Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, had this to say about Mitt Romney and Mormons in general:
Some prominent evangelical pastors have been telling their constituents not to support Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidential nomination. Because Romney is Mormon, they say, to cast a vote for him is to promote the 
cause of a cult.
I beg to differ.
For the past dozen years, I’ve been co-chairing, with Professor Robert Millet of Brigham Young University – the respected Mormon school – a behind-closed-doors dialogue between about a dozen evangelicals and an equal number of our Mormon counterparts.
We have talked for many hours about key theological issues: the authority of the Bible, the person and work of Christ, the Trinity, “continuing revelations” and the career of Joseph Smith, the 19th century founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), better known as the Mormon Church.
We evangelicals and our Mormon counterparts disagree about some important theological questions. But we have also found that on some matters we are not as far apart as we thought we were. (see full post here)
Of course this begs the question, “What defines a cult?” Walter Martin, the original Bible Answer Man, did a lot of work with various cults; he wrote one of the standard Evangelical manuals on American cults entitled Kingdom of the Cults (which has since been revised by his successor, and present sitting president of the Christian Research Institute, Hank Hanegraaff). Here is how the present “Bible Answer Man” defines a cult:
WHAT IS A CULT- Definitions
There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.
This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families. The Hare Krishnas, the Family of Love led by Moses David Berg, and Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church are some examples of this kind of a cult.
The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds.
WHAT IS A CULT- Psuedo-Christian Cults
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.
Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different. (quote taken from here)
Would you agree with Richard Mouw; that the LDS do not fit into the typical boundaries that we, as Evangelicals, use to define a cult? It seems to me that Mouw is manipulating the sociological definition of cult in order to alleviate the pressure that the LDS have lived under by way of being labeled a “cult” by the vast majority of historic orthodox Christians. In one sense the definition provided by Hanegraaff isn’t totally helpful; since on his accounting any belief system that is not within the boundaries of historic orthodox Christian belief could be classified as a cult (see his “second way” to define a cult). It is Hanegraaff’s first definition that it seems Mouw would be trying to move the LDS away from. Trying to paint them as global, intellectual, and open participants in “critical” dialogue that might be a hallmark for avoiding the label of “cult.”
It seems to me that Mouw is simply impressed with the fact that the LDS have genuine scholars and academics in their movement. But as far as I can tell, I don’t see how the LDS don’t still avoid the label of cult. They are a secretive group (just try to get into their Temples), who have a secretive initiatory act, and who are obligated to perform certain acts of service in order to remain in good standing with the LDS church and prophet-hood. They receive special revelation, and believe that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer (or satan). Their founder (Joseph Smith) was a self-proclaimed prophet of God, and chosen to re-establish the Davidic line of the church that had been corrupted over the church’s 1800 year period; prior to Smith’s coming on the scene. Mormon’s are beholden to follow the idiosyncratic teachings of Joseph Smith (even though for public relations purposes they have been trying to distance themselves from some of his teachings) and Brigham Young, and the body of prophets who continue the “prophetic-mantle” of Joseph Smith.
The LDS or Mormons seem to fit easily into the label of “cult.” I think what Mouw might be trying to do is move them more into the realm of a world religion. But that seems problematic to me as well. Given the fact that the LDS is an American religion which has not had wide acceptance in the global community. Certainly through their international missionary work they have established beach-heads in various parts of the globe, but again, by and large their heritage, history, and grounding is deeply rooted in the American spectrum.
At the end of the day LDS are dangerous because they deny the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And they are reprehensibly dangerous because they couch their belief system in the language of historic orthodox Christian talk; thus becoming an institution of belief that serves to be highly deceptive and working as “angels of light” amongst many peoples who are unaware. Thus they have the capacity, like Jehovah’s Witnesses to dupe the un-informed in the general populace; with the belief that in fact they are truly a Christian belief system. I don’t think Mouw’s analysis does the normal Joe or Josephine on the street any favors; in fact what he has said could be used by Mormon missionaries to confuse the case, and lend credence to the LDS’ PR campaign that they are in fact not as far removed from genuine Christian belief that so many Christians have taught and thought for so many years. I am not impressed with Mouw’s insights!
