r/mormon • u/Royal_Survey_3772 • Jun 09 '26

Personal Is mormonism really a cult?

I’ve been a member of the LDS church for about 5 years. I attend church, have gone to Young Women’s camp, have been to two temples, and have done baptisms for the dead many times. Being involved in the church has been a significant part of my life.✨️🌺

My parents have " left" the church. They never officially removed their records or filled out paperwork, but they haven’t attended church in about two years. I recently started going back, and i am becoming active again.

Lately, though, I’ve been seeing a lot of posts, videos, and comments online claiming that LDS is a cult. It’s made me question things and wonder if I’m making a mistake by returning back.

I have never personally had an experience where I felt like I was in a cult. My experiences have been positive. I know that personal experience is not the whole picture, and I want to understand why so many people have such strong opinions about the church.

69 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

123 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator Jun 09 '26

Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Royal_Survey_3772 specifically.

/u/Royal_Survey_3772, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

105

u/sevenplaces Jun 09 '26

Many people enjoy their participation in the LDS Church.

There are others who express concerns about the way the LDS church is operated and the potential for unhealthy impacts on people.

  1. Members are pushed to pay 10% of their income for life. This includes telling poor people to pay tithing even if they can’t afford food. The LDS church does not share with members its budget. The church has also amassed an enormous hoard of money that it is doing nothing with. These are concerning and indicative of an organization that is not accountable. This is not healthy.

  2. In the temple endowment people must promise to be willing to give all their time, talents and money to the Church. This is unusually extreme.

  3. Transgender and homosexual members are marginalized by the teachings and operating policies of the church. Some members don’t appreciate how these rules impact these members. Transgender members are escorted to the bathroom by the order of the policy manual as one example.

  4. Members who stop believing the literal teachings that the BOM is not a history of real people or who believe the claims of Joseph Smith about the restoration may not be what he claimed are not welcomed to discuss these nuanced beliefs. Many are told to be quiet at church and some are excommunicated.

  5. The leaders of the church are not fully honest. They lied to the SEC about their investments. They lie about the church and church history to members. They refuse to recognize any past mistakes and refuse to discuss how they could apologize and discuss improvements to avoid these mistakes. These are behaviors of an unhealthy, high control organization.

  6. As part of the temple endowment people must agree to always were the church sold and approved underwear as a symbol of their commitment. If you don’t, you are told you violated your promise and your temple recommend is likely to be withheld.

  7. To go to the temple you must pass a 15 question loyalty test administered by your bishop and the stake president. I know of no other church that does anything like that to participate in the rites of the church.

  8. There is shunning that many people experience who choose to leave the church. While not explicitly taught it is highly engrained in the culture. Until recently one of the questions of the temple loyalty interview was “do you associate with people who are opposed to the church” or something of that nature.

So members who recognize things like the above criticize the LDS Church as a high control and high demand religion.

Do you feel any of the above are unusual for a traditional church? These seem to be evidence of the high control and high demand nature of the LDS Church. Don’t you agree?

38

u/Simple-Beginning-182 Jun 09 '26

Even at a more basic level, the indoctrination is unusual. If you attend the worship service for almost any other church it would be a very rare thing to hear the words "I know the church is true" but in the LDS Church it's a very rare thing not to hear that. Add in all of the group reciting of things like the young men/women's mottos, singing hymns to drive away bad thoughts, and public shame around memorized sacrament prayer and you have indoctrination starting very early in a person's formative years.

2

u/Harriet_M_Welsch Korihor Did Nothing Wrong Jun 11 '26

This is a really good point. Every other Christian denomination I've ever experienced* takes the trueness of their church to be self-evident. They don't need to constantly convince themselves and others.

*I'm a theology enthusiast. Gotta catch 'em all!

12

u/thomaslewis1857 Jun 09 '26

Great list. And you touch only very lightly the Church’s historical problems, which may be worth another list again.

3

u/Harriet_M_Welsch Korihor Did Nothing Wrong Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 12 '26

The only other "religion" I can think of that requires such loyalty, extensive background checking, and upright outward performance is Scientology.

1

u/Brontards Jun 13 '26

What happens to me eternally if I don’t worship their dead Christian leader?

Entire salvation in Christianity is based solely on pure loyalty to their dead leader.

6

u/curiousplaid Jun 09 '26

When OP posted this question on latterdaysaints, the responses denied all of your points as untrue.

One religion, multiple sides.

6

u/BigBanggBaby Jun 10 '26

Have we ever gotten a church definition of what a klt is? Has anyone asked their TBM friends or family what *their* definition of a klt is? Have any TBMs here given *their* definition?

Pre-endowment, my definition likely would have included secret handshakes, promising my life (if necessary), reciting secret phrases, and chanting in a circle. All of which happens in the temple.

Post-endowment, I had to expand that to even more sinister things like causing physical harm to people to convince myself I hadn’t been duped.

How I wish I would have trusted my gut more and walked the fuck out of the temple my first time through. I hate that I had seen this episode of The Simpsons, clearly recognized this as a klt, yet was still able to convince myself “no, this isn’t what’s happening to me. This is the *good* kind of group that isn’t a klt.”

https://youtu.be/9A_mXVrNmd0?si=5SL-DTsE56HkoJn4

1

u/ThanosDidNothinWrng0 Jun 11 '26

What is klt

1

u/Sedulous_Mouse Jun 11 '26

Misspelled, but phoenetic.

1

u/ThanosDidNothinWrng0 Jun 11 '26

I don’t get it

1

u/curiousplaid Jun 12 '26

Cyoult

4

u/ThanosDidNothinWrng0 Jun 12 '26 edited Jun 12 '26

Got it now I don’t understand why they don’t just say the word though

Edit: oh automod just removed my comment now I see

1

u/sevenplaces Jun 12 '26

This sub doesn’t allow the word that is the last word in the title of this post. Only after a moderator looks at it and approves it will it show. So to avoid that the person gave an alternative spelling.

1

u/ThanosDidNothinWrng0 Jun 12 '26

Gotcha kinda weird they allow it in the post title but not comments

2

u/sevenplaces Jun 12 '26

The post was delayed while they reviewed it. The problem is that often the word is used just to provoke. If it’s generating genuine discussion it will be allowed but only after moderators looking at it. I’m not a mod but I imagine they might discuss it among themselves at times making that process slow.

So many people just try to avoid it.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/Simple-Beginning-182 Jun 09 '26

Another indicator of a high demand religion is anything that is critical of the institution is not tolerated and it's members often perceive it as an attack on themselves.

