Last week, I mentioned cults. Specifically, I mentioned the Jehovah's Witness organization, as well as the Latter Day Saints (Mormonism). To many people, these religions are more or less mainstream, not cults at all. I thoroughly disagree, but then, the reason for this might well be that we're using conflicting definitions of the word "cult."
So just what is a cult? That's not easy to determine. There are a variety of definitions, from the very old and largely forgotten, to the popular media usage of the word. An interesting definition was put forth by Dr. Leo Pfeffer (winner of the 1988 Humanist of the Year Award, founder of the Commission for Public Education and Religious Liberty, and author of the book, Church, State and Freedom). He said, "...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps the religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult."
This is a humorous, but somewhat accurate description, as far as most people are concerned. My personal definition of "cult" would be that used by those in the medical health field. A cult would be any religious group that uses deceptive practices and psychologically dangerous pressure techniques. Theology is unimportant to the definition, only the treatment of the members.
This is why I referred to both the JW's and the LDS church as cults in my previous article, especially with regard to the pressure techniques. Mormons, for example, are taught that those who have abandoned LDS ways are actually "evil." Not just "misguided," but evil. Naturally, this results in Mormons frequently shunning their former friends. And the Jehovah's Witness people who knock on your door are told not to associate with people who've left the JW group. Avoid them at all costs. Naturally, both are acts of self-preservation for the group. They don't want to risk their members being told some sensible things by people who were lucky enough to get out.
Either way, no one wants to risk being completely ostracized by people who are their friends. The fact that every member of these organizations knows for certain that it will happen is a psychological threat that I consider to be dangerous. It goes beyond the whole, "you'll burn for eternity" thing. It's an immediate, here-and-now threat. "We will not associate with you ever again." And since both groups associate almost exclusively with others in their group, this means being cast completely adrift.
Many people include in their definition of "cult," a leader or leaders, usually charismatic, who exert some form of direct control over the group's members. I don't really think this is a requirement, but such a leader or group of leaders would certainly not speak well for the organization. Both the JW and LDS organizations are headed by groups of such individuals. They determine what actions may or may not be undertaken by all members of the organizations. If a member should disobey these edicts, they risk certain stigmatization, up to and including ostracism by their religious community.
So does this mean that I feel Catholicism is a cult, given the nature of the Pope? Tempting as that label would be, I'd have to decline. The Pope's pronouncements don't carry the same sort of psychologically dangerous threats that would qualify as cultish.
There are a lot of cults in the world. Certainly not all of them are wacky "doomsday" cults with suicide pacts and such. But all of them engage in psychological tactics that are dangerous and threatening. And some of them, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, can appear fairly normal to an outsider unfamiliar with their ways.
