Is this a cult?

[fluiddruid]

I would encourage you to read their FAQ. I believe this may address the OP’s question directly, and I find it pretty honest and forthright. I think that people are suspicious of any group that has withdrawn (even partially) from society as a whole, but I’d be very, very surprised to find a cult that is dangerous also maintains such open statements responding to criticism of their group and maintains the (admittedly moderated) open dialogue of blogging.

While I don’t share this group’s beliefs, I see no evidence of danger.

[Inner_Stickler]

Pardon my ignorance but what is an academic definition? I would assume it means a standardized definition accepted by the international academic community. Is there an online list somewhere so that I could learn these academic definitions? If a particular word lacks a definition what is the procedure for giving it one? Some sort of vote perhaps? Or maybe an admittance proposal to an executive community?

[tomndebb]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’m using the word CORRECTLY. I’m sorry you have a problem with that.

That is a bit disingenuous as the word has several “correct” meanings depending on the context and the speaker:

There are four general meanings of the word cult as it is used in American English.

1. as a direct cognate translation of the Latin cultus, meaning any well-organized set of religious beliefs. In this sense, all the various sects and denominations of Christianity and Islam could each be called cults, as could Judaism or its individula groups, Hinduism or its individual sects, etc.

2. any religious group with a strong connection to a living or recently-deceased leader. In this case the LDS could be called a cult only up until the death of Brigham Young, at which point the direct connection to Joseph Smith was broken. On the other hand, Christianity would be a cult of Jesus, in this sense, until the death of the first generation of Apostles.

3. a nominally religious-based group enforcing control over all aspects of the lives of its adherents in the manner of Jim Jones, etc.

4. any religious group opposed by various fundie groups.

---

Wandering into a thread where a question has been posed whether a group is a cult without establishing that your answer is based on definition 1, 2, 3, or a specific academic subset of 1 or 2, (particularly when a lot of people presume that definition 3 or 4 is the active one) does nothing to promote the Straight Dope. Identifying the definition used ahead of time would be a bit more meaningful.

[Darth_Nader]

Guys, take it to GD.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@WhyNot

Either I don’t know what you’re talking about or you don’t. There are plenty of courses at plenty of universities on those topics.

College of Charleston:
Sweet Briar College
University of North Texas
DePaul University

From the biography of a faculty member at Brown:
The University of Exeter offers a Master’s Degree in the topic.

All these courses roll the word “occultism” into broad course descriptions dealing with magical religions and practices, mysticism, esotericism, etc. The word may appear in these course descriptions but it does so superfluously and redundantly. It’s an utterly meaningless word.

Did your husband come back and confirm that I was right about everything yet?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@tomndebb

That is a bit disingenuous as the word has several “correct” meanings depending on the context and the speaker:

There are four general meanings of the word cult as it is used in American English.

1. as a direct cognate translation of the Latin cultus, meaning any well-organized set of religious beliefs. In this sense, all the various sects and denominations of Christianity and Islam could each be called cults, as could Judaism or its individula groups, Hinduism or its individual sects, etc.

2. any religious group with a strong connection to a living or recently-deceased leader. In this case the LDS could be called a cult only up until the death of Brigham Young, at which point the direct connection to Joseph Smith was broken. On the other hand, Christianity would be a cult of Jesus, in this sense, until the death of the first generation of Apostles.

3. a nominally religious-based group enforcing control over all aspects of the lives of its adherents in the manner of Jim Jones, etc.

4. any religious group opposed by various fundie groups.

---

Wandering into a thread where a question has been posed whether a group is a cult without establishing that your answer is based on definition 1, 2, 3, or a specific academic subset of 1 or 2, (particularly when a lot of people presume that definition 3 or 4 is the active one) does nothing to promote the Straight Dope. Identifying the definition used ahead of time would be a bit more meaningful.

Even under the popular definintions they’re a cult. Just not necessarily a dangerous one.

[Chronos]

It’s an utterly meaningless word.

No, “Snixlt” is an utterly meaningless word. If I say “snixlt”, you would have no clue what I mean. But if I say “occult”, then you probably have a pretty good idea of what I mean, and WhyNot certainly has a good idea. So the word “occult” has meaning.

(And how exactly does one teach “the occult” exactly? That’s a meaningless word in acdemia)

I don’t know specifically, but he could teach on the occult by being the professor of one of those courses WhyNot linked.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Darth Nader

Thanks, she called me this morning, and all is good. I was a bit upset last night, but all is better-ish right now.

Hey I am glad all is OK.
I emailed the place per their web address, and I see that Shammah posted on this board. Here is her reply to my email:

Thanks for emailing us. There’s no way to tell from Darth Nader’s post who his aunt is. He can email us at our web site at http://www.rosecreekvillage.com. Just click on the “email us” link in the left column, which I think is what you did, too. As soon as we have any way of knowing who his aunt is and who he is, we’ll be happy to tell her that he’s trying to contact her. Thanks for telling us. Shammah

They may well be a cult, but at least they keep in touch, and it sounds like they care. Worse places for a relative to end up, I suppose.