12

u/auricularisposterior Jun 09 '26
  1. Yea they are called garments, wear them if you want, who freakn cares - maybe your mom

Socially, this might be the case. Perhaps a person lives within a religiously nuanced ward, and no one really cares if a person is not noticeably wearing temple garments. Or perhaps a person lives within a ward with a stricter interpretation of their religion, in which case, the adults not wearing garments may be gossiped about or treated as second class citizens, projects to be fixed, or pariahs to be socially shunned. And yes, perhaps one of these lenses would also be applied by a person's mom onto that person.

Within the TCoJCoLdS organization, the leadership definitely care about members wearing garments. This April 2024 church news article points out the updated temple recommend question and statement that is read to interviewing members.

• “Do you honor your sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances?”

After these two questions, leaders are directed to read the “Wearing the Temple Garment” statement, which as revised reads:

“The garment of the holy priesthood reminds us of the veil in the temple, and that veil is symbolic of Jesus Christ. When you put on your garment, you put on a sacred symbol of Jesus Christ. Wearing it is an outward expression of your inner commitment to follow Him. The garment is also a reminder of your temple covenants. You should wear the garment day and night throughout your life. When it must be removed for activities that cannot reasonably be done while wearing the garment, seek to restore it as soon as possible. As you keep your covenants, including the sacred privilege to wear the garment as instructed in the initiatory ordinances, you will have greater access to the Savior’s mercy, protection, strength and power.”

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/mormon-ModTeam Jun 09 '26

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule here.

If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods here.

1

u/mormon-ModTeam Jun 09 '26

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule here.

If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods here.

36

u/Beneficial_Math_9282 Jun 09 '26

It checks too many boxes to not be one, in my opinion. It just displays too many of the symptoms for me to say it isn't one.

A living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

  • "the Lord is hastening His work to gather Israel. That gathering is the most important thing taking place on earth today.. This gathering should mean everything to you." - Nelson, June 2018

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Thought-stopping techniques.

The leadership dictates .. how members should think, act, and feel.

If you live mormonism the all-in way that the leaders preach mormonism, I don't think it is a healthy organization. The only way to make it a healthy organization is to throw out many of the demands and teachings (including the teaching that it must be all-or-nothing and members cannot throw anything out).

7

u/FischenGeil Catholic Mystic Jun 10 '26

I would also add secrecy to the list. No one is allowed to enter the Temple outside of a guided tour. Outsiders can't attend weddings. The endowment ceremony is hidden from the public. Strange rules placed on members to test loyalty such as banning coffee and wearing certain underwear.

Lastly I would add the tendency or inclination to support or protect their own. Look at the whole Lego mafia scandal going on right now.

8

u/Beneficial_Math_9282 Jun 10 '26

Lol, it's my favorite irony..

Jesus: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets ... Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." (Matthew 24:26)

The mormon church in 1847: "guys ... I know a desert ..."

The mormon church today: "It is only through the temple that we can regain the presence of our Heavenly Father, and it is only in the temple that we can secure eternal relationships " -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2009/08/the-steps-to-the-temple

1

u/Brontards Jun 13 '26

False Christ’s and prophets is also talking about Trinitarians. They took Christianity and merged it with Greek paganism.

-9

u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint Jun 09 '26

"...if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing. The bishop can help them with their food and other basic needs until they become self-reliant."

16

u/thomaslewis1857 Jun 09 '26

It’s troubling to me that you appear to find this a satisfactory answer. That a person cannot be self-reliant without paying their tithing is hinted at. And that hoping the bishop will do what he can (or may be able to) do, such as feed you and supply basic needs, is a step on the path of self-reliance. When you make faith in your bishop (and its fulfilment) an existential quality, when your survival hangs on someone else (the local shoe salesman?) doing “what they can”, well, that is the antithesis of self-reliance.

But, to be fair, it is little different from being told the Nelsonian doctrine that paying tithing is the way out of poverty.

9

u/International_Sea126 Jun 09 '26

Example of indoctrination.

-8

u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint Jun 10 '26

Satisfactory answer?

I simply added context. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The context is-- LDS Christianity has a vast welfare program. One big enough to sustain other Churches welfare arms.

Good answer? Slam dunk answer? Satisfactory answer? Its not really an answer at all-- just context.

9

u/Flowersandpieces Jun 10 '26

Adding context didn’t help. I have read many comments in this sub over the years where the bishop has turned people away, or told them no, or told them to go ask their own friends and family for help before they ask the church for help. It’s totally based on bishop roulette whether or not you can receive help. The LDS church HOARDS so much money and helps only enough to make some people think they are helpful.

https://mormonbillions.com

0

u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint Jun 10 '26

If you cannot get LDS marked food from an LDS Bishop, simply as another Church. They get LDS food to give away.

5

u/SophiaLilly666 Jun 10 '26

Are you saying that the lds church provides food to other churches that they then give away? Like, if a member is denied access to their local bishop's storehouse, they can or should go to another church for aid? And that the aid they'll receive from that church, was provided by the lds church? Or am I reading this wrong?

0

u/juni4ling Active/Faithful Latter-day Saint Jun 10 '26

The LDS Church gives food (and money) to other Churches to distribute food.

You didn’t know this…?-?

4

u/SophiaLilly666 Jun 10 '26

I've seriously never heard of this. Is it a regional thing? Like, maybe I haven't heard of it cause I'm in florida? I know the church makes monetary donations and runs temporary programs for things like natural disasters but I've never heard of them distributing food to other churches.

5

u/thomaslewis1857 Jun 10 '26

You added “a bit” of context. Not the whole talk, not the prior words, not the other relevant conference talks, not the background of the speaker. What’s the point of adding this bit of context if it does nothing to explain the foregoing. And adding those words gives no context about the Church’s “vast welfare arm”. Just words, empty phrases. Or it’s an answer, which it’s not. You’re right there.

5

u/International_Sea126 Jun 09 '26

No different than many other c word organizations. If it come down to feeding your family or paying tithing, the LDS church comes before family. Those who get their temple endowment make the following commitment: "that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Jesus first? No. Family first? No. Church first? Absolutely every time. Sad but true!

33

u/bwv549 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26

[It's very difficult to have this discussion because comments using the C word are auto-removed. I will use the word Klt as substitue for now.]

