hypnotic following". Again, I was in the LRC, I heard this, I rejected it.
3. Sinister intent of leader -- Even to this day how many of the leaders of the LRC do we ascribe "sinister intent" to? This is incredibly difficult to prove. How do you know what someone's intent is?

In my experience this definition would not have had the slightest benefit to me while in the LRC.

Even to this day I don't believe I was "mesmerized" rather I was deceived by a fabricated story. I had some misgivings about the story but since no one challenged it I never really spent time to think on it carefully. If you had told me that the false prophet's ministry was based on a fabricated story, based on the Apostle Peter's ministry I would have received that. If you told me that Witness Lee's ministry was based on the fact that he was the closest coworker of WN I would have received that. If you then said that this story about WN's excommunication is the "foundation" of WL's ministry because if it is false, he is a false prophet, only if it is true is he really a true minister. I would have agreed with that as well.

You could then tell me that the "false prophet" is the false Christ that Jesus referred to as there being many of them. I would have agreed. If you then went carefully through the verse references made by WL concerning WN being the "minister of the Age" I would have agreed that they were referring to Jesus. If you then said that Jesus is the "Minister of the Age" I would have agreed. You would have had to leave me with that, and I would have thought on it, but you would have made a case I would have listened to that WL's ministry was based on a fabricated story and that he was setting himself up as a false Christ.

At that point I would have been on high alert to observe if the purpose of WL's ministry was to "make merchandise of the saints" and also if the fruit of this ministry is poisonous. I would have seen instance after instance supporting these two points and instead of accepting that I should ignore these things as others will take care of that, I wouldn't have ignored it. The prime example is when I heard that JI left. I would not have accepted that he "became negative" but would have looked into it. It would have been a great salvation to me have learned this lesson as a young Christian. Shortly after this I saw LSM try to ram rod these "truth lessons" down the throat of new ones and falsely credit successful evangelistic efforts with their books.

That is how you help someone in the LRC.

[Evangelical]

You are right the view is rather subjective, but I believe it to be correct, nonetheless, and can help tell a real cult. What I wanted to avoid was my interpretation being misinterpreted to mean any kind of experience that involves subjectivity. For example, experiences such as trances and out of body experiences are genuine and biblical (Peter and Paul had them). The practice of praying in tongues for example could be considered hypnotic and mesmerizing. Benny Hinn for example gets a following by mesmerization. But they are not a cult. Loud repetitive music in churches can be mesmerizing. I do not believe that pray reading or calling on the name of the Lord is any more hypnotic than praying the Lord's prayer by rote, or listening to Hillsong for any extended period of time at high volume.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are right the view is rather subjective, but I believe it to be correct, nonetheless, and can help tell a real cult. What I wanted to avoid was my interpretation being misinterpreted to mean any kind of experience that involves subjectivity. For example, experiences such as trances and out of body experiences are genuine and biblical (Peter and Paul had them). The practice of praying in tongues for example could be considered hypnotic and mesmerizing. Benny Hinn for example gets a following by mesmerization. But they are not a cult. Loud repetitive music in churches can be mesmerizing. I do not believe that pray reading or calling on the name of the Lord is any more hypnotic than praying the Lord's prayer by rote, or listening to Hillsong for any extended period of time at high volume.

So why do we go down this road? Trances, visions, prophecies, etc. All of these are genuine experiences in the Bible and typical examples of how a false prophet will try to scam you.

1. Lies -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
2. making merchandise of you -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
3. Poisonous fruit -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
4. Setting themselves up as false Christ -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.

Why go with a definition that is going to confuse a genuine man of God with a phony one?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So why do we go down this road? Trances, visions, prophecies, etc. All of these are genuine experiences in the Bible and typical examples of how a false prophet will try to scam you.

1. Lies -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
2. making merchandise of you -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
3. Poisonous fruit -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.
4. Setting themselves up as false Christ -- not typical of any genuine apostle or prophet.

Why go with a definition that is going to confuse a genuine man of God with a phony one?

