Please Evaluate the Contemporary LDS Church

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Maybe others will take the time to do it. It doesn't interest me. You end up with some quantification on a scale of how cult-like we are, which I'd need to compare with other church's ratings as a baseline to find any meaning, but then I wouldn't know if my scale is the same as other's so my rating would be meaningless and so would an average of a handful other CG'ers.

Did everyone get a stick up their backside while I was on vacation? Seriously, what's the problem people?

The framework is as much about you being aware of various factors, and thinking about them, and doing comparisons for yourself, as it is about the kind of quantitative study you're bringing up. Obviously I'm not trying to draw any statistically significant conclusions.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Did everyone get a stick up their but while I was on vacation? Seriously, what's the problem people?

The framework is as much about you being aware of various factors, and thinking about them, and doing comparisons for yourself, as it is about the kind of quantitative study you're bringing up. Obviously I'm not trying to draw any statistically significant conclusions.

No stick, and I didn't mean it as a big deal. Just didn't feel like rating them, but I was interested in your opinion and the "cult" discussion can be interesting. So is your opinion that LDS is not as much as cult as is attributed to us?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

No stick, and I didn't mean it as a big deal. Just didn't feel like rating them, but I was interested in your opinion and the "cult" discussion can be interesting. So is your opinion that LDS is not as much as cult as is attributed to us?

I'd rate us higher on this scale in the JS and BY days (especiall BY, as I think about it). As it is, I think we're middling but a little higher than the majority of religious groups. Taken seperately, missions would rate higher too as they are very controlled situations.

Using sociological measures we're not a cult. Credible people have referred to us in that way with less and less frequency in recent years.

I've used this framework myself to assess whether or not I would visit the services of a particular Church or religious group (something I sometimes do).

Scientology, the Maharishi's, the Family International, the Moonies and the like are outside of my comfort level.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Will someone actually evaluate the factors instead of opining?

This is exactly, Tex, why I didn't include the intro information.

Apologies for ruining your experiment.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Apologies for ruining your experiment.

I'd love for you to comment on the factors.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'd love for you to comment on the factors.

I'm sure you would.

Unfortunately I must pull a Lebowski and claim work issues, at the moment. I'll try and get to it later.

[fusnik11]

I'd rate LDS dogma as a 10, not because of it's rigidity or consistency, but for it's ever changing evolution and modification on major doctrinal points.

SU had some salient thoughts on 'getting off' from charges of teaching false doctrine the other day.

[il Padrino Ute]

Can't you just make it multiple choice? It's much easier for me to color in the little spaces to make a nice symmetrical design.

[Archaea]

My comments will be based upon today as the Church now operates.

1. Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

4 to 5.


2. External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.


3.

3. Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.


2.


4. Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

4.


5. Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.

3.


6. Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.


7.

7. Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.

2.

8. Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.

This is a two part standard. For the first part I would score it high, for the second part I would congratulate the leaders for a relatively modest lifestyle. a. 6

b. 2

9. Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.

5.


10. Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.

1.


11. Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).


4.

12. Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.

2.


13. Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.


7.

14. Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

1.


15. Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

4.


16. Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).


8.

17. Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).


3.


18. Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.

2.

There I would imagine the organization fares better than most.

[il Padrino Ute]

These are my opinions only with very little if any commentary as to why I answered as I did.

1. 2 When I'm asked by a church leader to do something, I do it because I want to, not because it's required of me.

2. 1 No church leader has ever told me to do anything against my principles or vote for something that I would or wouldn't already vote for.

3. 3 I rated it this high only because there have been a few leaders in my lifetime that I felt thought they knew better than everyone else what was or wasn't the correct view.

4. 7 I think far too many folks in the general membership believe they don't need to think for themselves.

5. 6 Lot of what is taught today was taught since the church was organized, but there are things that are changing to adapt to today.

6. 10 "Every member a missionary." (This, is a good thing)

7. 1 There are no splinter groups that I've ever heard of that have secret ties to the church.

8. 1 No paid clergy. And I receive blessings when I pay tithing, so I benefit.

9. 1

10. 1

11. 2 Folks who cry about censorship are usually those who can't have things the way they want them in the church. On rare occasions, I've wondered if maybe the church was a bit too heavy handed.

12. 1 Church leadership doesn't encourage it, but individual members do.

13. 7 It's tough to have one's name removed from the records of the church and the church leaders do try to get inactive members to come back. I just say let 'em go if they don't want to be a part of it.

14. 1

15. 1 (BYU football fans are another story. )

16. 1 Church leaders don't seem to worry about this at all. Some of the general membership could grow a bit of thicker skin.

17. 1 It's all about personal accountability when it comes to reaching the Celestial Kingdom.

18. 1 There are a few folks in the general membership who use their status as membership in order to feel a certain sense of entitlement to somethings, no matter what they do, but church leadership - as far as I've noticed - doesn't do it.

Those are my answers.