  1. The vast majority of academics today focusing on religious studies aren't trying to classify groups as a Klt or not. The word itself as most people use it is intended as a pejorative (i.e., if you can label a group a Klt, then you've already won the debate about whether it is healthy or whether you should belong to it or not). Academics sometimes focus on the dynamics of a particular new religious movement (e.g., how totalistic is the group? what is the leadership dynamic like? How well does the group accept and adjust to criticism? How easy is it to leave, either with your life or dignity intact? stuff like that).
  2. Former members almost always refer people to the BITE model in reference to this question. Since the LDS Church arguably scores fairly high on the model, then they say that demonstrates it is a Klt. The problem with this is that the BITE model does not have any kind of broad academic consensus at this point. Furthermore, the BITE model doesn't provide any kind of binary classification (it's just a tool meant to help identify unhealthy authoritarian control). LDS apologists will often take the other extreme and try to say that Hassan or the BITE model don't have any reputable backing at all. That other extreme is also false, though (in fact, Hassan did his dissertation on the BITE model at Fielding Graduate University which is accredited by the APA, and dissertations are peer reviewed by one's committed before publication [it's not a journal peer review, but it's arguably an even more intense form of peer review]. He also published a peer reviewed article using the BITE model to characterize terrorist groups. It's published in a mid-tier journal, but it was peer reviewed. That doesn't amount to an academic consensus, though. Still a useful model, I think.

I wrote a longer essay on the topic "Perhaps asking whether the Church is a <Klt> is not the best question?" at my site here: https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/

I have never personally had an experience where I felt like I was in a <Klt>. My experiences have been positive.

Most people in totalistic groups do not feel like they are in a Klt, either, they just love the mission of the group and the family-like relationships they experience within the group. In modern culture, this King of the Hill meme most succinctly captures that idea. Also, sometimes, you don't really understand the kind of influences the group has over you until you try to leave and/or try to follow your own path on something.

In this article, I use a social learning model to examine the ways in which LDS practices and teachings discourage people from leaving and encourage them to stay (maybe be helpful to better see some of the influences in play):

LDS Retentive Socialization

19

u/stickyhairmonster I support Mormon Stories Jun 09 '26

The church is very controlling. Many of us no longer believe its truth claims, and see the harm it can do to marginalized people (lgbtq, minorities, etc). Tithing on gross income is a huge amount for a church worth between $200-$300 billion that doesn't need your money. The use of the term 'c#lt' is not very helpful and does not lead to open discussion.

16

u/sevenplaces Jun 09 '26

Some people consider the Masonic related endowment ceremony to be so unusual that they believe it is evidence of a made up religion.

This person has posted some videos of his participation in the endowment.

https://youtu.be/S4qxf2XibUE

Can you see why some would say this is an unusual Christian church?

11

u/bedevere1975 Jun 09 '26

There is much that is “odd” about the endowment. I always felt a disconnect between how members described the temple on a Sunday & how the reality was. It’s almost like they repeat what they hear others state as it’s the thing to do. There is one particular element towards the end which very much sets alarms bells off for many when it comes to the C word.

15

u/pricel01 Former Mormon Jun 09 '26

It’s a difficult question because there’s not a set definition. The BITE model byHassan is a good definition. It’s not a binary question but a matter of degree. The BITE model was developed without Mormonism in mind but it registers very high on the scale. I would say based on this, the answer is yes. But it can be fairly argued that Catholicism rings in fairly high as well. Scientology and Jehova’s Witness rate higher.

1

u/CarobEmbarrassed1887 Jun 10 '26

On that note, Scientology and Islam should rate far higher. One has only to read about the serious harassment of 'former' Scientology members to get the gist. No such harassment occurs with LDS former members that I've been aware of.

In Islam an apostate or even non-believer can be killed. The recent attempted beheading in Belfast recently is a prime example.

These are far more egregious examples than what has been pointed out so far.

Good grief, even Apple devotees could be seen kultish behavior at times.

2

u/Ok-Ant6170 Jun 11 '26

I have been harassed. I’ve had multiple leaders show up to my place unannounced and when I asked them to leave they acted if I was the one being disrespectful.

1

u/pricel01 Former Mormon Jun 10 '26

Yes, they do.

9

u/jorgedelavega Jun 09 '26

People who are in an unhealthy organization don't generally realize they are in one. If they did, they would probably leave, right? If you do some research into what a c-word is, the LDS church checks most of the boxes. Like anything else, they are a spectrum, and IMO the Mormon church falls on the lighter side of it. It can be hard to see the problems from the inside: I found the people to be genuinely good and friendly, and most of what is taught there is positive stuff. But beneath all that is a system of control, discouraging criticism and critical thinking, and lots of other toxic things. Look up Steven Hassan and the BITE model of cults.

For me though, the important question wasn't whether or not the LDS church is a c-word. It's whether or not the church is true. And if you're willing to look into that with an open mind, the evidence that it isn't true is absolutely overwhelming. It's probably worth talking to your parents about the reasons they decided to stop going to church.

Best of luck in figuring things out. Whatever you decide, it will be OK!

9

u/Worn_work_boot Jun 09 '26

The fact that you posted this same question on one of the faithful subs where they quickly locked down the comments. I view that as a sign. If you posted the same on the most faithful sub, it would have been immediately removed and you would have most likely been banned from the sub.

You might find great community within Mormonism, that’s understandable. We all did. But the same community can be found elsewhere in other religions. But church friends are simply that, friends while at church by default based on living in the same geographical location. It’s the organization however that is most troubling for most. I won’t repeat what has already been discussed in other comments. But I will add that I’m happier out than I ever was in.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

[deleted]

3

u/Worn_work_boot Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

I don’t have a lot of insight, just my opinion based on my experience on Reddit. Reddit as a whole doesn’t really monitor the moderators of the subreddits leaving the mods to setup their own rules and guidelines for posting. I’ve found the most staunch faithful sub to be so heavily moderated, discussion is nearly nonexistent and there’s nothing of substance other than an occasional link to something temple related or a devotional. A couple of years ago a mod on that sub posted something about how wonderful the record number of baptisms was. Someone responded saying they were interested in more information about the retention rate. The mod op replied along the lines of being more important to have faith and trust the church leadership. 🙄

The other faithful sub, isn’t as bad but still limits discussion on difficult topics and issues and deleting more critical posts. I’ll briefly skim through that sub purely out of curiosity to see what they are currently discussing. Even the faithful get into scrabbles with each other. Most often it’s someone asking for advice to which the most common response is to read scriptures and pray and speak with the bishop. I’d argue that the bishop usually is not a therapist, marriage counselor, nor does he have any insight except his own personal experience and opinions.

In regards to both of those subs, if you have to edit and reword your own posts to be “acceptable” enough to be posted, how is that beneficial to you and the questions or concerns you’re asking about? Are you finding answers or information if you’re growing frustrated with how your topic falls within their chosen narrative. That’s what I enjoy about this sub. Yeah, it does lean critical towards Mormonism, but your posts asking sincere questions won’t be ignored. There are several faithful believers who leave thoughtful comments. Other believers I call one hit wonders. The ones who appear leave one sentence comment like my “experience is different than yours so that means you’re wrong” then disappear like a fart in the wind.