[Came across this web snippet recently!]
LDS a “cult”? What about the “rapture”?
by Bruce Rockwell
Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is “not a Christian” and Mormonism is a “cult,” according to Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of the Dallas (TX) First Baptist Church.
His “cult” remark is based on his belief that the Latter-day Saints church (which didn’t exist before 1830) is outside “the mainstream of Christianity.”
But Jeffress hypocritically promotes the popular evangelical “rapture” (theologically the “any-moment pretribulation rapture”) which is outside mainstream Christianity (Google “Pretrib Rapture Politics”) and which also didn’t exist before 1830 (Google “Pretrib Rapture Diehards” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty”)!
And there are 50 million American rapture cultists (some of whom turn Wikipedia into “Wicked-pedia” by constantly distorting the real facts about the rapture’s bizarre, 181-year-old history) compared with only 14 million LDS members.
The most accurate documentation on pretrib rapture history that I have found is in a nonfiction book titled “The Rapture Plot” which is carried by leading online bookstores. I know also that the same 300-page work can also be borrowed through inter-library loan at any library.
Latter-day Saints believe in fairness, which is why I feel called to share this message.
I don’t find Martin’s second working definition all that helpful — it’s too broad a description of the term “cult” to leave it with much of any value as distinct from, say, heterodoxy. Heterodoxy is defined by matters of doctrinal divergence from the historic and ecumenical faith; a “cult” thus needs to be defined by a different measurement.
As I see it, the most important characteristic of a cult is sociological, not theological: they exert an unhealthy and unbiblical degree of control over their members. They attempt to sever social connections with family and friends, and they regard the leader(s) as possessing an inviolable authority (or interpretive authority).
Is Mormonism a cult based on this definition? Perhaps some more familiar with the organization’s practices can speak to this, though the experience of individuals probably varies. My inclination would be to conclude that, generally speaking, as a religious movement Mormonism is not a “cult.” They’re just plain heterodox.
@Chris,
I don’t think the “age” of any belief makes it true or false; it’s the belief itself that either stands or falls under its own weight.
Thank you for commenting.
Darren,
To be clear, the definition above is from Hanegraaff not Martin. But as I noted, I agree with you on the second definition; it’s too broad. I also agree with you on the sociological aspect of defining a cult (which I think the first definition above hits on). Based on this I would label Mormonism as a cult; since LDS are “controlled” by their leadership, and given the secretive rites involved in Mormonism. But I also agree that they are heterodox.
Bobby, have you had much experience with Mormonism?
Hi Sarah,
Well, I haven’t lived in Utah; nor have I attended BYU 😉 . Relatively speaking I would say I have experience with Mormonism. I’ve been involved in years of Evangelistic ministry (both “official” and “unofficial”), and as a result I have spent time with Mormons, JW, Muslims (in a very focused way), and then atheists, agnostics etc. I have a friend who I attended seminary with who grew up as Mormon in Utah, but then became an Evangelical Christian. He has an apologetics background with an MA in philosophy of religion from Talbot and then post-grad work at Purdue and now at Aberdeen. He has shared some of his “experiences” with me. And then of course I have read all of the apologetic stuff; like by James White, Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults), etc. I am currently evangelizing a guy at work who grew up in a staunch LDS home, but he has rebelled (nevertheless, his categories of thought are still Mormon, when it comes to his conception of God etc.). I have read large portions of the Book of Mormon, and understand their theological situation (I think) pretty well (I see interesting parallels between Muslims and Mormons, and I have spent substantial time with the former).
So there’s my cred, why do you ask? Are you still at Fuller? And I’m guessing that you follow Mouw, but maybe not?
I was just curious. I’m always interested in people’s experiences with Mormonism, especially when they have something to say about it.