[Darth_Nader]

They seem to be an okay-ish bunch of folks. In my opinion, they’re stranger than a bag of walnut hair, but why not, right? I just wanted to get in touch with my Aunt. And I did, fairly quickly, so that’s all good. I sometimes wish I could find a community that would take me in like that.

[Zoe]

If you want a non-religious one, this one has a terrific history and reputation:

The Farm. This one is a neat place to vist.

By the way, Rose Creek is not in Northwest Tennessee. Selmer is in the very southernmost part of West Tennessee. I wouldn’t call it “the rolling hills,” but perhaps compared to Florida it is. It’s in McNairy County. There is a parkway leading into Selmer that is named after a somewhat well-know former sheriff, Buford Pusser.

Darth, I’m glad that you have made contact with your aunt. Being taken in by a group does sound pleasant and tempting. But would you want to give up your decision-making rights? Would it be worth it?

[WhyNot]

As **tomndebb **says, my problem here is that you Diogenes, switched definitions without marking that. You first identified them as a cult because of negative things people said about them, and you called them “creepy” and “Koresh-like”. That’s all very valid, and a good example of tomndebb’s #3 (and #4 as well). Then, when I asked you for evidence that they are a #3 type of cult, you switched gears and claimed to be speaking from an academic sociological perspective (which I guess would be a subset of #1 or #2) - but you didn’t tell anyone you were switching definitions, which makes it look like “creepy” and “Koresh-like” are appropriate words and judgments from a sociological perspective, and they’re not.

And yes, I did talk to my husband, and he read the thread and weighed in that absolutely NOT, a New Religious Movement is not the same thing as a cult, and the term New Religious Movement was, in fact, coined by Eileen Barker to move away from the negative connotations of “cult” and talk about a multitude of organizations with one term. Some New Religious Movements are cults and some are sects and some are simply new religious movements that are neither sect nor cult. New Religious Movement is not “the PC word for cults”. It’s like saying “fruit is the PC word for banana.”

Also, I should have used the word “occultism” instead of “the occult” in describing what it is that he and others are teaching about. Apparently he avoids using the term “the occult”, because it makes it sound like there is only one occult body out there, and the subject he teaches on is wider ranging: the study of hidden or secret knowledge or societies. Mea Culpa. It does have a very specific definition, which he shared with me last night and I’ve now forgotten, so I’ll have to ask that one again when he wakes up.

His cursory opinion, based on no more than their website, is that they’re probably not a “cult” in either sense of the word. They’re a sect, NRM-speaking, and they’re far too open about their location, tax status, path to membership and theology to be considered occult - hidden - or insular, so they’re probably not a “cult” in the #3 sense of the term. “Tension with the society around them” is a vague marker at best - the same could be said of the homeless, people trying to build landfills and Wal-Mart. While Stark and Bainbridge (of course he’s familiar with them) are fond of that criteria, it is far from universally, or even widely, accepted as a useful one.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

So he agreed with everything I said. I never said an NRM was “the same thing as a cult.” I said cults and sects were subsets of NRM’s and that pedantically speaking this group was a sect. It matches enough criteria that it could be classified as a “cult” in the more venacular sense as well. I never said it was a “type 3 cult,” (which I think is a false definition anyway. Tight control of membership is not a criterion). I never “changed” definitions. I was right about everything I said.

[Frylock]

@Zoe

But would you want to give up your decision-making rights? Would it be worth it?

Where did you find any indication that this has occured?

-FrL-

[Frylock]

@Diogenes the Cynic

So he agreed with everything I said. I never said an NRM was “the same thing as a cult.” I said cults and sects were subsets of NRM’s and that pedantically speaking this group was a sect. It matches enough criteria that it could be classified as a “cult” in the more venacular sense as well. I never said it was a “type 3 cult,” (which I think is a false definition anyway. Tight control of membership is not a criterion). I never “changed” definitions. I was right about everything I said.

This is disingenuous.

Whynot nailed it. You began the conversation by tapping into the lay meaning of the term “cult.” You switched, during the conversation, to tapping into the academic meaning. This is equivocation.

Re-reading your posts, I can just barely make out an implausible tale as to how you might have done this inadvertantly. But advertant or not, you did switch connotations.

-FrL-

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I did not switch any meanings. I have explained myself clearly throughout. It is others who insist on accepting only an uneducated, rube’s definition of a “cult” as a group of controlled, mindless zombies. I consider that to be a naive understanding of the word and I mistakenly gave everyone else credit for being aware of that as well.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@Ludovic

Neither does “dinosaur”.

Incorrect.

[Rico]

@Darth Nader

Thanks, she called me this morning, and all is good. I was a bit upset last night, but all is better-ish right now.

<mod>

And on this note, I’ll close this. If you would like to debate cults and particular sects, please open up a thread in Great Debates.

</mod>