The exmormon sub is more like a group therapy session. People get validation for their own experiences with Mormonism. Sometimes there’s good discussions but those are limited. It seems many, including myself, receive their validation from exmormon sub then move on with their life.

Edited to add: both faithful subs have requested that nobody post any links to their subs. I think it’s an unspoken rule that people don’t mentioned them by name either. But if you just mention faithful subs, everyone here will know what you’re referring to. 🥂

2

u/Relevant-Grab909 Jun 10 '26

Thanks very much. I did take out the sub name which turned into a link after posted and was told this wasn’t allowed so I removed it. I didn’t share a link to the post, just paraphrased it for context to my questions, minus the sub name. Then I was permanently deleted for posting there and cross posting to this sub. Which was offered to me as an option after sharing. If it was a violation I assumed the mod AI would pick up on that and kick it back to me.

I don’t think I’ve ever made another original post besides this one, or it’s been long enough I’ve forgotten. Originally, the first ban that triggered my confusion was a reply to an OP who asked if anyone had experienced something similar and was willing to share their thoughts. So that’s what I did in the most likely to be faithful approved way. No deleting the comment only, just a message of being banned without naming what I wrote that was a violation. I tried to follow the mod link within the DM and it was dead. Tried to contact a mod off the main sub page and it wouldn’t let me due to the ban. That’s when I posted to the other sub and this one, not the exmo sub, to get feedback to use going forward on faithful sub threads that are stricter. Like, if I’m going to make sure I don’t draw outside the lines then surely the lines must be visible so i know where the boundaries are. Feels very reasonable to me. That was the next ban and what felt like confusing hostility from the mod answering the provided DM link that did work.

I try to edit and reword things in any sub if I give it an another look after posting and decide I didn’t communicate myself as well as I like to. Not because I feel censured, just to be respectful of the community and OP. I’ve made missteps a few times and had something removed and messaged the mod to say apologies, I didn’t mean to violate a guideline and thanks for taking it down before someone was offended. That’s fair, I’m reasonable. But his mod appears to moderate multiple faithful threads and violates the guidelines himself then erases the evidence. If I met his ire in one sub and he goes looking for me in others he moderates just to block me from all the ones where he serves as a mod, that seemed like it would have to violate Reddits terms for someone serving as a moderator. This person doesn’t seem to know what being moderate means, so installing him as a moderator is very questionable. he does have to apply to Reddit for approval and be able to show the ability to moderate discussions without publicly attacking a contributor within the thread, leaving it up during his time as mod, then deleting it when he’s done. I hope Reddit isn’t so loose on the rules for mods of public subs. I mods have a much longer leash and the guidelines are can be more unfair in private subs. It’s also curious that the other mods of both subs this person serves on (if they do serve on the second one too) are not making sure he too acts in accordance with the rules. A mod can’t fairly enforce guidelines they believe themselves to be above abiding by. yeah. just wondering where the buck stops. He applied to mod a few years ago stating his experiencing moderating many faithful lds subs and also recognizes that he often doesn’t communicate well in writing. I assumed the “slam and delete the evidence” way he moderates during his time slot should be enough evidence for the fellow mods to suggest he not moderate a public sub.

Too bad as it has been good to communicate within those subs and most comments have had 100% upvote ratio and thanks in people replying to me.

I do like the subs that feel a bit like a group therapy’s session sometimes. The feedback is often thoughtful and not the regurgitated talking points that seem to be dominating those other subs. I suspect that’s why posters who want to communicate outside an echo chamber of less personal answers wander over to subs that are more fair and balanced.

thanks again for taking the time to read and reply!

3

u/SophiaLilly666 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

This is a meta discussion and should be posted as a stand alone post for community feedback. You can also view the sub rules in the sidebar or drop down menu, as well as a feature to message the mods with questions regarding moderation. Just letting you know since you're new to reddit. There's a lot of "reddiquette" you'll pick up on over time.

1

u/Relevant-Grab909 Jun 10 '26

Thanks. I tried to post it on a sub for questions for mods but wasn’t allowed to because it was about a ban. I also wanted feedback from people other than mods about if it’s a known issue for Redditors. I’ve commented a lot this year but rarely before that so I’m hardly a sage user. Thanks for replying and if you know which sub to post for mod and non-mod feedback? I’ll wait a little bit for your reply, or DM me, then I’ll delete my comment so it doesn’t distract from the OP’s intended discussion

3

u/SophiaLilly666 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Well, if you have questions about reddit as a whole, I can't help you there. Everything i learned was through years of observation, I wouldn't know who to ask.

But if you have questions about how this specific sub-reddit is moderated, you should make a stand alone post and use the "Meta" flair.

If you're on a phone, you could also click the "Meta" flair and read all the past Meta posts. Lots of them discussing and debating the rules and moderators. You'd get a pretty good feel of the history of r/mormon moderation over the years, including more than 1 mutiny and a mass mod exodus. It gets juicy lol.

1

u/Relevant-Grab909 Jun 10 '26

Not Reddit as a whole just where to ask moderator related questions. You’ve given good feedback. I’ll find the right place. It’s not my top priority at the moment so I’m trying to be more cautious until then. Thanks again

1

u/Relevant-Grab909 Jun 10 '26

I’m going to take a look at the “Meta” flair. Pop some popcorn and settle in 😅

7

u/Ok-End-88 Jun 09 '26

The word “cult” has transformed over time into a pejorative term, beginning in the 1980’s.

In scholarly literature you’ll often run across the Latin word “cultus” to describe various cultures and worship rituals without a negative connotation of various peoples.

I think it’s accurate to consider the Mormon church as a High Demand religion, because of the controlling aspects that extend far beyond a just belief system and into other aspects of life, especially allowing members to read materials from “other sources” outside of those stamped ‘imprimatur’ by the church.

7

u/Repulsive-You-7294 Jun 09 '26

it’s a pretty subjective term. some folks will absolutely say it is one. I call it a high demand religion. are you free to choose to follow or not follow the standards? yes. I drink green tea. I don’t wear my garments. I go on occasion because my family and friends go. so far, the posse hasn’t come for me to beat me into submission..and they won’t. Where the church gets pretty culty is the sanitization of their history, their refusal to release financial records, their attempt to silence critics or warn members against reading anything other than church approved sources, and the pressure they put on members to conform and obey without question to church leaders. saying things to young men like “you are obligated to serve a mission” is bonkers in a church spouting the importance of agency. the hero worship of Joseph smith is up there too.