I am still at Fuller. I’m not sure what you mean by “follow Mouw”…my thoughts on Mormonism were formed before I met or even knew of him. But if you’re asking whether I think Mormonism is a cult–no, I don’t.
@Sarah,
Cool.
Well, within the context of this post I thought “follow Mouw” would be straightforward (which the end of your response seems to note–i.e. that you understood what I meant). By asking this way I wasn’t trying to suggest that you’re not an original thinker yourself; rather I was just wondering if you stood in agreement with the President of your school.
Why don’t you think Mormonism is a cult? Would you place them in the realm of a world religion? And what criteria would you use to adjudicate this distinction?
I don’t agree with everything in Mouw’s article. I don’t use the word cult at all, and I don’t distinguish between “Christian” and “non-Christian” faiths.
I don’t think the word “cult” is either helpful or accurate. I believe it’s primarily used as a scare tactic; if I can define a group that I dislike, or that scares me, as a cult, I can write it off without needing to take seriously anything group members believe. And there’s the added benefit of being able to pass that fear onto others just by using the word.
I think there are only religious groups with differing degrees of health. I believe that any way “cult” could be defined would be inaccurate (I don’t think the concept the word “cult” developed to describe actually exists in reality). There are certainly groups that have charismatic, controlling leaders, but some people are more comfortable being controlled, or believe what’s happening is obedience on their part. Unhealthy, yes. Cult, I’d have to say no. To call something a cult is, I think, to completely devalue the people in it; we’re virtually saying that people, through no will or choice of their own, have been duped into following a false belief system. By doing this, we strip those people both of responsibility and of free will, dehumanizing them. We’re also making a value judgment about the belief system (that it’s false). Further, I don’t think there’s any designation we could make about the word “cult” that couldn’t be applied to some of the major world religions at some point.
I have categorized Mormonism as a new religious movement to people, meaning only that it’s a religious movement whose origins can be found within the past 200 years. But I’m not satisfied with that classification, both because Latter-day Saints would disagree with it (the movement goes back as far as Christianity does, as it’s a restorationist movement) and because I think that’s becoming a new code word for “cult,” which is not at all how I would classify Mormonism. I also think it’s condescending, to some extent, to call any movement “new,” because I can’t think of any movements at all that consider themselves to be something actually new.
I’m not sure how comfortable I am classifying any group as “Christian” or “not Christian” (including evangelicalism). If, as evangelicals believe, to be a Christian is to be a (born-again) follower of Christ–and if people can be Christians within religions evangelicals tend not to think of as “Christian religions,” and people within “Christian religions” can not be Christians, I think the category is too fuzzy to even define. It just doesn’t make sense to me to categorize whole groups of people according to something we’re all saying takes place in the individual heart. So I prefer to use the word “Christian” for individuals and use more sociological/historical terms for groups. (I characterize evangelicalism primarily as “Protestant.”)
So–all that to say, I don’t think Mormonism is somehow a sub-Christian religion–because there’s no such thing as a Christian religion. There are Christians within Mormonism and non-Christians within Mormonism, just as there are Christians within evangelicalism and non-Christians within evangelicalism. And besides that, I think it’s unfair of evangelicals to put the burden of proof, as it were, on Mormonism to prove its Christianity, as if we have Christianity all figured out and Mormons need to say these specific theological words to us to prove that they’re up to snuff. The hubris it takes to have that kind of expectation is deplorable. We’re all people at the foot of the cross…we’re not going to get to heaven and be given a theology test to get in, for goodness’ sake. The toll Enlightenment rationalism has taken on evangelicalism is immense; we’ve come to believe that Christianity is assent to a set of true propositions. What a bastardization of what it means to follow the God who is wild and generous and wholly mysterious beyond measure.
Sarah,
Thank you for explicating.
1) I agree that the word “cult” is often used in the way that you describe by Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Christians.But this in and of itself does not negate the ability for this word to provide a symbol which still provides for denotative force (i.e. like it could still be used w/o the connotations that you don’t like–nor do I [eg scare tactics]).