As per my previous post, why go down this road of survey questions at all? We have to consider the weight of each question, the potential for "survey bias", and the fact that we need to decide on thresholds. But you have given a number of other good "survey questions" that I do not see in the OP.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As per my previous post, why go down this road of survey questions at all? We have to consider the weight of each question, the potential for "survey bias", and the fact that we need to decide on thresholds. But you have given a number of other good "survey questions" that I do not see in the OP.

Why put fire alarms in buildings? Why put burglar alarms on cars? Why did Reagan say "trust but verify"? Why did Jesus say "be wise as serpents, harmless as doves?" Why do we need prudence and discernment?

So many questions.

The OP was hoping to get responses from those on this forum to "drive home the validity of the survey questions". My response to the OP is very clear, those questions are not valid.

The reason they might seem valid is that a "false Christ" is imitating Christ, therefore they will try to imitate things that are true of Christ. It is like the mineral Pyrite (fool's gold). It is gold color and it does something very interesting which is it forms large cubes as a crystal structure. Usually the crystal structure reveals the molecular structure. Gold's molecular structure is cubic which is very symmetrical, but Pyrite's is not. Therefore it is very strange that it would form cubes when the molecular structure is not cubic. So then the gold color and the cubic crystals are not evidence of fool's gold. It is as though these criteria are telling you to identify fool's gold by those two criteria. Every single criteria in the OP can be applied to Jesus, or Peter, or Apollos, or James, or Paul, etc. So then you would always be accusing genuine men of God of being "false prophets and teachers" if you use this criteria.

No, the way to identify fool's gold is 1. Density 2. fracture -- the mineral will break into pieces if you strike it with a hammer, gold is malleable 3. Rust -- pyrite will show oxidation whereas gold will not and 4. Look carefully at the crystal faces, fools gold has little lines on each face that show that the molecular structure is far less symmetrical than a cube.

The way to identify a false teacher --

1. Ministry is based on a fabricated story
2. Purpose is to make merchandise of you
3. Modus operandi is to make you twofold more a son of Gehenna
4. Outward appearance is "a false Christ".

True ministries are based on the truth:

Paul was less than the least because he persecuted the saints of God

James was caught up with the Judaizers in a personality cult

Peter denied the Lord

They don't make merchandise of the saints -- rather they support themselves as tent makers, or fishing, etc.

Their "fruit" reveals they are not thorns and thistles. Just as Paul said "you are my letter of recommendation"

They are servants of God and don't pretend to be Christ, or super apostles.

[Evangelical]

I think we need a strong absolute definition of what is the church and what are sects so we can see what are the cults. I do not think that the 9 questions that leastofthese put forward are so helpful or reliable in defining what is a cult. The reason is that the "point scoring approach" is biased toward the purpose of the survey and does not consider the weight of each question.

I will explain a little about "weight" using an example. Suppose there is a set of questions that aim to find out "do you have cancer"? If a person answered yes to only two questions "do you feel tired?", and "is there cancer in your family?", probably they don't have cancer. However if the two questions they answered yes to were about painless swellings or lumps, then the chance that it is cancer may be higher. In other words, each question is weighted differently, so it is not a simple matter of counting how many questions you answer "yes" to.

"survey bias" is another problem. Suppose I asked you 3 questions, and you did not know what the test is about:
1) do you feel tired?
2) do you drink and smoke?
3) do you have any painless swellings or lumps?

Suppose you answered yes to all three. If the survey was about "do I have cancer", you might be very worried and make a doctor's appointment. On the other hand, if the survey was about "do you live a healthy lifestyle", then we probably would not worry as much. The decision about whether or not the survey is true and what action you will take, depends strongly upon what the survey is actually about.

It is for these reasons that we cannot rely upon these sort of tests for determining whether or not the local churches are a cult.

Another problem with this approach is that we still need to decide how many of these 9 points will be answered "yes" before we conclude it is a cult. For the Catholic church, the number of questions answered 'yes' may be higher than the number of questions answered 'yes' for the Baptist church. Does it mean Catholic are "more of a cult" than Baptist? No.