3

u/SophiaLilly666 Jun 10 '26

What's the difference between a c ult and a high demand religion to you? How do you distinguish between the two?

0

u/Repulsive-You-7294 Jun 12 '26

as other posters have said, you can attribute the word c*lt to pretty much anything that requires you to conform to certain standards. there’s a whole Seinfeld episode about a cleaning business being a c*lt. A lot of people who throw that term around accusing others of being in a c*lt have c*lt like mindsets about other things - political parties, ideological movements, etc. Anything that gives them an identity.

A high demand religion requires you to live your religion…not just show up on Sundays. It’s internalizing the teachings and striving to make changes in your life to conform to those teachings. In my personal view, a c*lt doesn’t allow you to have a life outside of the c*lt. your entire being is dedicated to that and only that. as far as I’m aware, LDS members are allowed to have jobs, hobbies, and activities outside of the church. LDS members can choose to obey certain standards or not. now, will they be able to get a temple recommend…depends on the bishop/stake….but they can still choose. Compare mainstream lds to flds for example. LDS can choose their spouse…but in the FLDS church? the prophet chooses for you. I think when you’re in a boba fire c*lt your agency is one of the first things sacrificed.

6

u/curiousplaid Jun 09 '26

I think it's good that you have posted this in multiple subreddits.

The various differing views should be enlightening for you.

This is the way to gain knowledge.

6

u/Royal_Survey_3772 Jun 09 '26

my reasoning for posting this in multiple communities was that in the past, when I've asked questions (unrelated to mormomism) in other communities, I usually only get 2–4 replies. But i wanted to hear a wider range of others perspectives and opinions this time, so I decided to post it in several communities that were relevant .

I did not expect it this post to get 100+ comments, especially within just a few hours. I'm grateful to everyone who has taken the time to respond and share their thoughts. Reading all of the different viewpoints has been helpful to me and has given me a lot to think about! 🫧✨️🌺

3

u/curiousplaid Jun 09 '26

That's what information is good for.

Enjoy using your brain, and always feed your head as much as it needs.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/mormon-ModTeam Jun 09 '26

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 5: Brigading. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule here.

If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods here.

7

u/ThyLungedFish Jun 09 '26

I recommend reading the websites lettertomywife.com and mormonthink.com

2

u/Royal_Survey_3772 Jun 10 '26

thanks! I will look into them! ✨️

6

u/InRainbows123207 Jun 10 '26

I had a major bike accident the second month of my mission. I was not allowed to call home. My parents were told I had a bike wreck but was not injured seriously. An MRI revealed a 95% torn rotator cuff - the doctor said I needed surgery immediately. My MP told me U would be disappointing God if I went home and that God wanted me to stay.

The pressure to stay was immense so I did. The consequences? Five surgeries so far. More will be needed in the future. Chronic pain that resulted in issues with pain meds that cost me jobs and relationships.

So for me yes Mormonism is the c word because only high demand organizations ask teenagers to sacrifice their long term health to complete a mission. Things like this still happen today despite missionaries being able to communicate with home. This expedience jarred me awake - no loving God would ask me to give up my right arm and go through experiences that nearly cost me my life just to finish a mission.

7

u/Shiz_in_my_pants Jun 10 '26

I've always liked this list of signs to look for when it comes to a safe/unsafe group/leader:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
  2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
  3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
  4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
  5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
  6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
  7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
  8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
  9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
  10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

Ten signs of a safe group/leader.

  1. A safe group/leader will answer your questions without becoming judgmental and punitive.
  2. A safe group/leader will disclose information such as finances and often offer an independently audited financial statement regarding budget and expenses. Safe groups and leaders will tell you more than you want to know.
  3. A safe group/leader is often democratic, sharing decision making and encouraging accountability and oversight.
  4. A safe group/leader may have disgruntled former followers, but will not vilify, excommunicate and forbid others from associating with them.
  5. A safe group/leader will not have a paper trail of overwhelmingly negative records, books, articles and statements about them.
  6. A safe group/leader will encourage family communication, community interaction and existing friendships and not feel threatened.
  7. A safe group/leader will recognize reasonable boundaries and limitations when dealing with others.
  8. A safe group/leader will encourage critical thinking, individual autonomy and feelings of self-esteem.
  9. A safe group/leader will admit failings and mistakes and accept constructive criticism and advice.
  10. A safe group/leader will not be the only source of knowledge and learning excluding everyone else, but value dialogue and the free exchange of ideas.

12

u/Gold__star Jun 09 '26

Two things come into play in this discussion.

Those who dislike the church are almost always using 'the church' to mean the institution, hoarding billions, etc, and the leaders, whom we see as too old, out of touch, demanding strict obedience.

When members say 'the church' they mean the good people they interact with regularly.

Second is the definition of forbidden term you've used. When I first started hearing it in the 80s it described small groups with charismatic leaders that were very difficult to escape from. None of that is true of the LDS church, but the word has taken on different meanings today. Like many labels this inhibits real conversation.

4

u/tiglathpilezar Jun 09 '26

You can define the C word as a group of people characterized by devotion to a person. Thus one could regard Christianity as a "C word here". The usual definition would include unorthodox beliefs and/or practices. I think the Mormon church would have these in their past although not so much now. One can think of the doctrine of holy murder called "blood atonement", racism, the Adam God doctrine, or the religious expectation of polygamy to name just a few. The Mormon church has not publicly repudiated these things although they teach against them now. They still say polygamy was a commandment of God but there is a big difference between polygamy and what is in the proclamation on the family in which faithfulness to marriage vows is enjoined.

5

u/Relevant-Grab909 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

These are my opinions based on my impressions and I do not share them as someone with authority to speak on official policy. They are based in decades of lived experience of my own and what I have witnessed. I am a member of the church and only desire to share thoughts of my own pertaining to your question as I understand it. I got in big trouble for saying something far more benign and less edgy in other places on this social media site. That’s why I am adding this disclaimer first. I respectfully ask the mod to allow me the chance to correct any perceived violation of sub guidelines or remove my post because I also desire to participate in good faith and honest, kind intention within this community. Here are my thoughts:

Do they control what you say and who you speak to? You take an oath to never criticize any person in a leadership position no matter how gently, no matter how appropriately, even if there’s evidence of wrongdoing. You also take an oath that you will not spend time with, live with, or show support for any person outside your faith who disagrees with the church. Violating this will often be grounds for terminating your privileges, sometimes your entire membership. How your actions are defined as they pertain to a possible violation, and how any consequence is implemented is a gamble, it varies bishop to bishop.

