In Reply to: Re: Don Lattin on using the words "cults" and "fundamentalist" posted by Peabody on December 07, 2006 at 13:57:32:
Hey, I have a right to state how I feel about something. It doesn't matter to you or to me that you don't agree or don't like what I say or Vice-Versa, but it is okay to talk about differences of opinion, No?
You say some may argue that all religions are tainted similarly, I don't see it that way because the tainting is recognized within a legitimate org. as being errant.
Take the Catholic Church which is still reeling from scandal. They have covered up for a long time for pedophiles and now are answering for that but it doesn't make the Catholic church a cult. Their doctrine does not teach that pedophilia is okay.
Mainstream Mormons were at one time highly controversial. While some still practice polygamy by having wives in different places, that is their mainstream religion's biggest scandal. Otherwise they believe in being productive, educated contributors to society.
They seem to avoid, unless they are a Warren Jeffs type destructive cult, breaking the law with it and most don't even engage in it anymore.
Jeffs of course was prosecuted because of forced marriage involving minors.
I am not talking polygamy of the Mormons here. I am talking pedophiliac doctrines which are not effectively abandoned when a little Godly fondling is considered to be sweet and okay.
The LJR itself is extremely bizarre by societal standards in the world, in general. Destructive cults make doctrines of these sorts of things.
I agree that when a person goes to a doctor or therapist and talks about a cult, the doctor will often be unfamiliar with that experience and might oftentimes believe the client is psychotic (if they talk of bizarre family experiences without the doctor knowing them first and realizing some practices really occurred and experiences related really happened)
and I also agree that "cult" can be a buzzword with so many definitions. But "Destructive Cult" has long been used to describe groups that imo don't deserve the label "New Religious Movement".
I couldn't see people that followed Manson (and there are still followers) being called members of a New Religious Movement and because of the weird and abusive doctrines in the family and the control within, I can't see it applying to them either. That is simply my non-professional opinion.
I reserve the right to never refer to the Family as a "New Religious Movement" regardless of how PC it becomes to do so.
But hey that's just me!