2) a.) I don’t agree with your idea that simply because the designation of cult is used; that then this automatically devalues the people duped by said cult beliefs. To follow your logic; one would have to also abandon the language of heretic and heterodox, both of which signify meaningful concepts relative to their application. The Apostle Paul, like in Gal. 1, uses the language of anathema (even stronger than the connotations surrounding “cult”) towards anyone who appropriates beliefs other than and in direct contrast to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also don’t agree with your anthropological assumptions about what gives person “value” (it’s not their free-will etc — but the fact that they have been created and recreated in the imago Christi or image of Christ). b.) And the idea that a Christian would make a value judgment about a belief being false or true—relative to the Gospel’s own inner-structure and definition in Christ—is quite orthodox (or right teaching)! I could give exponential examples of this in Jesus’ life, the Apostles’ life, and the life of the historically orthodox position of the Church. I don’t really understand your problem with making a value judgment; you’re making one with your analysis on “cult” (in other words your method here is not internally self-consistent).
3) I agree that engaging in what CS Lewis has called “chronological snobbery” or arguing from a period of time or what have you is not a good method. There is no doubt that LDS have their own set of sensibilities when it comes to their self-understanding; but that ultimately, in my view, is beside the point. The point is whether or not what they purport to be the case—i.e. restoration—is in fact the case. And a sober analysis of the history of ideas, the history of religion, the history of interpretation, and history of theology decidedly negates the viability of Mormonism as an actual restoration of anything that looks like Christianity (which it purports to do). I do agree that Mormonism reflects a restoration, but not of the historic orthodox Christian Faith; instead it hearkens back to the Hellenistic, polytheistic understanding of reality that Christianity in her history then (in the 1st century and onward) and now diametrically opposes through a genuinely Christian understanding of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as God has revealed Himself to us as the Son of the Father by the Holy Spirit Jn 1.18). So no, we severely disagree on this point.
4) I think your method of adjudicating might need to be revamped in re. to constructing categories for who’s a Christian and who isn’t. I think a better way to do this is from a theological vs. your sociological accounting of things. According to St. Paul Christians are those who have the Holy Spirit (see his discourse in Romans 8:9ff).
5) For not having things figured out (i.e. us Christians); you sure seem to have a handle on what defines us Christians 😉 . Again, I think your primary error (with due respect) is your methodology for discerning things (e.g. you seem to rest heavily upon a sociological lens). There are strident, thick and robust definitional concepts that separate Christians from non-Christians (from Mormons for example amongst the rest of the world contra mundum). Like Jesus said “you are either for Christ, or against Him”; of course that begs the question: Which Christ? And of course that takes us full circle, and to me illustrates why your methodology (it seems sociological and quietest) can’t in the end really get at what’s at stake here; that is theological reality (and there is discernable theological reality, Sarah).
You wrote: … The toll Enlightenment rationalism has taken on evangelicalism is immense; we’ve come to believe that Christianity is assent to a set of true propositions….
The irony of your statement (is something I ultimately agree with–e.g. the current state of “Evangelicalism”) is not lost on me. Your method (in your analysis in your comment) assumes enlightenment categories; especially of favoring the subject over the object duality. While I agree that Evangelicalism suffers from enlightenment rationalism (at points) the answer is not to then seek to relativize that by appealing to mystery (as you do). The answer is to seek a a better way; a way that operates with genuinely Christian theological suppositions and works from there (like the fact that God is relational, triune, and for us).
I appreciate the time you put into your comment, Sarah; and I hope my response back is taken in a way where you can see that I too am passionate about what I believe, and thus will provide counter (to what you said) where I think you’re wrong.
1. I hear you. But I think the word “cult” is inherently offensive. I don’t believe there could be a fair denotation, and the connotation is so negative (pretty much universally) that focusing only on denotation is unreasonable.
2a. I disagree that my logic necessitates abandoning the concepts of heretic and heterodox. The word “cult” is a sociological term; “heretic” and “heterodox” are the domain of the church.