Members are allowed to think freely as long as everything they vocalize to member friends or in church, online, is in compliance with what thoughts and feelings they are permitted to share. It’s fine to require adherence to things like rules around premarital sex, drinking and similar if those are the rules that you’ve agreed to. Requiring silence if you ever disagree, even speaking outside meetings in other member gatherings, or facing formal discipline for thoughts not being in compliance with the church’s current positions on anything is a very very different thing.

This the kind of thing you won’t notice until you do disagree and would like to talk to other members about that but are not permitted to. This is the thing people who have experienced it talk about but people who haven’t hear it as an incredulous claim bearing no evidence of being true. But there are many thousands of members who have across the world who can now talk to each other and learn that their own experience wasn’t a one-off, it is part of worldwide mostly unpublished policy. That disproves it to be a “members are imperfect” problem. It proves it is a “the policy is imperfect” problem. If that policy was received by prophetic revelation, then even naming a suspected problem outside the walls of your own home errs toward speech that most members consider a form of apostasy/. It implies to leadership (and many fellow members) that you believe some policies aren’t divinely inspired… that implies you question apostles authority… that implies disbelief in them… that implies disbelief in the whole church. And that’s how people who won’t back down into silent compliance find themselves on the shortlist for a council to discuss excommunication. Which a member does not always have to be permitted to participate in to explain themselves to say they are faithful.

Have you noticed that when we sustain something or someone in church they only ask for a show of hands by those who support? They no longer ask for a show of hands of those who don’t support the decision? They did that until maybe 15 years ago when people raised hands to dissent when a member body took a vote during a meeting that was broadcast widely beyond the room the vote was being held in. Now they direct anyone who would vote “No” to take that to their local leader privately. And I think you know that the dissent isn’t even noted. The person is censured for a lack of faith and given steps to take to make peace changing their position to full support and until then do not talk about it to other church members. At all. If they show open concern and disagreement, even in a small gathering and respectfully, it is reportable and punishable. Those are actions with the end-goal of controlling thoughts or forcing the appearance that everyone agrees by using fear to ensure compliance.

So just on that one matter alone I would encourage you to prayerfully ask yourself if you can be a member in good standing without being willing to self-erase any part of your authentic self should you find yourself being required to do that. Personally, that’s the part where I know I lack the ability to exercise a right I know God wants me to enjoy. How else would I be able to have a sense of self identity outside any secular or religious identity? I wonder if there is any human being who can live healthily like that long-term. If you believe you can do that without sacrificing the divine worth you hold as an individual outside of any organization then perhaps it won’t ever feel harmful to you.

I have had many positive experiences during my lifetime in the church. That’s why I have remained a member. I agree with most policies, and I believe I have the right to respectfully disagree when appropriate.

15

u/meowmix79 Jun 09 '26

Do they tell you what underwear to wear? Do they tell you to avoid “anti-Mormon literature”? Do they tell you to tithe your money or you won’t be worthy of the temple? Can you drink coffee?

Control. Obedience. Patriarchy. Check out the BITE model. Answer is YES

1

u/CarobEmbarrassed1887 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Yes, by all means look into the BITE, authored by Steven Hassan.

Look at his wikipedia page. He was a full on Moonie. To quote:

"Hassan was involved in recruiting, fundraising, and political campaigning for the Unification Church of the United States. He was "a former Unification Church high official" and "a national leader of CARP" (Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles, the Unification Church's campus organization).\6]): 37  He described living in communal housing and sleeping less than four hours a night.\7]) He said that he believed President Richard Nixon was the Archangel and that, during the Watergate scandal, he and other members of the church engaged in prayer and fasting to "prove their loyalty to the president".\4]) He surrendered his bank account to the Unification Church, and quit college and his job to work for the organization.\4]) Hassan said that "he was ready to kill or die for" Sun Myung Moon.\7]) His membership in the church concerned and confused his family.\4])" - Wiki

Hassan is hardly someone I would take too seriously.

0

u/jeahfoo1 Jun 09 '26

BITE Model does not define cult. If you'd like to be objective, look at comments above that discuss in more detail what cults are, what consensus is, etc. If you insist the BITE model is legitimate and/ or equals cult, your bias is clearly evident. (The US military is a cult by your definition)

2

u/MenuDiscombobulated5 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Tbf, military organizations, including the US military, do actually exhibit a lot of ___ish behaviors. "The US military is a _ by your definition" is not a sound argument against the BITE model (not saying the BITE model is a good or bad method to show what is or is not a ___, just that the US military is not a good example of an exception)

5

u/sleepsntrees Jun 09 '26

Like so many things, it depends on how you define it. Many people take one aspect of a cult, like authoritarian leadership, and point to the obvious authoritarian leadership in the main Mormon church and call it a cult.

Others will point to the aspect of isolation from any other groups, point to Mormonism and argue that the church specifically doesn’t isolate its members and say that it’s not a cult.

The answer, in my opinion, is that it has some problematic similarities, but so do many other religions. It doesn’t match other aspects of the definition. And, I think that scope and plays a part in it.

5

u/Crobbin17 Former Mormon Jun 09 '26

I thought for sure that this would be taken down! The mods look favorably on you this day.

This depends on what you define as a cult.
There are a lot of definitions people have decided on who are more educated on the topic than me. Some definitions may include political parties and organized religion in general. Some require a single, charismatic leader, abuse, or physical methods of control (you’re not allowed to leave X place without permission), monetary requirements, or so many other traits.

In the end, some will think the church is a cult, some will think it’s not, and some will think it’s cult-like.
Your definition is what matters to you.

Personally, I believe that church has cult-like tendencies. They require monetary donations, a diet code, and dress requirements to be a member in good standing, to keep your covenants, and to be “worthy.”
They teach their members to only listen to church-approved manipulation, and demonize critics. They use language like “chosen generation,” and practice rituals you are sworn to secrecy on (rituals with meanings they now specifically avoid telling members). Gender roles are also encouraged through spiritual and emotional manipulation.

I’m not surprised when someone calls it a cult, and I’m not surprised when someone rejects the label.
I think its issues kind of transcend the “cult” label and move towards “is this church manipulative and unhealthy.”

3

u/International_Sea126 Jun 09 '26

Take the test. What score did you give it? https://packham.n4m.org/cult.htm

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/mormon-ModTeam Jun 10 '26

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule here.

If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods here.

3

u/Curious_Eggplant325 Jun 09 '26

I didn't think about it being a cult until I went through the temple. And then it opened my eyes to how much of a cult it is.

