Difference between a church and a cult

That’s not tithing.

Sorry man. :smack:

I think I gave a working definition. Do they rear kids and do those kids choose to stay in the community as adults?

Yes, by my definition, the Mormons are a religion. Not a cult.

And, fwiw, I’ve worked with a couple of Mormons. It wasn’t especially awkward. Vegans are at least as awkward to socialize with.

There isn’t a clear line between them. It depends on one’s point of view on what is important, where the line falls. And most groups have varying degrees of some of the characteristics. My last church had members who spoke of dues - there was a minimal amount expected to keep one’s membership valid. At one time it was the practice to publish in the annual minutes the giving of all members. I thought that was a very bad idea and got the practice stopped. In sociology I was taught there is a continuum: church>>>sect>>>cult. No one considers themselves to be in a cult.

Are you talking about forced tithing?

The synagogue you give an example of is supported by membership dues. For most synagogues, this is the bulk of their income. No one is forced to join a synagogue. You can come to services every day, go to all the classes, go to all events, and even consult with the Rabbi, and no one will ask you to join.

However, most people want to join because they want to be part of the institution. If you look at the membership form, you can see the cost. Standard membership is $3,450.00. That’s for an established family, and that is pretty high for a synagogue – although far from the 10% of total income tithing is suppose to be. And, this is also the most expensive membership too. The membership rates are lower for seniors (age 70 or older) and for younger families, and for singles.

As I said, that amount is pretty high for membership. I am a full member of two different synagogues in my town, and I’m paying less than $2,000 for both.

Still, dues can be a lot of money for people who are living close to the edge. During the 2000 dot-com crash, like many people in my community, I was unemployed for almost 18 months. During that time, my synagogue (I was a member of only one at that time) allowed me to skip paying dues for two years. However, I never had to fill out a form, present myself before a committee, or give them my tax information. In our community, it’s assumed that if you have to ask for reduced dues, you probably need them.

I think it’s distinction without a difference.

Cult dynamics are a fascinating study. Because of the negative connotations that go with the word cult we often tend to avoid them and everything about them. Cults seem to offer someone something they were not able to get anywhere else. In exchange they demand loyalty. They make use of powerful addictive drugs we produce in our own bodies. Sometimes they will actually enhance the experience by supplying their followers with manufactured drugs.

 Social groups will often have similarities to cults as do gangs and many accepted religions. We tend to go where the love is. 

  Without exception every hobby I have ever gotten involved in where social interaction was part of it had cult like qualities associated with it. I think what makes a cult a cult is when there is a willful manipulation of the followers with full knowledge of the fact that the leaders are playing on the followers weaknesses. 

  Military training involves indoctrination into a cult like state of mind. Sports teams are similar also. We see it everywhere but unless something is odd about it we never pay much attention.

Perspective.

Truth

About synagogues asking for (or requiring?) “membership dues”: The thing about synagogues is that they are all independent, and membership dues are generally their only source of operating revenue. (They may also charge “admission” for special events like the High Holy Days services. I would expect that they would never turn anyone away, though.)

Since the fall of the Temple, Judaism has never had a central church nor a global organizational hierarchy, nor a hierarchy of priests like some modern churches have. The Catholic Church is perhaps an example of the extreme opposite; other churches, like Baptists, Lutherans, etc., have their “conferences” or synods or other nationwide or global hierarchies. Judaism doesn’t have this. Each synagogue is on its own. (I believe this is true of Islam too, no?)

So each synagogue is substantially on its own to raise its own funding. Thus the need for either paid memberships or advertising, and I don’t imagine houses of worship are going to be selling advertising.

ETA: Jewish synagogues, at least in the United States, have some “professional”-type associations, for example, Reform congregations have Union for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations). I think membership in the Union is optional, but they serve as sort of an accrediting organization, and they ordain rabbis. But I’m not aware of any hierarchical structure they have with respect to the member congregations.

Hobbyist “cults” have a good chance, however, of NOT having a lot of the negative stereotypes of cults. They do tend to form cliques, and sometimes have an “insider” or “upper level” or “inner circle” of the most long-time and senior members, surrounded by a cloud of outer-circle associates.

Hobbyists tend to see themselves as part of a big family with others of the same hobby, sometimes even world-wide. This is in common with some cults or fraternal groups like Masons or Shriners. And many hobbyists are outrightly evangelical – aggressively welcoming of visitors, guests, newcomers, and especially new initiates.

I saw this even in square dancing, which I did for a few years a long time ago. Square dancers see other square dancers, world-wide, as “family”. Our club, in the San Francisco area, had visitors from Australia once, who were welcomed with some degree of fanfare.

Anecdote: The story was told of a square dancing couple who set off on a tour across the United States. They set themselves a goal of dancing with some club every single night in whatever city they were in, and they did it. Any major city has enough clubs that some club is having their club night every evening of the week. But one night, they found themselves in a smaller town with only one club, and it wasn’t their night to dance. But they called around and got connected. Then the club members fired up their local phone tree, and pulled to together an impromptu dance night (caller included) that night, just for the benefit of this traveling couple. (From what I saw of square dancing, I find the story very plausible.)

Oh, and yes, square dance clubs charge dues.

Lol, I square dance, and I believe your story. Especially if it happened a couple of decades ago. There are fewer square dancers, now. But I visited an Australian square dance club (I’m American) and was welcomed with open arms.

And did you even get a badge to wear?

Our Australian visitors got called up to the stage and introduced, and they were given our club’s standard “I danced with E. T.” badge.

(E. T. being our caller’s initials.)

But there are small highly insular religious groups that are multigenerational yet would be at least arguably a cult. There are no bright lines.

Cantankerous archdruid Isaac Bonewits designed the Advanced Bonewits Cult Definition and Evaluation Frame, or ABCDEF, as a tool for distinguishing between cults and religions. It suggests rating a group along 18 different axes, including:

I think it’s an excellent tool and well worth a look.

Well, going by that set of parameters, Mormonism isn’t a cult at all.

Yeah, I REALLY wouldn’t call Mormons a cult. Maybe at one time they were; certainly if noted Mormon scholar Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in his famous treatise A Study in Scarlet, is to be believed, they started off as a cult.

I always thought the difference between a church and a cult was that if your grandparent was born in it, it’s a church. Otherwise it’s a cult.

By that definition, Mormonism is a church.

What? My grandparents were all Methodists. :stuck_out_tongue:

Yeah, I think a lot of folks use that definition :). Bonewits’s framework is, IMO, far closer to what people imply when they use the word “cult.”