This is tricky because it depends. For example two or three of the points may apply to a number of denominations and well known Christian ministries (particularly tv evangelists and mega churches) but we would not say they are a cult.

Most of the points seem to apply to the Catholic church but we would not say they are a cult. JW, Mormon and SDA satisfy a number of the points, but most Christians would not say they are a cult, but a sect. Worshipping false gods is not necessarily cultish.

The problem is that the word cult is defined according to our own view of orthodoxy and what is a "church". For example, "salvation is not through Jesus" or "salvation is by works" does not define a cult. That could be any religion or even atheism.

I think the missing thing is as I have said, hypnosis and evil intent. But we also need a strong definition of church.

I think a better term for churches that are not churches and not cults, are sects. If they are not churches and they are not cults, then what are they? They are sects. But then Protestantism is a sect of Catholicism. The Church of England for example is a sect. This view is too difficult. We need a correct absolute view of the church based upon the bible and only then can we properly see what is a sect and what is a cult. The absolute and biblical pattern of church is the church as the locality , the church in Corinth, the church in Rome, the church in Ephesus etc.

My definition is thus:
The church in the locality is "the church". The sub-groups within the locality with other names (the denominations) are sects. The groups that satisfy most of the criteria, and are clearly not the church or sects, including hypnosis and evil intent, are cults.

I believe this definition is superior to other definitions (including the scoring/point system put forward by the OP) for the following reasons:

Based upon the absolute pattern of church in bible, it is easy to define clearly what is a church and what is not. We avoid the relativism and subjectivity associated with the "9 points" put forward in the OP. That is, it avoids the situation of having to worry about how many points are answered "yes" before we conclude it is a cult. As I explained before, one denomination may be a "yes" to most of the points, but another may hit only one or two.

The strong and absolute definition of church, also avoids wrongly concluding that Roman Catholicism or JW or Mormons are cults. It also prevents us incorrectly calling other religions cults, just because they believe in works-based salvation or reject the Trinity.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do not think that the 9 questions that leastofthese put forward are so helpful or reliable in defining what is a cult.

I don't disagree with you Evangelical, I said as much in my intro. This doesn't change the fact that it was the top google search. Which, I would think, is relevant at least as much as to shed light on what the general population may first read when looking for more information on cults.

Which locality do you meet with?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

I don't disagree with you Evangelical, I said as much in my intro. This doesn't change the fact that it was the top google search. Which, I would think, is relevant at least as much as to shed light on what the general population may first read when looking for more information on cults.

Which locality do you meet with?

I'm not blaming you, this is a difficult subject and interesting conversation. Surveys can be valid if done properly but I wanted to point out their shortcomings. There may be a perfect survey somewhere with a high success rate of determining what is and what is not a cult. I cannot disclose my locality on a public forum, sorry.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot disclose my locality on a public forum, sorry.

How would that statement factor in to the larger discussion?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Where did the apostle Paul agree with anyone? Can you answer?

The Acts 15 conference. Verified by Paul in his Galatians letter. They received one another in fellowship. Nobody was abjectly servile to another.

Paul did not receive his revelation from men (Gal 1:12), yet he was still in agreement with men.

Nee received his revelation from men (and women) yet ultimately was in agreement with no one. Likewise Lee from Nee; Lee told us he hadn't learned anything from anyone for 40+ years.

Nee had to shed himself of Wang, his senior co-worker and fellow student of Barber, before he could "recover" authority and submission. Then his revelation placed him as de facto Top Dog. He no longer had to agree with anyone but God. But all had to agree with him.

But where, for example, do you see the apostle John expressing the abject servility towards Paul that we should expect? Look at John's epistle to the Ephesians in the Apocalypse. No love there, said John. Where is Paul's successor, the new Deputy God? Nowhere to be seen. What had happened to the 'apostle Paul duplication center' in Ephesus? Where was 'today's Paul' as John was writing to the seven churches in Asia? Nowhere is where. The story of Paul as MOTA is a fiction.