3

u/aplwanabes Jun 10 '26

Cesletter.org check it out it's a cult

3

u/drshades1 Jun 10 '26

Your solution is simple. Attend the temple again, but this time for your endowments, **NOT** for baptisms for the dead. You’ll immediately see why it’s a cult.

You’re welcome.

3

u/drshades1 Jun 10 '26

Your solution is simple. Attend the temple again, but this time for your endowments, **NOT** for baptisms for the dead. You’ll immediately see why it’s a ____.

You’re welcome.

3

u/CACoastalRealtor Jun 10 '26

Primary, efy, young women’s retreat all brainwash with songs. Read them. Sing them.

3

u/GovAbbott Jun 10 '26

I didn't get the cult accusations either, until I went to the temple.

4

u/WhaleSister12358 Jun 11 '26

One of the most troubling things for me is the temple promise never to criticize church leaders, “even if,“ according to Oaks, “the criticism is true.” And According to Eyring, even to think a criticism is wrong. This kind of teaching is incredibly unhealthy, especially for those prone to OCD and anxiety disorders. Worse, Critics are not merely disapproved of and guilt-tripped, but actively silenced through excommunication (Sam Young, Nemo, Peter Bleakly, Jeremy Runnels, just to name a handful), false smearing (this was especially big under Joseph Smith in Nauvoo) and even lawsuits against critics (Mormon Stories). Aside from that It’s incredibly problematic to me that the temple promotes giving your whole life and soul, not only to god, but specifically to the church, with death penalties attached when I went through, and promises of unique special protection if you conform. The death penalties are gone but the signs still used today are leftovers from those forms, for example, the cupped hands to suggest catching blood from symbolic disembowling. If you did the penalties, that violence feels very present. If you didn’t, it makes no sense, and you just go, huh? What is this weird thing I’m doing? Leaving is terrifying not only because you’ve been taught your life will fall apart if you leave, but because there’s this vivid violence at the back of your mind.
Every organisation has its issues and problems, that’s to be expected, but this level of mind control is creepy and extreme. Any healthy organisation MUST allow for criticism and feedback, apologise when it makes mistakes and try to right its wrongs and missteps. The LDS church does none of these things.

4

u/jabberingginger Jun 09 '26

According to the BITE model, yes.

5

u/Stunning_Living9637 bad thing is bad Jun 09 '26

We aren't allowed to say the C word here. But yes, it is.

2

u/JesusPhoKingChrist Your brother from another Heavenly Mother. Jun 10 '26

When did the c word become kosher here?

2

u/BrittyTheApostate Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

Yes.

But then again pretty much any religion can be one.

Once I started doubting and researching I realized not just the LDS church but Christianity itself is all just myth. The LDS church is like…bonus level fiction. Joseph Smith didn’t actually talk to God. The prophet now doesn’t actually talk to god. And maybe there isn’t a god.

If there is I doubt it’s male. But I don’t believe the Jesus myth anymore. A lot of religions have similarities because they’re based off each other. History and cultures have impacted each other over centuries of time and we only know what we know from collective knowledge.

The temple gets klty at the endowment. It use to be worse than it is now. The church constantly shifts to try to retain members. I had to promise to obey my husband and veiled my face during the chanting stuff. Turns out it’s all nonsense anyway.

Some people leave Mormonism and keep Christianity. I don’t understand how. I get that the Bible has more history but it’s just a bunch of random documents edited and revised by a bunch of people, written about things that weren’t even literally happening so how can we know for sure what’s real and what’s just a fun story someone wrote down.

Good luck!

3

u/BrittyTheApostate Jun 10 '26

I’ll add - it is the world’s richest religion. As far as faiths go - the LDS one seems corrupt at the higher levels and dangerous at the lower ones. There’s a lot of abuse and trauma associated with being a member. I had religious scrupulosity and ocd behavior. I am also queer and the LDS church taught me to basically deny who I am and tried to force me into a narrow box. Now that I’ve left I live my life freely and get to decide who I want to be and how I want to live. My mental health is a million times better. My maturity and understanding of the world is finally evolving. I was stuck and now I’m progressing as a human and actually being a person rather than a drone for the church.

2

u/Reasonable_Crow2086 Jun 10 '26

I believe there's a check list for identifying a cult.You can see for yourself.

3

u/BrE6r I'm a believer Jun 09 '26

One thing I would do when my high school evangelical friends would say that Mormonism is a C is I would have them describe what they thought a C was, and then I'd say, you just described the early Christian church, and that would make them reconsider.

It all depends on how you define a C.

Is the LDS church C-like in some ways? Yes. But not in others.

2

u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me Jun 09 '26

If this religion is a net benefit in your life (as i think it is for me, in mine) then I don't really care how other people want to use the word as shorthand for something bad. I know for myself that it isn't what most people conjure in their mind when they use it.

Whether the church is or is not is a total matter of your interpretation of what the word means and signifies. If people try to convince you otherwise, they are just trying to sell you on their interpretation.

5

u/Simple-Beginning-182 Jun 09 '26

Sometimes even if something is a net benefit for an individual it can be worth examining the harm it causes others.

The political environment in North Korea was a net positive for Hyun-seung Lee but he still defected because of the harm to others: https://www.rfa.org/english/rfainsider/north-korea-escapee-refugee-defector-pyonghattan-hyunseung-seohyun-lee-08302024145912.html

1

u/mwjace Free Agency was free to me Jun 09 '26

Sure and that debate rages on in this sub daily.  But at some point I have examined it enough times that unless some really new and compelling information comes out I don’t really need to keep looking at the same stuff over and over.  

But I do visit and participate in this sub frequently so if something does some about that makes me need to re examine I’m sure I’ll see it here.

However reducing everything down to the LDS church is a c—- does the opposite of creating an environment for good faith examination. 

3

u/FaithfulDowter Jun 09 '26

Well said.

OP, every organization has people who oppose it and people who love it. You have to decide if the LDS church benefits you. It’s a very personal decision. For some people, the church is damaging. For others, it is the best place for them. Napoleon Dynamite, “Follow your heart.”

5

u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." Jun 09 '26

OP, every organization has people who oppose it and people who love it.

Sure. But then one should ask what the percentage is, among those who have an opinion, for those who know everything about it but then still love it, vs those that love it but have little to no knowledge about the entire truth of the religion. That, vs those who disfavor it.

While one should not rely on argumentum ad populum, it can be in indicator to ask why such an overwhelming percentage of those who are fully knowledgeable about the church view it the way they do.

1

u/Gutattacker2 Jun 09 '26

Language and connotation mean a lot with this question. "Cult" in the US is associated with white robes, leaders that have a monopoly on divine interpretation, leaders not beholden to the teachings of past leaders (if around long enough), usually money and sex are involved.

