Defining a Cult


Those who wish to consider our church a cult shall so consider it. There’s little, if anything, one can do to educate someone away from a relgiously-driven mandate to consider us cultists. If they stop considering us cultists, then they can’t save us.

Seeing as that poster already provided the evidence that the LDS Church is not a cult, the only reason left for that very same poster to declare it a cult is prejudice.

tom’s hit the nail on the head.

You might want to notice that you just said “Christianity rarely calls itself a cult and generally rejects the term.” Given your, shall we say, creative method of quoting a reference, it’s kind of hard to tell which part of the above quote is you speaking and which part of it is you quoting something else, so one could easily wonder what the point you’re really trying to make.

And this you know exactly how? Did God Himself appear to you and say, “Behold! Joseph Smith created a new religion!” I daresay He didn’t. What you just posted is what’s commonly referred to as an opinion. Yet, you’ve posted it as fact. That’s kind of frowned on in these parts.

Opinion. Just because you don’t have any doubts about what someone else tells you doesn’t mean the rest of the world doesn’t.

We prefer to say we began as an organized church.

We prefer to say we brought back the original teachings. You see, this is part of the human condition known as beliefs. You should also notice that I prefaced this comment and the one before it with “we prefer to say,” clearly indicating that it is an opinion.

So the criteria for my belief system is if you find it “usual?” Who died and made you Jesus Christ?

Kind of like that group you referred to in your own comment above, hey? Who were they again? Oh, yeah. You called them Christians.

Oh, so now you finally state it as an opinion. Sadly, though, this contradicts the stuff you posted above and shows your bias.

Oh, and I’m quite grown up. Last time I checked, I wasn’t the one to appear on this board and bash someone’s religion just because I’m bigoted against LDS. That was you.


The Prophet’s every action isn’t inspired by God except in the sense that whatever a believer does good is inspired. The way I understand the Church’s teaching is that what the Prophet does, in regards to the Church, is 100% inspired.

You know, vanilla; I’ve never been to a party with the man. :wink:

Angel, you’d do well to emulate vanilla’s behaviour here. She had, shall we say, a rough spot regarding approaches to other religious traditions on this board before and her approach now towards the same is exemplary.

That’s quite disingenuous of you, Angel. Care to try defining Honesty?

Lantern: You’ve been introduced.

Thanks, Guin. How long before someone comes in and says, “Heck, you obviously haven’t known him long enough!”? Seriously…thanks.

Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a member of the group you hate because they disagree with you is quite likely the lamest stunt pulled on this board.

You’re getting slammed because you are not “only quoting” from it. You are dishonestly manipulating the quotes you use. Any decent Critical Thinking teacher would flunk you for that.

They may be; however, you are not.

Does it matter? After all, you’re probably going to continue with your dishonest manipulation.

Having a temper != not having a brain.

And the next lamest stunt is ad hominem attacks. Here are two definitions (with my bolding) from two sources so you can understand what it is.


Ad hominem falls into the category of Logical Fallacies.

Drat. The second quote should’ve had only “rather than to logic or reason” in bold.

Now, if there were a thread with only 99.9% of the posters responding to it being members of the LDS church, you appraisal may be correct.

As it is, you merely mentioned that it’s not usual for a thread to have such a response, but you didn’t say that it’s this thread. You intimated it’s this thread, which is one of the reasons why I called your methodology here disingenuous.

“Looks stacked to me” isn’t an objective description, anyway. You could be looking at a very fair (perfect, even) election and still erroneiously conclude that it “looks stack.”

My fan club’s supposed to be paying dues? Okay, now I’m mad at them! <jk>

What the heck is that smilie doing there?! It’s supposed to read “just kidding” in between the arrows.

Yep, yet another ad hominem attack. Accusing someone of ebellishing one argument in order to discredit them in another argument certainly falls into that category. Care to address exactly how this justifies telling a fib?

Apparently for them it was. Also apparently, it’s not all that hard for folks to get it straight elswhere.

Only if you lie.

They’re not my rules.

None. The proof of that has already been provided to you by another poster, one who self-describes as not being in my fan club.

Well, any decent book on Critical Thinking, Speech, or Debate has a section concerning logical fallacies.

Interesting title you posit there. Too bad it has no basis in reality.

That would be called hypocrisy. But it doesn’t apply here, as DMC has already proven.

Quaint. See one particular posting above for usage of that word.

Er, See one particular posting in The BBQ Pit thread for which I already provided a link for usage of the word “quaint.”

Since you asked, and as I’ve already informed you they’re not my logic rules, here is a listing, thanks to otto3883 in a thead appropriately entitled Logical Fallacies:

And exactly where have I flipped out in this thread?

Try to answerr honestly. :rolleyes:

Do you realize this is the 2nd time in this very thread you’ve discredited yourself? Or would you care to explain how “Grow up Monty” [posted at 04-15-2002 12:27 AM by Angelslantern] is acceptable?