I don’t assume that what gives person value is free will. Free will is an aspect of the imago Dei that I’ve found people tend to underestimate when it comes to discussing cults.
2b. Christians need to make value judgments about beliefs being false or true. Again, “cult” is a sociological term; value judgments are not the domain of sociology.
3. I’m not confident we have anywhere to go from this point, if you think LDS self-understanding is beside the point in classifying Mormonism. We’re working from very different assumptions.
4. That’s my whole point; Christians are people in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. I’m defining individuals theologically in that way. It’s defining sociological groups as “Christian” and “non-Christian” that I’m taking issue with.
5. Ok.
Sarah,
1. Ok.
2a. “cult” is actually quite Christian in its usage; i.e. to describe the cult of Israel (like the Levitic priesthood etc), same can be said of Christian liturgical practices. There is obviously more to this etymologically and semantically. Anyway, this is devolving into a tit for tat which I’m not interested in–but I finish this comment nevertheless 😉 .
You didn’t mention that the further elaboration in your definition of personhood; yet, theologically I don’t think we’re probably going to get very far discussing “free-will” considering my own theological commitments.
2b. I beg to differ, pace my little point in 2a.
3. I don’t think LDS self-understanding is beside the point in the sense that it doesn’t matter. I only mean it is beside the point insofar as their self-understanding does or does not correlate to reality. But you didn’t respond to heft of my point on this (on what LDS have actually “restored”); that’s okay, whatever.
4. You weren’t all that clear the first time on how you were defining people. I’d rather define sociology (and anthropology for that matter), theologically and go from there; that way your problem goes away.
Thank you, Sarah.
3. I didn’t understand what you were responding to (heft-wise). I’ve not said that Mormonism is a restoration of Christianity.
4. I haven’t been clear, but you’re filling in the gaps with what you assume I believe. This is a frustrating conversation for me in that way, both because of that and because you’re being so condescending. “Fighting fair” in conversations like this one wouldn’t include phrases like “that way, your problem goes away.” I obviously don’t think that’s a problem, and your assuming it is a problem and that I need to solve it in the way you recommend is a bit maddening.
3. I am unclear what your point was then; in the sense of stating that the Mormons believe that they are restoring something that reaches back beyond 200 years of history. What is it that you think they are restoring? Or, what do they think they’re restoring? And what difference does it make–other than establishing dialogue which is important–what LDS believe to be the case (or assert to be the case), if in fact what they believe turns out to be false?
It seems like we are having different conversations. I am addressing what Mormon’s believe (and its viability, or not), and you seem to be addressing how we should approach Mormon’s dialogically. I do care what LDS believe, personally; I want them to express that to me, and I do see this as a valuable way to establish relationship and how to foster further dialogue.
4. My point with “that way, your problem goes away” wasn’t to be condescending, but to identify (in a crass way) the way that I would frame things (methodologically). I wasn’t referring to the way you would go about this, but the way that I would want to; and, for me, to reframe this in the way that I would the “problem goes away.” That is, because we are no longer using sociological categories to parse theological realities (at least this is the way I want to go about it).
I don’t expect you to find what I am suggesting to be something you are going to commend. I would imagine that you have plenty of voices giving you direction at school.
Btw, Sarah,
How did you find my blog, or this post?
3. I’m not saying Mormons are restoring anything. I value labels I use for groups of people being acceptable to the people being labeled, and I was explaining why “new religious movement” doesn’t fit that criterion.
I agree that we’re having two different conversations. I am addressing how we should approach Mormons dialogically.
I don’t think I get your question about what difference it makes what Mormons believe to be the case if what they believe turns out to be false…can you elaborate?
4. It doesn’t matter whether or not you intended it to be condescending; it just was. It’s poor form. As is “I would imagine you have plenty of voices giving you direction at school,” which implies (again) that my beliefs will be based on what people are telling me.
I found your blog by googling “Richard Mouw all saints”; your blog was on the first Google page.
Sarah,
Thanks for the discussion.
peace, and blessings on your studies.