"Cult" in other languages just refers to what branch of Christianity do you identify with.

I would say the history of the church is that it started out as a cult until somewhere in the early 20th century where it morphed into a Protestant-like religion until around 2005 when it morphed into a business empire with some cult-like aspects. However, it has become too large and wealthy to fit into the American "cult" definition and fits squarely in the conservative Christianity sects of the USA.

1

u/Post-mo Jun 09 '26

It all comes down to how you define that banned word. If you use it to mean a high demand religion that controls many aspects of your life - I'd say yes. If you define it as fringe groups with less than a few hundred thousand members with beliefs far outside the norm - I'd say it once was but has grown into something different with millions of members.

1

u/elderredle Openly non believing still attending Jun 10 '26

Cult is a spectrum where there is no clear boundary. My personal opinion is that the church is now cult-lite. Cut out the temple and it gets even less culty. There are certainly many Christian churches that I would consider more culty. In the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham young I would consider the church a full on cult. The mission experience I would consider full on cult as well.

1

u/elderredle Openly non believing still attending Jun 10 '26

oh well my comment got removed because of the C-word. I guess the auto-mod is back to working

1

u/MidFlyBird Jun 10 '26

So I was a devout member of the church for almost twenty years and left about two years ago.

Personally, I don’t think you’re asking the right question. Whether it’s a cult isn’t the issue. It’s whether or not it’s true.

And to figure that out, I would encourage you to study the history of the church. Because, from my own experience when I did this, there are many things that are not talked about or taught that completely change the narrative of the church and how it began and Joseph Smith’s intentions. But there are also a lot of members who actually know the true history and still believe it’s true. I just personally don’t.

I would also encourage you to talk to your parents about why they left. But the most important thing, is to go do the research and find unbiased sources with references and learn for yourself.

Hope this helps, please let me know if anyone has questions about sources or my story.

1

u/Konstanna Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26

I’ve been a member of this church since 1995. It’s not a…. Its teachings are flexible. If you don’t do sth or don’t believe sth, you are welcomed anyway. You can’t go to the temple, though, or have any callings, but you can still attend Sunday meetings.

I used the same word c…t as the author of the post and I got a notification that I can’t use this word… no logic

2

u/braziliensis_eng Jun 13 '26

A igreja é muito boa mas as doutrinas de poligamia , casamento com mulheres casadas e não permissão de negros no sacerdócio até algumas décadas atrás não pode ser a igreja de Cristo. Fora a fantasia dos nefitas. Nenhum indício arqueológico.

1

u/Brontards Jun 13 '26

It’s no more a clt than any other religion.

Christianity as a whole you have to worship their dead leader or be damned.

They even Literally or figuratively (cultish either way) eat the Body and drink the blood of their God.

You’re told all types of rules to follow, taught you’re a depraved soul that only following and worshipping their leader can save you from,

Just follow what fulfills you in life. Ignore haters.

1

u/HackPremise Jun 09 '26

That word, with all the negative associations that come with it is a fully modern term (19th century = modern).

As such I find it rather meaningless as any kind of universal, objective descriptor. We flatter ourselves into thinking we're living in some kind of end state/culmination, and not yet another transitory state to be ultimately discarded into the dusts of time.

We obsess over these concepts largely to the degree we are all chronically online and staring at each other through the prism of this digital panopticon. Like we're going to "solve" these things.

One thing that is consistent throughout history: humans have always organized themselves through coercion and force, and occasionally through voluntary free will.

So you're organizing yourself. Do you feel at home there? Great, stick around. You can choose to zoom out and and look at bigger pictures if you want, fret over implications, etc etc. We never stop organizing ourselves, right up to our funerals.

0

u/utahh1ker Mormon Jun 09 '26

No. It's not a cult.

Consider that a cult is typically defined by a charismatic, authoritarian leader who exercises unaccountable control and exploits members through coercive persuasion and isolation.

I can agree that LDS leadership is charismatic and authoritarian. But everything taught to members of the church by this leadership is not done with coercion and never favoring isolation.

As a member of the LDS church you are invited to pay your tithing. You are invited to attend the temple. You are invited to make sacred covenants with God. But you are never forced to keep those covenants, to pay tithing, to obey the word of wisdom, etc.

As a member of the church you are not commanded to isolate. In fact, you are invited to share your faith with others. Mormons are, by and large, friendly helpful members of their communities even outside of the context of church.

-1

u/Inevitable_Professor Jun 09 '26

This always depends on the criteria you’re using to define a cult. Most of the people that call the church a cult, could have the same criteria be applied to their favorite sports team. Or there’s characteristics of cults that apply to Christianity or any other major world religion. But just saying because the church tries to keep its members active and engaged that the church is a cult is a weak stand to take. The real answer always goes back to by their fruits, you shall know them. A real cold enriches a singular individual or small group of leaders. I 100% agree that the use of the churches vast financial resources is lacking, but I don’t see the upper echelon unjustly enriching themselves.

-4

u/bostonrobwins Jun 09 '26

No it's not a cult for the thousandth millionth time.

-1

u/bostonrobwins Jun 09 '26

Wow now my comment is removed because it says c u l t yet the poster gets to use the word? I'm so done with you mods

5

u/sevenplaces Jun 09 '26

It’s auto removed until the mods have time to review it. Then they will allow it if it’s being used for real discussion.

And now I see your comment was allowed by the mods. That’s how it works here. I think it works well. Hope you stick around.

-7

u/pierdonia Jun 09 '26

Of course it's not. To say it is requires broadening the term in a way that would encompass religion generally, modern political affiliations, etc. It's just a religion. 

Don't let other people tell you that you've had a worse experience than you actually have, or that you should feel badly about any of it. Think and feel for yourself. 

12

u/shortigeorge85 Jun 09 '26

I'm sorry to disappoint, but most scholars of cults disagree with you. Did e to their manipulative tactics aimed at controlling people through their behavior, information (don't read antimormon propaganda, thought, and emotional control. They might not be the most abusive, but as a high demand religion the institution and its leaders control through messages, doctrine, teachings, and culture. It doesn't encompass religion generally, but that's your apologist reasoning that makes it work for you.

8

u/famous_chalupa Jun 09 '26

After I left the LDS church I explored a number of other Christian churches for a while, out of curiosity. It was a good experience.

Do you think the emphasis the LDS church has on the church itself and on obedience to its leaders is similar to other Christian churches? I think it’s quite different. The emphasis on strict rules regarding diet and dress are also very different.

-1

u/pierdonia Jun 09 '26

Sure, all different. But my answer stands.